
Freehold DM |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Freehold DM wrote:Lisamarlene, are your kids being good?Mostly! Valeros helped bake the last two dozen moon cakes for the school Autumn Moon Festival tomorrow.
(We're making twelve dozen homemade moon cakes in my classroom. I don't want to smell another moon cake again for a while.)I only saw Hermione at rehearsal this morning, but she had clearly been practicing her lines.
But Valeros threw a tantrum because he didn't like the school lunch. The cook is a very sweet elderly woman who has known him since he was a baby. I don't want him to hurt her feelings by complaining about the food.
THEN THERE WILL BE PICS
PM ME CONTACT INFO

Tequila Sunrise |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Tequila Sunrise wrote:NobodysHome wrote:Read the methodology towards the end of the article. "We asked a bunch of people who self-identified as believing that there was widespread voter fraud whether they thought voter fraud was an issue. They said, 'Yes.' We are alarmed by this."
It's a poorly-done alarmist article. I thought better of The Post.
Are you referring to this bit?
** spoiler omitted **
Because as I read it, that bit is within the context of the overall survey, which is every bit as alarming as it sounds:...** spoiler omitted **
In other words the way I read it, "We did a survey of self-identified R's, and found that an alarming number of them said they'd be totally cool with postponing. And not surprisingly, within the survey of R's polled, those with conspiracy theory beliefs are most likely to support postponement. Also those of high partisanship / low education / low age."No; it's interesting. I don't know whether they revised the article between this morning and now, or whether I just misread it the first time. My initial take was that they first selected self-identified Republicans, then screened them further based on whether or not they believed voter fraud was widespread, then hit them with the worrisome questions.
But you're right. On re-reading the methodology I don't see that. My major issue with the whole article is, "After a series of initial questions..."
Do you know how easy it is to get anyone to say anything based on creating a series of carefully-worded "initial questions?"
I'd really love to see the survey in its entirety to find out whether it's "real" or "baiting to generate headlines".
The trouble with online sources: Did it get revised, or did I misread the first time? Probably the latter...
I wouldn't at all mind seeing the precise methodology they used, 'cause yeah, it does make a difference.
Anyhow, I'm sure you have your perspective and your reasons as well, so c'est la vie!

Tequila Sunrise |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

TS: you're still super cool!
Thanks, you're pretty rad too, wish we could meet and play a game sometime!
And oh, I didn't mean to group you into any particular political group in my massive spoiler-text. I don't know if it was, but a particular sentence I wrote could be interpreted that way. :)

NobodysHome |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

...stuff...
I'm guessing... around 47%...
So it's more of "jaded beyond all belief" than "living in a rosy wonderland"...

John Napier 698 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Python Tutorial
Busy picking up Java right now. I'll learn Python when I get a chance.

Rosita the Riveter |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

The more I work on my "Eberrontech, but 60s and very American" Pathfinder setting, the more I realize I have an unbreakable mental association between Reggae, Hawaiian and Californian beach culture, and Druids.
This is not a bad thing.
I feel the need to reemphasize this lately.

gran rey de los mono |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
gran rey de los mono wrote:Game went fairly well tonight, although the player we all thought had dropped out came back. So now we have 7 PCs. Whee. This means I need to toughen the encounters up even more than I already have, which means more work for me, and more pain for the PCs.One of the things I've concluded is that GMing for more than 4 people just isn't fun. There's far less of a PC-NPC dynamic, you have to beef up the encounters, and the combats are just endless cycles of, "Oh, is it finally my turn again? Let me review the situation and all my abilities and take a few minutes to figure out what's going on before I decide what to do..."
...leading to the combats taking much longer, leading to people stopping paying attention, leading to their turns taking longer when it is their turn, leading to the combats taking much longer...The games where I have 3-4 players are fantastic. The games where I have 6-7 players are a chore. And it has nothing to do with the players, is has to do with the massive drop in roleplaying and increase in combat time that occurs when you get that many players around a table.
And it's kind of scary that I'm running FOUR games right now: 3 players, 3 players, 6 players, and 7 players. All of them run this week. I'm tired!
I wasn't intending to run for 7. It was going to be 5, with 1 only every other week and 1 who sometimes can't come because of family stuff. Then the wife of one of the players (the one whose house we play at) decided she wanted to join back in. Which was fine. Then the one we all thought had dropped showed back up. Which is annoying. But I'll make it work. We've usually managed to keep a decent amount of roleplaying in the past, at least those of us who actually do any roleplaying instead of sitting there staring into space or messing with their phones, so I'm not too concerned about that. But combat has already started to run slowly, and they're only 2nd level. Plus, I need to decide how to make the encounters more difficult, while hopefully moving fairly quickly and interestingly. Which means I'll probably need to increase levels, rather than just add more baddies, which is more work. Oh well, at least we're still gaming. A couple months ago it looked like the group might disband, so this is better.

