What is SPL?
I saw a comment in another thread that went, "I would say stop boosting the ECL and boost their SPL. Your version of ABP makes them more powerful due to wealth." I was pleased that after puzzling for a minute I could figure out two out of three...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is SPL?
I saw a comment in another thread that went, "I would say stop boosting the ECL and boost their SPL. Your version of ABP makes them more powerful due to wealth." I was pleased that after puzzling for a minute I could figure out two out of three...
That was me... Typed on the phone and used an S instead of an A... It should have been Average Player Level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*** giggle ***
OK, thanks. But now I have to wonder if I got ECL right. APL is "Average Party Level" -- 4 6th-level PCs = APL 6. Except I thought that was ECL, too...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Effective Character Level, maybe? Slightly different than APL. Though I thought APL was Average Party Level, not Player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ECL = Effective Character Level is something that doesn't exist in Pathfinder because the racial level adjustment was removed. In any case, it's about the individual character, where APL is about the whole party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is SPL?
There's a movie called SPL. Honestly I can't even remember the plot anymore, but I remember enjoying it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*** giggle ***
OK, thanks. But now I have to wonder if I got ECL right. APL is "Average Party Level" -- 4 6th-level PCs = APL 6. Except I thought that was ECL, too...
It is Effective Character Level, but he and the OP of that thread should have used CR instead, as ECL was a 3.0/3.5 term and was phased out when Paizo created the Pathfinder system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
SPL- Horrible Spelling Error; when you make a post on your phone and a typo ruins the whole thing...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So SPL = Smart Phone Liability?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW(I): The idea that my myopic reading of a particular sentence fragment trumps context, consistency, obvious intent, expressed designer intent and everything else.
RAW(II): The idea that my interpretation, see part (I), trumps each and every GM and the right of my fellow players to get on with the game and enjoy themselves.
Best definition ever.
Bump
1. What you get when you are tapped on the head with a war hammer. Not to be confused with the result of actually being hit on the head would do.
2. When you post on a thread specifically to 'bump' it back up to the top of the page.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unplayable by RAW: Paizo's editing team decided the rules text was too "boring" again.
Errata: See Nerf.
FAQ: Actual useful information that should be included in errata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All 1/2 BAB classes are also arcane fullcasters.
Psychics are Psychic casters, not Arcane.
5e: A concerningly number-light version of D&D, but otherwise fairly balanced and playable game.
5E: Poorly-designed, unfocused, and everything-light hipster knockoff of 3.X. Halfway-playable but cringeworthy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edition War: What Bloodrealm is trying to start. When a poster talks derogatorily about a certain iteration of D&D, expecting people to come defend it (I had no qualms with 5E, wasn't my favorite system, but it's nice for when you want a rules-lite game) so that they can continue to attack it. Also can be used when comparing different RPGs to each other (such as Call of Chuthulu vs Pathfinder as favorite system) when done in a negative and baiting manner.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edition War: What Bloodrealm is trying to start. When a poster talks derogatorily about a certain iteration of D&D, expecting people to come defend it (I had no qualms with 5E, wasn't my favorite system, but it's nice for when you want a rules-lite game) so that they can continue to attack it. Also can be used when comparing different RPGs to each other (such as Call of Chuthulu vs Pathfinder as favorite system) when done in a negative and baiting manner.
Snark: What we're both doing right now.
Murderhobo - A somewhat disputed term for PCs who exhibit varying degrees of vagrancy, bloodthirstiness, and general adventurer traits.
Murderhobo is a term made up by designers and players of other types of RPGs to sneer and D&D style games with experience points, etc.
I have never seen it played in PF.
Stormwind fallacy: The idea that role playing and optimization are two opposite ends of a spectrum, ie, that making your character worse mechanically results in better role play or that optimization automatically precludes role play. Its a form of the either or/false dilema fallacy
windstorm fallacy: the idea that anyone actually commits the "stormwind fallacy". ;-)
Murderhobo - A somewhat disputed term for PCs who exhibit varying degrees of vagrancy, bloodthirstiness, and general adventurer traits.
