Estimating volume to weight is much easier for me in metric since a litre of water weighs 1 Kg at 1g gravity. It's not too hard to estimate that substance X is twice as heavy as water, therefore a litre of it would be 2 Kg. (Or for a more useful volume measurement just multiply by 1000, since a 1000 litres is a cubic meter).
A good example of this in fiction is the novel Paladin of Souls by Lois McMaster Bujold. The main character in her youth was chosen by the Goddess of Summer to break a curse that was destroying her family and her kingdom becoming a 'saint'. (Saints in that setting are very similar to spell-casting clerics in D&D). She made a huge mistake so failed to break the curse, lost her powers and has spent decades alternately hating the gods or doubting herself. Over the course of the book she is approached by the trickster god who matches her quite well because he values being cursed and hated just as much as being worshiped. Working through her hostility he helps her find redemption and closure for her earlier failures and empowers her as a saint of his faith.
Most players don't consider abject impotence and humiliating pseudo-death to be fun Except for the ones who play Call of Cthulhu. ;)
Nerds. Damn right. Proud of it. (As further proof, it pains me to write those sentences knowing that they're grammatically incomplete and don't make a full clause.)
But despite all that, I really do think now it played better than anything from 3.x on has. Hmm, thinking back I'm inclined to agree with you. Our encounters (combat or otherwise) certainly seemed to be resolved much faster than they are in our modern game. However I'd be reluctant to give up the increase in options and versatility that the modern games provide. I wonder if there's a way to get the best of both worlds.
Please show me RAW where other creatures may seek revenge for it. Page 8, Core rulebook. "Helping them tell this story is the Game Master (or GM), who decides what threats the player characters (or PCs) face and what sorts of rewards they earn for succeeding at their quest. Think of it as a cooperative storytelling game, where the players play the protagonists and the Game Master acts as the narrator, controlling the rest of the world." Another creature seeking revenge would be a threat the PCs face. Which as per the quoted paragraph is a decision the GM is able to make. Now, I suppose you could make an interesting RAW vs RAI argument that the Game Master only controls the rest of the 'world' meaning that they have no control over extraplanar creatures. However it seems pretty clearly RAI that it's the entire multiverse of the campaign setting.
2) Having read the rules of Planar Binding I can assure its quite safe assuming you make you sure to off the outsider before the service expires. The spell states: "The creature might later seek revenge." To pretend that suddenly other creatures will come looking for you would actually go outside the rules. So prove to me that summoning then offing the outsider isn't safe RAW. You can't be serious. But assuming you are, okay. Please refer to the bestiary in the monster section relevant to what you're summoning. Refer to the attribute line and notice that for most outsider sections neither Int, Wis nor Cha are non-abilities. Also in most cases they are not of animal level intelligence. Therefore these creatures are capable of self-directed action, anticipating future events and have a concept of self (and thus self-preservation is a possibility). As NPCs these actions are determined by the GM (refer to gamemastering, NPCs or 'how the game is played' in CRB). Thus by RAW, the GM is entitled to determine the actions of the former summoned creatures extraplanar comrades to act in order to protect their own self-interest.
...You cannot teleport if you don't have astral plane. The vast majority of settings not based on D&D have no astral plane...LOTR with 20th level characters in Pathfinder would just be a simple teleportation spell..."One does not just simply teleport into Mordor..." "One does not simply wind-walk into Mordor..."
Although technically from a rules perspective I think that you're right, at least as far as RAW goes. The only mention of gods in the paladin class description says that they worship 'virtuous' gods. Your GM is most likely thinking of clerics who operate by a different system, considers their interpretation to be RAI or has decided that the clerical system should apply to paladins as a house rule. All of that said, I wouldn't recommend just bringing the game into open conflict with the GM. It can work to get you what you want but it's likely to just bring about resentment from one or both of you. This is probably something better worked through with communication, can you find out why the GM is so intransigent on this point? Perhaps if you understand their objection, you can find a way around it. I do understand the urge to rebel though, a long time ago I was in a game where the GM had given XP to another player for doing them a favour outside of the game. I was so annoyed by this that I "miscalculated" my own XP when I was adding it up. I figured if the GM didn't respect the XP system, why should I? I don't think I would do the same thing now if the circumstances recurred and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.