Chromantic Durgon <3 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

The kids found a giant dragonfly they thought was dead but was (and I'm quoting Wikipedia here) "trying to avoid the notice of males by pretending to be dead" or she could be pregnant.
Either way it elicited all sorts of screams when they tried to carefully move what they thought was dead only for it to wag it's tail at them.
This would elicit all sorts of screams for me too xD.
I remember standing outside my high school waiting for my dad to turn up talking to the Headmistress (she was making sure year 7 kids didn't run out into the road) we were quite close, I did her hair and lent her some scarfs and such. My hand was resting on a tree went I felt something tickling my hand. I looked down to see a rather large moth walking around my hand (about 3 inches from head to tail).
My calm conversation with the headmistress about To Kill a Mockingbird quickly turned into me bouncing around flailing my arms wildly and screaming. Fortunately she just laughed rather than wondering if I was having some sort of a fit xD

gran rey de los mono |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My younger brother has been running a game with 8 people for twenty years now.
With the right people, that could be amazing. My current group has some deadwood in it, unfortunately. Some of them are coming along, others not so much. But it's still fun. I've played in a couple of one-shots that had 12-15 players, and they were not fun. To much time sitting around with nothing to do. I prefer 5 players (plus a GM, of course), but that's me.

captain yesterday |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I've never actually played with them as they've been at capacity since I returned from my rpg hiatus, and I stopped asking when my kids were old enough to play.
Of course, now I'm the only one with Starfinder (even if I have to struggle to keep both copies from falling apart (fingers crossed that the third book they send won't fall apart).

