Grognards.txt NEXT: Goodnight, Sweet Wince

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Grognards.txt NEXT: Goodnight, Sweet Wince

Chill la Chill: Jul 2, 2007; Don't lose your gay

Bar Crow posted:

What is it with game designers thinking locked doors are at all interesting?

Because until recently as thesaurus described with the mini game, locked doors in video games and I presume RPGs were a tedious exercise meant to be "gritty and realistic" but ended up just being boring and lovely. Nobody actually enjoyed looking for the blue key for the blue door. You see a lot of video game grognards talk about how everything is a corridor shooter now and how Doom or Duke Nuke was more exploratory; but in actuality they were also corridor shooters but just had lovely doors you had to run around and find keys for.

# ? Jul 17, 2015 18:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 9, 2024 15:47

Angrymog: Jan 30, 2012; Really Madcats

From a thread asking about people's experience with LFQW

quote:

What is a "Quadratic Snowflake "?

I had to look up LFQW to see what is was. I have been reffing for over 41 years now and I have never encountered this as a problem at any level and I am at a bit of a loss as to how it could happen. Granted I play OD&D instead of 3E or Pathfinder so I am not sure if some of the things I am reading are the result of the rules itself or not. Without more information, IMO this sounds more like a ref(DM) problem, rather than a rule-set problem.

# ? Jul 17, 2015 18:32

Glagha: Oct 13, 2008; AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAaaAAAaaAAaAA
AAAAAAAaAAAAAaaAAA
AAAA
AaAAaaA
AAaaAAAAaaaAAAAAAA
AaaAaaAAAaaaaaAA

Chill la Chill posted:

Because until recently as thesaurus described with the mini game, locked doors in video games and I presume RPGs were a tedious exercise meant to be "gritty and realistic" but ended up just being boring and lovely. Nobody actually enjoyed looking for the blue key for the blue door. You see a lot of video game grognards talk about how everything is a corridor shooter now and how Doom or Duke Nuke was more exploratory; but in actuality they were also corridor shooters but just had lovely doors you had to run around and find keys for.

Them's fightin words there. I'll brook no criticism of Doom. Doom had actual maps with exploration involved even putting aside keys and doors. You could actually miss stuff, or take alternate paths. Fight me!

# ? Jul 17, 2015 18:33

chin up everything sucks: Jan 29, 2012

I miss games having multiple viable paths.

# ? Jul 17, 2015 18:48

Parkreiner: Oct 29, 2011

Angrymog posted:

From a thread asking about people's experience with LFQW

I knew before looking that this had to be from the guy with this classic "get off my lawn" sig, which I'm sure has been posted before but never fails to crack me up with its winning combo of Viking hat pomposity and easily avoided typo (please no one tell him):

quote:

Arneson & Gygax, the epitomy of old school, never played OD&D BtB and neither do I.
Any player that thinks he has the right to tell me how to ref my game is not welcome at my table.
If you would not play a character with a stat of 3, then you would not be welcome at my table.
IMO OD&D is the One True Game

# ? Jul 17, 2015 18:52

Guilty Spork: Feb 26, 2011; Thunder rolled. It rolled a six.

OD&D is the one true game... I assume. I mean, I've never actually played it as written, and neither did the original designer, but that shouldn't count against it because

# ? Jul 17, 2015 19:00

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

TBF, OD&D pushing Fighters to become Barons and Lords by level 9 does solve a lot of the LFQW issues.

Unrelated EDIT:

quote:

Rpg.net is to gaming what capitalism is to democracy.

What? What?

gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Jul 17, 2015

# ? Jul 17, 2015 19:08

JackMann: Aug 11, 2010; Secure. Contain. Protect.; Fallen Rib

Chill la Chill posted:

Because until recently as thesaurus described with the mini game, locked doors in video games and I presume RPGs were a tedious exercise meant to be "gritty and realistic" but ended up just being boring and lovely. Nobody actually enjoyed looking for the blue key for the blue door. You see a lot of video game grognards talk about how everything is a corridor shooter now and how Doom or Duke Nuke was more exploratory; but in actuality they were also corridor shooters but just had lovely doors you had to run around and find keys for.