Murderhobo is a term made up by designers and players of other types of RPGs to sneer and D&D style games with experience points, etc.
I have never seen it played in PF.
I have. As I said, it is disputed. Don't bother trying to bring in your definition like it's the "official" one. :P
I have. As I said, it is disputed. Don't bother trying to bring in your definition like it's the "official" one. :P
Murderhobo - A somewhat disputed term for PCs who exhibit varying degrees of vagrancy, bloodthirstiness, and general adventurer traits.
Murderhobo is a term made up by designers and players of other types of RPGs to sneer and D&D style games with experience points, etc.
I have never seen it played in PF.
It is the definition that the guys who made up the term meant- except that they meant EVERYONE who plays D&D plays murderhobos. It's a derogatory term made to sneer at D&D type games. Thus, we shouldn't use it.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
windstorm fallacy: the idea that anyone actually commits the "stormwind fallacy". ;-)I think I have a new forum archival project. :D
I should ask this now: does "it's a ROLEplaying game, not a ROLLplaying game" count as someone committing the Stormwind Fallacy?
I should ask this now: does "it's a ROLEplaying game, not a ROLLplaying game" count as someone committing the Stormwind Fallacy?windstorm fallacy: the idea that anyone actually commits the "stormwind fallacy". ;-)I think I have a new forum archival project. :D
Not even close.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not even close.I should ask this now: does "it's a ROLEplaying game, not a ROLLplaying game" count as someone committing the Stormwind Fallacy?windstorm fallacy: the idea that anyone actually commits the "stormwind fallacy". ;-)I think I have a new forum archival project. :D
Does anything short of something like "I totally support the Stormwind Fallacy" or "I wholeheartedly believe that optimization and roleplay are mutually exclusive" count?
Because I mean, one example that sprang most quickly to my mind was where somebody mentioned one of their favorite characters having a really high AC, and someone else said—based on literally no other information than the high AC—that "he's not a character, he's a spreadsheet" and would be booted from this GM's table.
I mean, that's a pretty textbook example of "You're too powerful, therefore you're not roleplaying," even though he didn't call it the Stormwind Fallacy (and why would he?).
So does that count? Or does the person need to self-identify as committing the fallacy in order to count as committing the fallacy?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not even close.I should ask this now: does "it's a ROLEplaying game, not a ROLLplaying game" count as someone committing the Stormwind Fallacy?windstorm fallacy: the idea that anyone actually commits the "stormwind fallacy". ;-)I think I have a new forum archival project. :DDoes anything short of something like "I totally support the Stormwind Fallacy" or "I wholeheartedly believe that optimization and roleplay are mutually exclusive" count?
Because I mean, one example that sprang most quickly to my mind was where somebody mentioned one of their favorite characters having a really high AC, and someone else said—based on literally no other information than the high AC—that "he's not a character, he's a spreadsheet" and would be booted from this GM's table.
I mean, that's a pretty textbook example of "You're too powerful, therefore you're not roleplaying," even though he didn't call it the Stormwind Fallacy (and why would he?).
So does that count? Or does the person need to self-identify as committing the fallacy in order to count as committing the fallacy?
No. Look, some PC's are just that a spreadsheet, no background, no "character'. You can have that sort of "toon" even if it is dreadfully underpowered. Noting that someone had not added enough character, verisimilitude or background can & has been done independently of "optimization and roleplay are mutually exclusive"
Sure, a complaint that there's no roleplay options done is more often than not done vs a PC who has had a lot of work done on optimizing not background, but that's legit.
What the Stormwind "fallacy" is that a optimized character CAN'T be well Roleplayed. This is not true. A poorly designed & weak PC also might not be well roleplayed. A optimized PC might be fantastically roleplayed.