A ray shooting wizard wrecks the whole mathematical framework behind monster CRs and encounter balance by targeting touch AC at a considerably greater distance than a gunslinger does. I think this is one of the many times where the rules assume that wizards always have low BABs/MAD in combat and required some sort of way of being likely to hit with their attack-like magical spells. As this assumption is untrue, these mechanics frequently distort game-balance. However you're less likely to find this being a problem with Wizards specifically and more with the newer Gish classes or multi-class builds (who are generally more limited with their damage output). For your stereotypical low BAB wizard the CR system appears calibrated reasonably well for ranged-touch. Once touch AC existed in the game, I think it spread to other subsystems to avoid doubling up on systems even though these other subsystems have even less guarantee of a low BAB. I don't think the problem is with the gunslinger, I think it's with touch ACs (and the frequently ad hoc Natural AC bonuses of monsters). However it's easier to ban a single class from a splatbook that doesn't really match the flavour of the rest of the game than it is to tackle the entire AC system. This doesn't necessarily mean that it's the right move, but I can see why it would tempt people.
And next, while it’s possible, most of us mere mortals have just so much brain power. If you’re spending all your time calculating DPR and the best chess-like move for your character, it’s just human to spend less time on role-playing. When I GM, I handle the design of every npc/monster on a mechanical level and roleplay them all while simultaneously taking care of countless other tasks that are the GM's role. I find it strange to consider the idea of a player ever running out of brain power just trying to handle a single character.
Scenario 1: Can the monkey put the scroll into your hand as its standard action? I can't find any rule support for this, however it seems reasonable. It doesn't appear on the actions in combat list though so it's hard to know. I would allow it. Scenario 2: If the monkey just perches on your arm and just shows you the scroll, can you activate the scroll if you're not holding it yourself? Pathfinder again doesn't specify (that I can find), however the 3.5 rules compendium states only that you must be able to "see and read" the scroll. Scenario 3: Can you command your monkey to do something dumb like try to grapple you, and you can then use your attack of opportunity to disarm the monkey of its scroll? Yes but this leaves you open to an attack of opportunity from the monkey unless you have improved disarm. That monkey will use the steal combat maneuver on you and run away with your sack of bananas.
What I'm hearing is a lot of whiner DMs who aren't creative enough to challenge a base class like the gunslinger. Half of them are coming out and ADMITTING that I am right because the rules DO NOT state the need for a free hand when clearing a gun! You appear to have a consistency problem. Why would you be vindicated in any way by the agreement of whiner DMs without creativity? Since you clearly care little for their opinion, receiving the supposed support of 50% of them doesn't strengthen your case no matter how many exclamation marks you use. Edit: Speaking of consistency problems. Get this -- the DM gave us each a special ability (SLA) that could be any 1st or 2nd level spell, 3 times per day. Pretty sweet! He was being less of a lamer that day. I'm sorry, this doesn't appear anywhere in the rulebook either that you can receive a special ability (SLA) that could be any 1st or 2nd level spell, 3 times per day. As per previous discussion, this means that you can not use this ability since it is a GM ruling and not anywhere in the written rules.
I don't really understand the mindset behind people who want to use dice but also want a guaranteed win. I'm not saying this to be offensive, I seriously don't understand. There are many awesome diceless RPGs out there with a narrative focus. Growing up, Amber DRPG was one of my favourite RPGs. These days Nobilis is also quite popular I understand although I've never played it myself. You don't even really need rules to play diceless. I ran a game off the cuff for a group of my friends based on the Supernatural TV show. No dice, no rules, no GM fiat. The only guideline we used was "we've all watched the show, let's try and stick to its genre conventions in the story we tell". There are even games out there where you have dice mechanics but an opt-in system for character fatality, such as Dogs in the Vineyard. (Or at least so I understand, I've read the rulebook but still can't figure out how to play that system). If you use dice merely to prompt unexpected events or give you ideas, then you could use a set of tarot cards or something similar and draw them for inspiration during a narrative based diceless game. Pathfinder on the other hand is a very crunch heavy, gameplay and simulation based system. I don't really understand why people would use this system and then fudge the dice-rolls.