Nah, that's not the problem. Needing the find the key isn't that bad, especially if interesting things happen on the route to find the key. The problem is that in most adventures, there wasn't a key. It was "Try to pick the lock or break down the door," and if you couldn't, you were poo poo out of luck. Just a binary pass/fail to see if you could continue the adventure. A lot of old adventure design is lousy with that kind of thinking. The adventure depends on some specific, binary skill check, and doesn't have a solid plan for what to do to continue play if the players don't make it. No "Well, they couldn't convince the count, now they have to go talk to the Duke instead," or "Now they're going to have to fight through the tunnels since they couldn't find the clue to the secret tunnels." Just the assumption that they'll pass the skill check. Not every adventure, not every skill check, but in a lot of them. That's why the "fail forward" philosophy is important. It keeps things moving. Success makes things easy, but failure doesn't just stop the game cold.

# ? Jul 17, 2015 19:19

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

JackMann posted:

Nah, that's not the problem. Needing the find the key isn't that bad, especially if interesting things happen on the route to find the key. The problem is that in most adventures, there wasn't a key. It was "Try to pick the lock or break down the door," and if you couldn't, you were poo poo out of luck. Just a binary pass/fail to see if you could continue the adventure. A lot of old adventure design is lousy with that kind of thinking. The adventure depends on some specific, binary skill check, and doesn't have a solid plan for what to do to continue play if the players don't make it. No "Well, they couldn't convince the count, now they have to go talk to the Duke instead," or "Now they're going to have to fight through the tunnels since they couldn't find the clue to the secret tunnels." Just the assumption that they'll pass the skill check. Not every adventure, not every skill check, but in a lot of them. That's why the "fail forward" philosophy is important. It keeps things moving. Success makes things easy, but failure doesn't just stop the game cold.

Look at old Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2e published Adventures. They're not only full of these kinds of checks, but in a system where players often have a 30-40% base chances (since a +0 check is supposed to be a very hard test, like stabbing someone who is actively defending themselves) the checks are often at -10 or -20. I still use the Ashes of Middenheim and Spires of Altdorf mini-campaigns as examples of how to absolutely not do adventure design.

Night10194 fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Jul 17, 2015

# ? Jul 17, 2015 19:25

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

What's interesting is that the Pick Locks ability of the Thief in some editions used to say that if the Thief failed, they could not try again until the Thief gained a level.

It's almost as if the designers knew that some players would be like "I roll again, and again, and again" until they finally got the percentile roll they needed and wanted to write something in that would head off that sort of behavior.

This also ties back to the "disassociated mechanics" and "a literal Quantum Leap into an Elf simulator" discussion because the designers at the time had no qualms about telling the Thief player that they absolutely could not try to pick the door again until the Thief gained a level, whereas the modern version of this sort of thing hems and haws about how maybe the DC should go up with succeeding attempts or maybe the Thief opens it but tips off the Ogres inside or some other "in universe" explanation instead of just saying you only ever get one shot at it.

# ? Jul 17, 2015 19:28

spectralent: Oct 1, 2014; Me and the boys poppin' down to the shops

JackMann posted:

Nah, that's not the problem. Needing the find the key isn't that bad, especially if interesting things happen on the route to find the key. The problem is that in most adventures, there wasn't a key. It was "Try to pick the lock or break down the door," and if you couldn't, you were poo poo out of luck. Just a binary pass/fail to see if you could continue the adventure. A lot of old adventure design is lousy with that kind of thinking. The adventure depends on some specific, binary skill check, and doesn't have a solid plan for what to do to continue play if the players don't make it. No "Well, they couldn't convince the count, now they have to go talk to the Duke instead," or "Now they're going to have to fight through the tunnels since they couldn't find the clue to the secret tunnels." Just the assumption that they'll pass the skill check. Not every adventure, not every skill check, but in a lot of them. That's why the "fail forward" philosophy is important. It keeps things moving. Success makes things easy, but failure doesn't just stop the game cold.

I think this is probably one of those cargo-cult design things where the first DMs had backup stuff, because obviously you'd have that, but stripped of that context, a lot of people didn't, and assumed that was how it was done, and the modern hobby has elements who tear the poo poo out of games making it explicit because ???

# ? Jul 17, 2015 19:29

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Parkreiner posted:

I knew before looking that this had to be from the guy with this classic "get off my lawn" sig, which I'm sure has been posted before but never fails to crack me up with its winning combo of Viking hat pomposity and easily avoided typo (please no one tell him):

It is a great typo, especially given that he seems like exactly the kind of person that thinks playing RPGs make him a super smartyman, or that kids today are too dumbed-down with their texting and pokemons to appreciate a real intellectual challenge like OD&D.