The legit complaint comes when a Player has spent what appears to be hours and hours and weeks optimizing- but didnt spend a minute coming up with a backstory or heck- even a name. Is it asking to much that a fair amount of time be spent on both? (Of course there is also a issue if they spend too much time and effort on characterization, but fail to come up with a PC that pulls some weight on the team).
Someone posting that they'd like to see such optimizers spend as much time and effort on backstory and characterization as optimizing is legit, and is not "Stormwind".
Only if you say such optimized characters cant be or are never ROLEplayed. Or even that "The more you optimize the less you characterize".
That is extremely uncommon.
It is the definition that the guys who made up the term meant- except that they meant EVERYONE who plays D&D plays murderhobos. It's a derogatory term made to sneer at D&D type games. Thus, we shouldn't use it.I have. As I said, it is disputed. Don't bother trying to bring in your definition like it's the "official" one. :P
Murderhobo - A somewhat disputed term for PCs who exhibit varying degrees of vagrancy, bloodthirstiness, and general adventurer traits.
Murderhobo is a term made up by designers and players of other types of RPGs to sneer and D&D style games with experience points, etc.
I have never seen it played in PF.
Take it to the "Gaming Terms that Annoy You" thread.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, some PC's are just that a spreadsheet, no background, no "character'. You can have that sort of "toon" even if it is dreadfully underpowered. Noting that someone had not added enough character, verisimilitude or background can & has been done independently of "optimization and roleplay are mutually exclusive"
I wasn't talking about someone noting a lack of character/verisimilitude/background, I was talking about someone assuming it, based purely on the fact that the character was powerful. I am talking about someone literally using a character's high AC as sufficient proof, all by itself, that the character has no personality/depth/etc.
What the Stormwind "fallacy" is that a optimized character CAN'T be well Roleplayed. This is not true. A poorly designed & weak PC also might not be well roleplayed. A optimized PC might be fantastically roleplayed.
Agreed.
The legit complaint comes when a Player has spent what appears to be hours and hours and weeks optimizing- but didnt spend a minute coming up with a backstory or heck- even a name.
I agree that this happens. I also agree that someone pointing out such a case is not automatically a commission of the Stormwind Fallacy. Again, the example I gave above was of someone with no information at all about the character's background/roleplaying, who drew the conclusion that it must be lacking, because the character was powerful.
Is it asking to much that a fair amount of time be spent on both? (Of course there is also a issue if they spend too much time and effort on characterization, but fail to come up with a PC that pulls some weight on the team).
As you imply, this has nothing to do with Stormwind. We're agreed here.
Someone posting that they'd like to see such optimizers spend as much time and effort on backstory and characterization as optimizing is legit, and is not "Stormwind".
Again, that's not the example I gave you. The guy didn't see the high AC and say "I hope you spent as much time and effort on backstory/characterization". They guy saw the high AC and immediately concluded that there had been no such effort at all. No questioning, no looking into it further, no expression of hopes. Just immediate and final judgment, with high AC as the only piece of evidence.
Only if you say such optimized characters cant be or are never ROLEplayed. Or even that "The more you optimize the less you characterize".
That is exactly the example I gave you. An example you said didn't count.
That is extremely uncommon.
So now you've gone from "it doesn't happen" (or more precisely, "to say it happens is a fallacy") to "it's extremely uncommon"? That's a significant change of position. What do you actually believe?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They guy saw the high AC and immediately concluded that there had been no such effort at all.
Outrageous! My stoner druid and his stoned dire tortoise have a way deep backstory!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't talking about someone noting a lack of character/verisimilitude/background, I was talking about someone assuming it, based purely on the fact that the character was powerful. I am talking about someone literally using a character's high AC as sufficient proof, all by itself, that the character has no personality/depth/etc.So now you've gone from "it doesn't happen" (or more precisely, "to say it happens is a fallacy") to "it's extremely uncommon"? That's a significant change of position. What do you actually believe?
I'd have to see that line in context to see whether or not is is a Stormwind. Maybe. Perhaps he was joking, who knows?