Would you be ok in a game where the GM allowed you to get to the last boss, and you spend +6 months time in real life to get to the boss and you lost? Yes.
Also the most hated statement in all RPGs for me is "Guess I'll go human for that bonus feat." My most hated statement is "Guess I'll go Aasimar for that (whatever mechanical bonus they get)". This means that they're willing to make presumptions about the interactions between heaven and earth, including the divine powers themselves in their backstory and making huge adjustments to the story of the campaign... just for mechanical reasons. I will literally move heaven and earth as a GM to let a player play an Aasimar if they're interested in exploring aspects of the cosmology and involving themselves in the millennial struggles of the outer planes. It bothers me if they're doing it for a +2 though. At least if someone plays a human for a stupid reason, then they're not going to mess up a campaign by doing so and will fit in with 90% of the surrounding people in the setting. (This isn't necessarily targeted just at Aasimar, they're just an obvious target).
Perhaps given your character's obsession with body modification and unnatural experiments they might piece the android back together again, bringing it back to life and resetting the programming back to 'factory default' so that it no longer wants to kill your friends. This would appear consistent with the story so far, the characters described and would bring the party together in a significant way. Yes, it would require GM approval, but since they messed up the character introduction this would seem like a good way for them to recover.
I think pathfinder has done a great job of making humans a good race to pick. Back in the old days, everyone often wanted to pick the exotic and strange races to get any sort of unique flavour. I'm seeing a lot more human characters now.
I actually find at times that the strict requirements of the paladin can be a detriment to roleplaying. The times when I feel like I'm roleplaying my character are when I'm making choices. Attempting to play a morally perfect character isn't making choices, it's performing a calculation. It's the same reason I don't like when one strategy is clearly optimal, recognizing and selecting the optimal option isn't a choice just an exercise in mental drudgery.
Better yet, grab the biggest, strongest, "giant". Create a simulacrum and have the simulacrum be willingly possessed with a magic jar. Do simulacra have blood? The spell description says that they are made from ice and snow, only "appearing" to be the original creature. Blood Money can't work if the spell-caster doesn't have blood.
As a side note, timeless demiplanes are kinda pointless, since time still moves normally in relation to the outside world. Wouldn't the time stop though mean that it doesn't? Or rather that it does but you're perpetually hyper-accelerated to the point where it appears not to be.
Also this thread has already been Godwin's ruled. Argument over, everybody go home. Godwin's law doesn't apply when one is examining historical examples of bigotry. In such cases Nazism is relevant to the discussion, Raith Shadar's use of the historical reference was not hyperbolic.
I agree with the sentiment, but fyi... a rogue actually can sneak attack undead. Wow, that was a very 3rd edition example for me to use. Let's just call it an example of my earlier point that "Sometimes as the GM you say something stupid". (Seriously, one of the hardest things with D&D is remembering which edition you're playing. I run into this problem all the time with pathfinder and discovering that I'm accidentally using a 2nd or 3rd edition rule by mistake).
"This is my pa's sword, it's all I have to remember him by." Myself and another player were playing two brothers in a 3.5 campaign years back. We had a great scene where after our first adventure (stopping gnolls who were attacking our home town), our very young PCs had to go home to mum and apologize for getting dad's spear broken. We spent hours dreading her famous hot-temper and were near tears when she told us she didn't care about the spear since we were back safely. It was one of many fine moments from that game.