He got pinged for his dumb comment, which led to this baffled follow-up over in Trouble Tickets

aging grog posted:

1. I still need to know what a "Quadratic Snowflake " is since it sounds like it must be a pejorative term.

2. Regarding LFQW, apparently it was missed that I stated I looked it up and now understand it. Understanding what it is is the reason I posted.

3. All of the examples posted seem IMO to be a problem with the way the ref or DM is running the game, but I acknowledged that it could possibly be a problem with the rule-set although the information posted so far highly leaned towards the ref or DM being the direct cause of the problem the LFQW, but I wasn't completely sure that was entirely the case, so I would need more information to determine that. This is a clear statement of fact and nothing for anyone to be offended about.

4. When I said, "I am at a bit of a loss as to how it could happen" that was to avoid saying I can not imagine how I as the ref could do my job so poorly that LFQW could ever happen in any version of the D&D. I was being polite in stating my opinion rather than being bluntly honest. I was under the impression that being polite rather than bluntly honest was the correct way to post.

5. I gave my background, why is that a problem?

6. There is nothing about the post that is threadcrapping. The mod states "but it isn't really a problem anyway, unless people are playing versions of the game you don't play?" However, that is not what I said, it is a twisted version of what I said. I clearly stated that I recognized that it was a problem.

So I am confused about why this is an infraction. If I did something wrong them clearly tell me what it is. But please do not misunderstand and misquote me as the basis of the infraction, as that seems to be more like a PA than an infraction.

# ? Jul 17, 2015 19:45

JackMann: Aug 11, 2010; Secure. Contain. Protect.; Fallen Rib

spectralent posted:

I think this is probably one of those cargo-cult design things where the first DMs had backup stuff, because obviously you'd have that, but stripped of that context, a lot of people didn't, and assumed that was how it was done, and the modern hobby has elements who tear the poo poo out of games making it explicit because ???

Honestly, reading descriptions of Gygax's original adventures, he might only have the door, but that's because he knew his players would probably just end up tunneling through the wall anyway. His original group was kind of insane that way (the best way). Gygax was very much a "roll with it" sort of DM.

# ? Jul 17, 2015 19:51

Bleu: Jul 19, 2006

gradenko_2000 posted:

What's interesting is that the Pick Locks ability of the Thief in some editions used to say that if the Thief failed, they could not try again until the Thief gained a level.

It's almost as if the designers knew that some players would be like "I roll again, and again, and again" until they finally got the percentile roll they needed and wanted to write something in that would head off that sort of behavior.

This also ties back to the "disassociated mechanics" and "a literal Quantum Leap into an Elf simulator" discussion because the designers at the time had no qualms about telling the Thief player that they absolutely could not try to pick the door again until the Thief gained a level, whereas the modern version of this sort of thing hems and haws about how maybe the DC should go up with succeeding attempts or maybe the Thief opens it but tips off the Ogres inside or some other "in universe" explanation instead of just saying you only ever get one shot at it.

The last time I played an OSR game with locked chests/locked doors/jammed doors, we just bought a fire ax and cut apart every bit of wood in the dungeon as we passed through them without even trying to do it with lockpicks and crowbars. It was dumb as hell.

# ? Jul 17, 2015 19:52

ImpactVector: Feb 24, 2007; HAHAHAHA FOOLS!!
I AM SO SMART!

Uh oh. What did he do now?; Nap Ghost

In the context of OD&D, where the game is more of a strategic dungeon crawling game of resource management with the goal of acquiring as much treasure as possible (see: Gold=XP) locked doors make about as much sense as anything else. They encourage careful play and good party composition.

Because sure, you can break down the door, but that probably warrants a roll on the random encounter table (potentially reducing your resources). Or you can cast Knock, and burn one of the Wizard's precious few spells.

# ? Jul 17, 2015 20:04

spectralent: Oct 1, 2014; Me and the boys poppin' down to the shops

JackMann posted:

Honestly, reading descriptions of Gygax's original adventures, he might only have the door, but that's because he knew his players would probably just end up tunneling through the wall anyway. His original group was kind of insane that way (the best way). Gygax was very much a "roll with it" sort of DM.

Yeah, it does make me wonder how Gygax became the icon for viking-hat GMs every time I hear stories about him. It's also totally weird how you find them put together. "Just as Gygax did when he let flying vampires turn into mummies plummeting from the sky, I, too, disallow +35 bonuses to jump checks".