These is no significant difference here between "it doesn't happen" to "it's extremely uncommon".
It's so rare that when I see "STORMWIND!!" claimed here, I assume it's being misapplied.
When you do your list, if you also list the times where STORMWIND! was raised falsely I think we could see the issue.
Perhaps in the 5th ed games where you play it's far more common?
However, we seem to me mostly be in agreement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Best definition ever.RAW(I): The idea that my myopic reading of a particular sentence fragment trumps context, consistency, obvious intent, expressed designer intent and everything else.
RAW(II): The idea that my interpretation, see part (I), trumps each and every GM and the right of my fellow players to get on with the game and enjoy themselves.
The picture next to this definition: Someone holding a book labeled 'pummeling style' and asking "I can punch with a greatsword, right?".
At least before the errata. Stuff like that from the rules forum is half the reason they go errata crazy at times, I would imagine. It certainly lead to the paranoid Frankenstein that is post errata slashing grace (although that one is more "Can I get dex to damage with punching on dervish dance?")
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some Lingo I found in Treantmonk's Wizard Guide, plus some stuff I just found in other places. I renamed some of them as Treantmonk can be a bit... harsh...
Striker- A primary damage dealer. They're not as focused defensively and are often called Glass Cannons. Bruisers can also describe them well. Most Rogues and Blaster Spellcasters fit this description. As well as Archery builds.
Tank- A front-line combatant. Their main job is to take all the damage. They normally have good DPR but require survivability. They try to look scary and do a lot of front line fighting. Help protect the 'Squishies' like Strikers.Also known as the BSF. (Big Stupid Fighter)
Controller:Someone that manipulates the battlefield. They might change terran with spells or use polearms to keep certain enemies away. They 'set the stage' for their allies.
Buffer: Buff the Strikers and Tanks. Usually through Spells or other abilities. Bards are pretty much made for this.
Hexer: Disable the enemies as much as possible. Usually through spells but special exceptions like Intimidate Builds can pull it off.
Face: The PC with the best Diplomacy and Bluff. Speak for the party. Not necessarily the leader, but more a representative.
Scout: Goes ahead of the party to see the terrain and possible threats. High Perception and Stealth.
Medic: A healer. Not necessarily one to heal in combat, but someone able to patch people up in between. Clerics just default to the role due to their spontaneous casting.
Utility-Caster: Someone with spells that cover everything else. Stuff like Teleportation, Divination, Special Circumstances, etc. All the spells you don't use in combat.
Waste-Of-Space: A name for character builds that don't contribute in combat.
The Lump: A name for characters that contribute in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Homebrew- Stuff not published officially, but made by a person instead of using an Adventure Path, you make your own world. Some groups change certain rules, or make new classes. Stuff like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone have a precise definition for Macguffin?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone have a precise definition for Macguffin?
An item (or other element of the story, usually, but not exclusively, physical) upon which the plot hinges, regardless of its actual power; a kind of inciting element or catalyst to allow the plot to move forward, even if the thing itself becomes immaterial thereafter.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone have a precise definition for Macguffin?
An item that's important because people want it, not because of what it actually does in the story. By its nature, a Macguffin can be replaced by another Macguffin without affecting the plot (for example, if the plot is about The Heist, then it will play out in the same way regardless of whether they're trying to steal the Mona Lisa or the Hope Diamond).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone have a precise definition for Macguffin?
The most famous Macguffin is probably the HOLY GRAIL.
People go on a quest for it, and when they find it good/bad/important things happen.
A Macguffin doesn't have to be a grail, nor does it have to be holy. You could - for example - be sent on a quest to find a document that proves your patron is the true king of kingdonia. If you find this Macguffin things change and you get paid (or accidently put a tyrant on the throne?).
It's almost always a catalyst for change.
The BOOK/MOVIE The Da Vinci Code was about the quest for the holy grail, and the Grail/Macguffin turned out to be:
It can be anything really, but it's something important, and usually it's the thing you get sent to find.