Tacticslion |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

NobodysHome wrote:I wasn't intending to run for 7. It was going to be 5, with 1 only every other week and 1 who sometimes can't come because of family stuff. Then the wife of one of the players (the one whose house we play at) decided she wanted to join back in. Which was fine. Then the one we all thought had dropped showed back up. Which is annoying. But I'll make it work. We've usually managed to keep a decent amount of roleplaying in the past, at least those of us who actually do any roleplaying instead of sitting there staring into space or messing with their phones, so I'm not too concerned about that. But combat has already started to run slowly, and they're only 2nd level. Plus, I need to...gran rey de los mono wrote:Game went fairly well tonight, although the player we all thought had dropped out came back. So now we have 7 PCs. Whee. This means I need to toughen the encounters up even more than I already have, which means more work for me, and more pain for the PCs.One of the things I've concluded is that GMing for more than 4 people just isn't fun. There's far less of a PC-NPC dynamic, you have to beef up the encounters, and the combats are just endless cycles of, "Oh, is it finally my turn again? Let me review the situation and all my abilities and take a few minutes to figure out what's going on before I decide what to do..."
...leading to the combats taking much longer, leading to people stopping paying attention, leading to their turns taking longer when it is their turn, leading to the combats taking much longer...The games where I have 3-4 players are fantastic. The games where I have 6-7 players are a chore. And it has nothing to do with the players, is has to do with the massive drop in roleplaying and increase in combat time that occurs when you get that many players around a table.
And it's kind of scary that I'm running FOUR games right now: 3 players, 3 players, 6 players, and 7 players. All of them run this week. I'm tired!
As someone who's GM'd for very, very large parties - I recommend against higher levels.
- First, action economy is a real thing, and it will really kill those really high levels dead.
- - First-part-two: it's ever-more abilities for you to keep track of (especially if they're magic users) which means you're really... well, it's really hard. (This is even more true in PF than in 3.5, when I ran it.) Though published APs have stat-blocks that can help, this really isn't all that helpful - it can be difficult to figure out how to make things like this work.
- - First-part-three: while having multiple individuals can also be very difficult, if you have themed groups, you won't have to worry about that so much. So, for example, if you have twelve dudes, half are fighters, half are rogues, and half are barbarians (I know what I just said) you don't have to memorize twelve stat-blocks: you only need three. Note: using bestiary creatures are much easier than leveled creatures. They come much more highly recommended. Further, if you don't like what the options you have are, just take a stat-block and "paint" it to be what you want. Don't want ogres because they're too big and/or icky? Well, now you've a medium-sized race called "brutallions" who are statistically identical to ogres (maybe with skill/cm-adjustments, but probably not). Done. This is much easier in APs.
- Second, make sure to have a vague idea of what your people can do.
- - Second-part-two: ignore these when you create your challenges; when the challenges are constructed just make the thing as hard as it makes sense for it to be.
- - Second-part-three: if you can't come up with a way to overcome the challenge after-the-fact by use of their abilities, discard the challenge. Note, this applies whether you're running an AP or not.
- Third, you're going to want to review your baddies and their tactics - a lot. I mean a lot a lot.
- - Third-part-two: make sure you know your daggum world. Whatever it is. You may not need written or drawn maps (maybe you do, I'm not sure what your style is), but know the layout of the place. The reason? So you know where your dudes and their dudes are at all times. Prep work doesn't need to be extensive, but you need to be able to consistently and accurately visualize the area in your mind.
- - Third-part-three: unless there is a good reason for them to know the specifics, the tactics your bad guys have need to be extremely generic. You need to know them - as characters (even if only in a broad outline) - so that you can make decisions on the fly and quickly. Making decisions on the fly, quickly, is important.
- Fourth, if you're doing a published adventure, don't feel beholden to how it's written - in fact, changing it on the fly is really important.
Now, none of that really helps with your PCs being dead-weight. But it helps when you run things for groups that large.
For the dead-weight players, there are lots of possible options. Are you establishing anything in particular to help?

Tacticslion |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

How bad were those things?
They sounded strange, but I never tried one...
... bad.
I delight in Lucky Charms cereal, enjoy Fruit Loops cereal, and love vanilla milkshakes.
Blending vanilla milkshakes with either of those two things is just... awful.
You know how those cereals can be unpleasantly overwhelming when either they're too sugary, or they're stale? Or that overwhelming effect when milkshakes get a little "off" either with milk or other stuff?
Both of those milkshakes have all of the above problems at the same time. It's so overbearingly heavy and painfully sweet and disturbingly stale and blech.
There are mildly pleasant flavors associated - it's not the worst experience of my life, by any means; and, fortunately, it's not saccharine. But it's a hard experience to get through. It's just so much harshness for so little enjoyment. Like, two sips, and I was done. And then left with this huge cup. Even my kids didn't enjoy too much of it. Even now, just thinking about getting one is... not pleasant.
Some may well like it. It's just... not great.