# ? Jul 17, 2015 20:35

Parkreiner: Oct 29, 2011

FMguru posted:

It is a great typo, especially given that he seems like exactly the kind of person that thinks playing RPGs make him a super smartyman, or that kids today are too dumbed-down with their texting and pokemons to appreciate a real intellectual challenge like OD&D.

He got pinged for his dumb comment, which led to this baffled follow-up over in Trouble Tickets

Oh... oh...

quote:

Therefore, regardless of the fact that I have refereed almost 4000 D&D games, I should keep my opinions to myself on any versions of the game that I don't play, is essentially the message that I am hearing.

We may be on the verge of a breakthrough here!

# ? Jul 17, 2015 20:56

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Sage Genesis posted:

Not interested in discussing it at great length though. If you disagree it's all good.

So does you head just explode when you realize that nothing in D&D makes sense the way you want to argue it does for that blog?

Sailor Viy posted:

It's fine if you don't like something in your game but when you turn it into a moral issue and say "nobody is allowed to use this ever" that's where I have a problem.

For the record I would use the prolapsed womb lady in my game and I think my players would find it cool and funny. I probably wouldn't use it in a game with strangers but I hate playing with strangers anyway.

I bolded the major part of your argument which you are missing. Most people who argue for that sort of stuff thinks its not ridiculous but true horror.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Jul 17, 2015

# ? Jul 17, 2015 21:26

ProfessorCirno: Feb 17, 2011; The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!

Kibner posted:

Sounds like a lot of "Reinventing the Wheel"/"Not Invented Here" syndrome going on.

It's more that they just flat out want to erase 4e in any and every way, so now they're moving on to it's vocabulary.

spectralent posted:

Yeah, it does make me wonder how Gygax became the icon for viking-hat GMs every time I hear stories about him. It's also totally weird how you find them put together. "Just as Gygax did when he let flying vampires turn into mummies plummeting from the sky, I, too, disallow +35 bonuses to jump checks".

It's because Gygax largely wrote what he assumed people wanted in the game rather then what he personally DM'd, so AD&D has a ton of that poo poo. There's also people lookin at tournament play and assuming "this is how all gaming should be."

Really though it largely comes down to most old school grogs pooling around a specific set of behaviors and assuming Gygax would've supported them, then desperately using him as an authority figure they can run to and claim their preferences are the most legitimate. They're not alone in that; 3e fans spent a long time telling 4e fans YOUR EDITION KILLED GYGAX HE IS SPINNING IN HIS GRAVE despite Gygax literally stating officially that he hated 3e. Nerds are sad and run crying to an authority figure whenever challenged, and if they don't have one, they create one.

# ? Jul 17, 2015 21:49

A Shitty Reporter: Oct 29, 2012; Dinosaur Gum

Glagha posted:

Them's fightin words there. I'll brook no criticism of Doom. Doom had actual maps with exploration involved even putting aside keys and doors. You could actually miss stuff, or take alternate paths. Fight me!

Agreed. Also, locked doors are a good way of guiding the player through a level in a certain sequence so that you have greater control over user experience and can refine it more. By knowing, for example, that a player has to be in Room A to get the key they need to get into Room B, you can put more enemies in Room B so there's a rise in difficulty as the player goes through the level.

# ? Jul 17, 2015 21:59

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

ProfessorCirno posted:

It's because Gygax largely wrote what he assumed people wanted in the game rather then what he personally DM'd, so AD&D has a ton of that poo poo. There's also people lookin at tournament play and assuming "this is how all gaming should be."

Yeah, it seems like there's this kind of decay chain from "tournament modules run at conventions" to "tournament modules cleaned up and packaged/the Keep at the Borderlands as a starter document in the box set" to "these are how games ought to be" to --wherever we're at now. I know Pathfinder keeps putting out canned scenarios.

Of course some canned scenarios are impressive. I'm very pleased with my copy of the grand ol' "Beyond the Mountains of Madness," although I don't know if I could manage to actually run it...

# ? Jul 18, 2015 00:21

senrath: Nov 4, 2009; Look Professor, a destruct switch!

While the Pathfinder stuff has problems, the quality of their prepackaged scenarios is higher than the system itself, and (for the most part) they contain suggestions for what happens if the PCs fail to do something.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 00:49

Halloween Jack: Sep 12, 2003; I WILL CUT OFF BOTH OF MY ARMS BEFORE I VOTE FOR ANYONE THAT IS MORE POPULAR THAN BERNIE!!!!!