There are no specific rules or guidelines for selling a true name. I personally would advise though that the absolutely maximum price would be the encounter treasure level for a monster of the devil's CR. This price assumes that you're selling it to someone who specifically needs or wants that devil's name. It'd take research and care to find the right person to sell it to. Also for a good aligned character you'd want to be wary of their motivations in knowing that true name. I'd drop the price to around 50% for anyone who could use the name, but isn't specifically after it. Both above prices are also on the assumption that the deal is exclusive. Knowing the true name of a devil is much less useful if everyone else knows it to. The PC would have to convince the buyer that the deal will remain exclusive. If dealing with evil buyers, then you have the worry that the easiest way to make sure that it's exclusive is to murder you and raising you as a subservient undead to prevent your soul passing the knowledge on to the outer planes. A wizard would probably only pay around 5-10% of any of the above prices if they couldn't be guaranteed a level of exclusivity to the deal. As always, this is up to your GM to determine, so they may have different ideas. This is how I would run it though.
I've had an idea for a campaign that I'd like to do once we finish up our current AP. I want to run a series of linked campaigns which progress through the various ages of the world. The PCs would play different characters in each age and their actions would help to shape how the world develops for the next age. I'm thinking something along the line of
Along the way the nature of the world, what sort of challenges would be faced, what science/technology/magic has been developed would all change. I'd also like to change which races and classes are available in each age, to show society progressing. Has anyone done anything like this before or have any suggestions about what sort of classes and monsters would be appropriate for different ages?
A paladin tries to uphold both the highest in moral and ethical standards at the same time. It's a difficult tight-rope to walk, but that's why they're paladins. Being asked to enforce an unjust law, is probably the classic difficulty a paladin can face. However I doubt that the powers of good wouldn't realize this and be willing to accept that a paladin is doing everything within their power to do the right thing. If worst comes to worst and the paladin does lose their powers then that's what the atonement spell is there for. (Also note that being coerced into performing an act against the code of conduct waives the GP cost for the atonement spell). I would also suggest that the paladin losing their powers in this case shouldn't be regarded as the paladin being punished. It's a sign that the gods themselves disapprove of the order and might be enough of a message to get said legitimate authority to change their ways.
I can think of a generally non-evil instance of slavery being shown in the Wheel of Time series. Gai'shan are Aiel(Desert people) who are captured/defeated in battle. To be defeated in battle is to be shamed and they must don white robes and serve their victors. This entire custom is developed by the Aiel people and they go willingly. Of course they deny the term slavery, but the appearance is still the same. I might just be a dense wetlander but I don't really consider the practise of Gai'shan or Ji'e'toh as being morally justified. While there were certainly some very reasonable exceptions (you couldn't take a clan's blacksmith or a mother with young children as Gai'shan), it's still a barbaric practice in which people's lives are turned upside down for the benefit of another based on military might. Their culture indoctrinates them to accept this and to consider it a point of honour, but I don't think it makes it less abhorrent. I'm not sure how willingly and consensual we can regard their service when it's stated that their sept would shame and shun them (I believe they even mention that their sept would "send them back") for breaking their Ji'e'toh in this way and other members of the sept would become Gai'shan to make up for the disgrace.
I quite like this from a world-building perspective. I've often been bothered that wizards fit everything in a small travel-sized book because you always picture wizards having a massive library. It seems like arcane tomes would give you something to stock libraries with, while still allowing wizards to carry their spells with them. The mechanical game-side change though is that it means the wizard might not get access to as many spells which does diminish the class. Normally I would have no objections to house rules that down-power casters, however in this case it selectively only impacts the wizard which seems a bit unfair. However it doesn't necessarily mean that the wizard will get less spells. You can normally only loot spells from an enemy wizard and with more and more alternate casters showing up in the game, that's less wizards that you're likely to fight. An enemy sorcerer, oracle, cleric, etc won't have any spellbook for you to loot anyway (and in my experience GMs usually find sorcerers easier than wizards to run in combat so they are a more encountered foe). However with arcane tomes being such big valuable items, they could potentially show up in any treasure horde, even one belonging to a non-caster. I'm tempted to use this idea purely for its cosmetic effect and as long as you make sure there's plenty of opportunity to find arcane tomes it shouldn't negatively impact the wizard.