Huh???Anyone have a precise definition for Macguffin?It's almost always a catalyst for change.
I said ALMOST
After all, the second most famous McGuffin of all is the Maltese Falcon, and when found, nothing changed, because the statue proved to be a fake and the survivors vowed to keep on searching for the REAL one...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
After all, the second most famous McGuffin of all is the Maltese Falcon, and when found, nothing changed, because the statue proved to be a fake and the survivors vowed to keep on searching for the REAL one...
Precisely. I can think of almost no Macguffins that are a "catalyst for change".
As per the definition given by Darigaaz the Igniter things that are a "catalyst for change" fall more under the "plot device" listing than "McGuffin".
OTOH- On the other hand...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After all, the second most famous McGuffin of all is the Maltese Falcon, and when found, nothing changed, because the statue proved to be a fake and the survivors vowed to keep on searching for the REAL one...
Well, that did change the context a bit.
That brought things from 'treasure hunt' to 'waiting to godot' levels.
Generally speaking though, I would say that a macguffin holds the 'promise' of potential change in the right hands.
The villain thinks he can take over the world if he sticks his head in the swirly magical thing.
The heroes think they can stop the disaster if they get the big holy wish thing.
The thieves think they can strike it rich if they get the big treasure.
The evil chancellor thinks he can take over the kingdom if he destroys the royal seal held by the true heir (and preferably the heir too, of course; but a living heir without proof of his heritage is little different from the crazy guy on the street).
Whatever it is, a macguffin holds the promise of changing the situation to a more desirable result if obtained. Of course, this is only a 'promise'- it doesn't have to ever actually have a chance to work out. Example- Indiana Jones in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', where the ark was never going to actually be useful because melty face thing. But everyone thought it might do something amazing that something something nazis rule the world.
General point- it is an incentive that drives the plot. It is a single item that gets the character moving and coming into conflict. Whatever it is beyond that is inconsequential.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone have a precise definition for Macguffin?
Not a precise definition, but from Wikipedia:
The director and producer Alfred Hitchcock popularized the term "MacGuffin" and the technique with his 1935 film The 39 Steps, an early example of the concept. Hitchcock explained the term "MacGuffin" in a 1939 lecture at Columbia University in New York:
It might be a Scottish name, taken from a story about two men on a train. One man says, "What's that package up there in the baggage rack?" And the other answers, "Oh, that's a MacGuffin". The first one asks, "What's a MacGuffin?" "Well," the other man says, "it's an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands." The first man says, "But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands," and the other one answers, "Well then, that's no MacGuffin!" So you see that a MacGuffin is actually nothing at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gish
I'm making a gish everyone!
Woah, check out that gish
What's a gish you ask? You need to go back in time and play D&D almost religiously to find out. No time to explain it here you either grok it or you don't, you gronk. Now get out of my graces you gutless gallivant I have gishes to game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Origin of gish: the original Fiend Folio, AD&D first edition. The writeup of the githyanki by Charles Stross included a mention of a fighter/wizard magic-user multiclass called a gish.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One I see thrown around a lot.
TVMGIJTA which means "That vid master guy is just too awesome."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm rejoining the party to find out what L2P means.
But I'm looking back at what I missed, and wondering. I've got my party spending the entire adventure seeking an artifact that will in fact change things environmentally. Or rather, it stabilizes things. If they don't get it back from the bad guys, the bad guys will be able to change things faster and more powerfully. It's just that finding the artifact won't do anything for the characters themselves. (For them personally, it's an improvised club.)
The quest for the PCs to find this MacGuffin (I thought) & get it back to the holy place where it belongs before a set date is the plot of the adventure. Given that their land will suffer materially if they fail, is this really not a MacGuffin?
{EtA: The movie Diva was a wonderful, absolutely wonderful story of two MacGuffins crossing paths back and forth and colliding. Also of a "Zen master" solving the plot by doing nothing -- in the exact right spot.}