NobodysHome |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

NobodysHome wrote:I wasn't intending to run for 7. It was going to be 5, with 1 only every other week and 1 who sometimes can't come because of family stuff. Then the wife of one of the players (the one whose house we play at) decided she wanted to join back in. Which was fine. Then the one we all thought had dropped showed back up. Which is annoying. But I'll make it work. We've usually managed to keep a decent amount of roleplaying in the past, at least those of us who actually do any roleplaying instead of sitting there staring into space or messing with their phones, so I'm not too concerned about that. But combat has already started to run slowly, and they're only 2nd level. Plus, I need to...gran rey de los mono wrote:Game went fairly well tonight, although the player we all thought had dropped out came back. So now we have 7 PCs. Whee. This means I need to toughen the encounters up even more than I already have, which means more work for me, and more pain for the PCs.One of the things I've concluded is that GMing for more than 4 people just isn't fun. There's far less of a PC-NPC dynamic, you have to beef up the encounters, and the combats are just endless cycles of, "Oh, is it finally my turn again? Let me review the situation and all my abilities and take a few minutes to figure out what's going on before I decide what to do..."
...leading to the combats taking much longer, leading to people stopping paying attention, leading to their turns taking longer when it is their turn, leading to the combats taking much longer...The games where I have 3-4 players are fantastic. The games where I have 6-7 players are a chore. And it has nothing to do with the players, is has to do with the massive drop in roleplaying and increase in combat time that occurs when you get that many players around a table.
And it's kind of scary that I'm running FOUR games right now: 3 players, 3 players, 6 players, and 7 players. All of them run this week. I'm tired!
LOL. Pretty much a description of my life.
"OK. I'm running a game for 4 players."
"But if YYY is there, XXX HAS to be there..."
...and soon you're playing with 7
I was using max HP monsters because we had non-optimized groups and that worked well. Once the groups hit level 11, I had to start adding the advanced template as well. Now that they're 14-15, I'm going to need to increase the number of bad guys as well.
As levels go up, so do the adjustments...

lisamarlene |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

The Game Hamster wrote:How bad were those things?
They sounded strange, but I never tried one...... bad.
I delight in Lucky Charms cereal, enjoy Fruit Loops cereal, and love vanilla milkshakes.
Blending vanilla milkshakes with either of those two things is just... awful.
You know how those cereals can be unpleasantly overwhelming when either they're too sugary, or they're stale? Or that overwhelming effect when milkshakes get a little "off" either with milk or other stuff?
Both of those milkshakes have all of the above problems at the same time. It's so overbearingly heavy and painfully sweet and disturbingly stale and blech.
There are mildly pleasant flavors associated - it's not the worst experience of my life, by any means; and, fortunately, it's not saccharine. But it's a hard experience to get through. It's just so much harshness for so little enjoyment. Like, two sips, and I was done. And then left with this huge cup. Even my kids didn't enjoy too much of it. Even now, just thinking about getting one is... not pleasant.
Some may well like it. It's just... not great.
...which is why Shiro needs one.
It's what he gets for saying, "Hey, let's go see Troy!"
NobodysHome |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

NobodysHome wrote:Just answered. I'm on it!Hey, LM!
Since Paizo has decided to misbehave, I just sent you *gasp* a real live e-mail!
Awesome, thanks! I was going to call in favors from the gaming parents:
"I've watched your kids every Wednesday night for 2+ years now. Time to pay the piper!
NobodysHome |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Why NobodysHome isn't a professional chef:
Today over my lunch break I had to cut, trim, rinse, rub, arrange, and baste a dozen racks of ribs. It took around 40 minutes, but it was remarkably tiring. the notion of doing that for 4-5 hours, then spending another 4-5 hours cooking and serving it all on-demand is... daunting...

Chef Yesterday |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Why NobodysHome isn't a professional chef:
Today over my lunch break I had to cut, trim, rinse, rub, arrange, and baste a dozen racks of ribs. It took around 40 minutes, but it was remarkably tiring. the notion of doing that for 4-5 hours, then spending another 4-5 hours cooking and serving it all on-demand is... daunting...
It's not hard once you've done it for awhile.

NobodysHome |
8 people marked this as a favorite. |

Well, it's "official".
This morning I drove by my parents' house and it remains empty, marking 4 months since the property managers took over, and 3 months of stark vacancy. I ran the numbers, and even if it rents tomorrow it will take more than an entire year just to make up for the money lost by booting my tenants and firing me.
Nice job, family?