Hey, at least you don't roll randomly for your class. *shudders* I don't know, I've had a lot of fun doing that in our Dark Heresy games. I wouldn't want to do it every game, but it's fun every now and then.
Also if your world runs on a more scientific model, then I would say that logically the fetus could only survive if the zygote had already undergone cellular division. At that point entirely new strands of DNA would have been formed from proteins that didn't originate from the summoned creature's genetic material. After cell division, one blastomere would collapse with its DNA fragmenting in half (which wouldn't be entirely healthy as scraps of broken RNA would be sent throughout the Morulla potentially interfering with chemical processes and protein formation). However it could likely survive this early trauma and continue to divide without further problems. I'm not sure how quickly a Roc's cells undergo division though, so it's hard to say for certain. However I suspect that it would be a rare summoning spell that would have a long enough duration. And yes... I have thought about this WAY too much. BTW : I love mkenner's post and rule :-)) Thankyou. :D
I don't get it, choosing a character is a metagame decision. You're not playing Traveller where you generate your character's entire lifepath and determine what class they are in character. What's wrong with basing it on metagame decisions? What I also don't get is why you would wait for the martial character to die. Can't you just tell the GM "We're getting into higher levels where I don't really enjoy playing martial characters as much. Could we give my character an excuse to retire (perhaps being knighted and remaining to defend the realm) so that I can play a character that I will enjoy more?" If you changed characters through metagame discussion it might help shake the idea that you're deliberately killing off your characters. (Whether this is appropriate to your group or not is another question). One question, has your group been playing since older editions? Back in second edition days and earlier, there was an assumption that you earned the right to play a powerful spellcaster by suffering through the lower levels as a weaker spellcaster. Perhaps this is a sign of some older attitudes that have been left over as a legacy of earlier editions. I don't think this philosophy is really relevant to modern gaming systems.
I'm a GM who runs games of pathfinder, hiding what's basically an exercise in mathematics and probability behind a veneer of description and interaction is what I do. If you are playing the game the way the developers expect you to be playing the game, by level 9 or 10 your players will have each received somewhere in the range of 15-20 magic items. You have to pick and choose your battles. Making every last ring, potion and charm bracelet feel awesome is probably unsustainable. I try to focus on one or two key items for each player, the fighter's sword, wizard staff, etc. The rest can just be replaceable tech. Roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of those will be "brilliant narrative descriptions" of items that are intended to replace EXISTING items that had previously been "brilliantly narratively described" but are now obsolete and pointless. And yet there are still lines of people going around the block everytime Apple brings out an iPhone 5 where people queue to replace their iPhone 4. People just have to get that iPhone the day it's released because they're so excited about their hyper awesome phone of awesomeness. (Yes, I think this is silly in the real world, but none the less it shows the point. Call it an iPhone +4 and an iPhone +5 and apple's marketing branch can teach you something about D&D). This is precisely why people complain that magic items can't be "rare and precious" in the default application of the rules. Because you can't call something "rare and precious" when they rain down like acorns from the oak trees. There might be a million +3 swords in the world, but there's only one +3 sword inscribed with the commandments of Abadar in fine varisian script running the length of the blade that was formerly the royal executioner's blade until the rebellion's leader used it to cut off the tyrant king's head in front of the PCs. That's still rare and precious because there's only one of those in the world.
As a GM, I like having a metric I can use to decide how much I should toss at a party before they level up. Generally we don't have much combat, dungeon-crawling or standard adventuring activities in our campaigns. This makes it difficult for us to use the standard Pathfinder or D&D metrics for leveling. That's one of the main reasons we go without.
This is actually my biggest problem with APs. It seems like the PCs are expected to go from beginners in their field to the transcendent masters of the universe over a particularly eventful few weeks. I prefer the PCs advancement from 1-20 to take years or decades in game. Not that it should be necessarily slower for the players around the table, but I like to intersperse a lot of downtime to give the PCs a chance to have a life that isn't constant adventuring. APs aren't written with this style in mind.
If the Cornugon has the freedom to extend the contract, then it seems he has a lot of bargaining power to get the PCs to do various fetch-quests for him. "I'll give you another year, if you go fetch this magic item for me", etc. Alternatively they could bargain with a powerful force of good to protect them. Try to get the church to offer them sanctuary, but they'll have to demonstrate their worthiness for protection (good basis for lots of adventures). The other PCs if they grow close, might throw themselves into the deal for a few extra years in order to help save the PC. Perhaps as well an NPC that they rescue or develop a friendship with, offers themselves in the place of the PC. Good scene for tugging on the heartstrings and maybe motivating the PCs to try to rescue their friend from hell. Also, perhaps in two years time the Cornugon arrives whether they're ready or not. If the player gets taken down, then that's their fault for picking a rather ambitious backstory. You could play it up as something of a greek tragedy. Not all has to end well. I'd suggest maybe having a bit of a chat with the player about their goals and objectives with the backstory. Are they wanting the opportunity to play a doomed hero? Are they expecting you to save them? Clearly they have some ideas in mind with this backstory so it could be good to see how they want to play it.
Have you read the Alexandrian's Node based scenario articles? I found this series of articles to be a great set of suggestions for structuring games. Here's a link to the first one.
Wow, I'm very surprised by this thread and how many people seem to feel that NPCs and monsters should never sunder. Sunder isn't a common tactic of many opponents in my game, it really is very niche, but it'll come up when appropriate to the opponent's skill set and personality. As for player expectation, I would have thought players were sufficiently warned when they opened up the rule-book and saw that it's a combat move. If they made their decisions regarding equipment based on the idea that it could never ever get sundered, I'd wonder where they got that idea from. It's only bad form if you're doing it for metagame reasons, or to deliberately mess with your players. If every opponent you met did nothing but spam sunder, then I'd wonder what the GM was thinking. However if your NPCs are sundering because that's the appropriate action for them to take, then it's legitimate to my mind. As to the original example with some sort of whip-trick. If a player sets up a situation where sundering their weapon is the most intelligent tactical choice, then it's their own fault that a lot of opponents would choose to attempt a sunder. (I'll emphasize the use of the word tactical there rather than strategic. Unless an opponent is very self-sacrificing, they're going to be concerned about their own survival, not whether they can inconvenience the PCs after the fight is over).
Personally, I'd love to play that way. Every time I've tried though, I've found it impractical within the first half hour due to the GM having to do all of the work mechanics-wise (updating character sheets, doing all of the rolls, and generally interpreting every bit of player narrative into rules and vice-versa.) It'd probably need multiple GMs to pull it off at an acceptable speed (or a very simple rules set) I've done it before, albeit in World Of Darkness rather than pathfinder. The characters ended up in a strange other world and the players didn't know that I was using the dream-combat rules from the Changeling book so they were figuring out the rules at the same time as their characters were figuring out "the rules". Works great for a one shot. Plus I had great rewards to offer the PCs in game. They went crazy for a book explaining dream combat and went on a massive subquest to go get it. When the PCs finally got it, I handed them the rules and said "this is what your characters find out".
Pathfinder unfortunately lacks any digging rules that I'm able to find. In GURPS an average character would take ten hours worth of digging to make a single 5' square into a 10' square pit. So for a single character it would probable take 120 hours for you to prepare your campsite. Mythic pit indeed. As for the rest, my opinion is that you're too focused on your own character and it's skewing your viewpoint. Clearly one of the players is quite distractable with their Ipad, but I fail to see the advantage of dealing with such an out of game issue by taking it personally in character. Otherwise your main resentment appears to be that the other PCs weren't paying enough attention to your character. Three of the other PCs leaped into action to help you, one of them failing their jump roll on that more literal leap into action (hardly their fault). Now you seem upset that one of the PCs tried to help the third leaving only two of them to focus on your character. The only thing that seems at all a problem with the characters was the rogue who apparently did nothing, although this is only based on your description of the events. If this is the case, then perhaps their character might be cowardly and this could be worth discussing as a group or questioning the character about. I'd suggest trying to take a more mature approach to interacting with the other PCs. Playing a character who perceives themselves as 'godlike' and is upset over not receiving attention, could be an interesting roleplaying challenge but it's poison to group dynamics.
They add that the game is set within a fantasy world in which all sorts of magic and the paranormal exists. Transcending the limits of mundane transportation has been something people have dreamed of for the history of the human race. Whether it was imagining people that could fly to our modern day dreams of faster than light travel. It's not necessary to fantasy, but it does evoke key parts of the appeal of having magical powers and is something that frequently appears in fantasy fiction.
That said, I recommend the DM forewarns the player, and says straight up: "I don't want you to do this. Doing this means it will either be disruptive to gameplay, or I'll make sure you do get negative in-game consequences for it. Please don't try to "win" the game by abusing things in a way where the game gives me as DM the green card to stop you - it ends badly either for your character or the game as a whole." I always keep my ultimate threat on hand for these situations. "These unbalanced rules are making it really hard to run pathfinder. Maybe we should use a different ruleset next time. I think I've got my GURPS books sitting around somewhere..." :P
We have a limited number of slots for rulebooks each year, so we have to be careful about how we fill them. Given the choice between a book that will appeal to everyone and a book that will appeal to a subset of everyone, we're almost always going to go with the former. Thankyou for sharing your opinion and giving an insight into the behind the scenes. If a book wouldn't work because it couldn't reach a broad enough audience then how about a series of chapters in multiple upcoming books? Next time you do an ultimate magic style book, you could have a single chapter on "Magic in High Level games". Then in the next ultimate combat "Combat in High Level games". Etc. Eventually there would be a book worth of material out there without the book needing to only sell to high level enthusiasts.
Yep - and it's certainly a new perspective for me to think about - which proves we probably don't know everyone's reasons for wanting what they want. I'd love to hear more whys and less whats, to be honest. Understanding someone's point of view makes it a lot easier to accept it, and to come up with ideas that could make more people happy. Sometimes better ideas for solutions can formed from looking at all the "whys". Well there's a lot of whys for me. Most of them are fairly obvious, like enjoying new systems, finding the new editions genuinely better, etc. So I'll touch on one of the emotional reasons for me that's less obvious. After a while with an edition, it's easy to stop seeing the game world and just see a collection of rules. People seem to worry more about optimized builds or which classes are balanced or what feats are the must-haves. When a new edition comes out, everything is exciting and new with people trying out random different crazy things just to see what you can do. It's not really the main reason, but it's the quirkiest one so I thought I'd share it.
My own personal strategy has been to not have any specific ways in mind that they should overcome an obstacle. I just invent a problem and see what the players come up with. Impossible problems usually just take a few more sessions to solve. I used to try to put obstacles between the PCs and anything I didn't want them to do. Then I realized that was backwards, creating an obstacle is just asking them to come up with some insane way of getting past it. If you really don't want the PCs doing something, make it easy and boring to achieve.
Lust is mostly a sin and angels are sinfree creatures. So I don't think a sex-based angel (most angels already look sexy BTW) is gonna happen anytime soon. :-p I think you're right that it's not going to happen soon (and also that many angels currently look sexy), but I'm still going to have it on my wish list because I'd like to see it. As to the sinfulness of lust... that's a complex argument waiting to happen. I'm tempted to leap right in, but I think it would derail this thread so I won't. Suffice it to say, that I'm simply interested what the creative minds at Paizo would come up with for such a counter-intuitive creature design and I'm sure they'd build something fascinating. I can always build my own sexy angels for settings where it will fit, but Paizo just makes really good and inspiring content so I'd like to see what they do.
Also, there has been established problems with applying the results of studies for an ethnic group to an individual from that group, i.e. you can't really say that all orchestral employers are individually biased against women with that study. It's known as the ecological fallacy. I don't think that Vivianne intends the studies to demonstrate that all orchestral employees are biased. The citation just seems to reference that a subconscious bias is possible. (Although come to think of it the study doesn't necessarily prove that the bias is subconscious, it could be conscious and deliberate but I like to have more faith in the human race than that). |