ProfessorCirno posted:

It's because Gygax largely wrote what he assumed people wanted in the game rather then what he personally DM'd, so AD&D has a ton of that poo poo. There's also people lookin at tournament play and assuming "this is how all gaming should be."

Concomitant to that is that there was a sentiment within the TSR creative team that products which clearly taught the game, and conveyed how it was meant to be played, were pablum for customers who were "eager dependents" rather than "dissenting creatives." At least, if Rob Kuntz's comments are any indication, Rob Kuntz was an utter douchebag.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 01:05

Schenck v. U.S.: Sep 8, 2010

In my current campaign I burned down a tavern in a fit of pique and my DM's description of the aftermath actually made me feel pretty bad for the owner losing his livelihood. I was going to "retire" the character at the end of the campaign and roll a new one because he's a little draining to RP (he's an insane action movie cop, basically). Whenever we finally wrap the campaign I was going to close the book on the character by having him find the guy and give over enough loot to start up a new tavern.

But I realized I had no idea how much that would cost, so I googled it. This was a portal into hilarity. The posts are old as hell, from 2004, but I still enjoyed them:

quote:

Using MMS: WE I got the following numbers:

Inn, 3 stories 4000 sq. ft. (1500/1500/1000)

Foundation: Stone
Walls: Wattle and Daub
Roof: Thatch

Interior Style: Normal
Exterior Style: Normal

Cost: 272,025 gp
Build Time: 160 weeks

For people who are interested, a skilled artisan earns 5gp a week, so that's only about 1000 man-years in a relatively high-earning profession to fund the building of a completely ordinary inn. The whole thread is worth a look. A guy who actually knows what he's talking about comes in and uses historical medieval figures for wages and construction costs to estimate realistic prices (500-600gp) and people get weird and snotty because he says the rulebooks are stupid.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 07:08

unseenlibrarian: Jun 4, 2012; There's only one thing in the mountains that leaves a track like this. The creature of legend that roams the Timberline. My people named him Sasquatch. You call him... Bigfoot.

I am reminded of the trap rules in 3.x, where digging a ten foot deep hole cost 700 gp, and lord forbid you wanted to cover it up with brush or put wooden stakes at the bottom.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 07:16

Dulkor: Feb 28, 2009

Well what do you expect to happen when you don't shop around for quotes from your contractors? I swear, some people get so starry eyed over their plans for a new wing in the dungeon they don't stop to check the numbers and just get taken advantage of!

# ? Jul 18, 2015 07:28

The Lore Bear: Jan 21, 2014; I don't know what to put here. Guys? GUYS?!

EvanSchenck posted:

In my current campaign I burned down a tavern in a fit of pique and my DM's description of the aftermath actually made me feel pretty bad for the owner losing his livelihood. I was going to "retire" the character at the end of the campaign and roll a new one because he's a little draining to RP (he's an insane action movie cop, basically). Whenever we finally wrap the campaign I was going to close the book on the character by having him find the guy and give over enough loot to start up a new tavern.

But I realized I had no idea how much that would cost, so I googled it. This was a portal into hilarity. The posts are old as hell, from 2004, but I still enjoyed them:

For people who are interested, a skilled artisan earns 5gp a week, so that's only about 1000 man-years in a relatively high-earning profession to fund the building of a completely ordinary inn. The whole thread is worth a look. A guy who actually knows what he's talking about comes in and uses historical medieval figures for wages and construction costs to estimate realistic prices (500-600gp) and people get weird and snotty because he says the rulebooks are stupid.

Even in construction maths, you find some people that have to find a way to show off their bizarre beliefs about How To Elf-Game. The refrain we will hear until 12E gives way to the 13th Age of D&D or whatever.

quote:

players are too chaotic these days and the easier rules have lowered the bar for D&D players. Many just don't have the patience to deal with property in game. Also the older players may likely own property in real life and now thier fantasy is to go where they want rather than having too many obligations.

Grog. Grog never changes.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 07:33

Ronwayne: Nov 20, 2007; That warm and fuzzy feeling.

You elf gamers lack discipline :bahgawd:

# ? Jul 18, 2015 07:59

ProfessorCirno: Feb 17, 2011; The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!

EvanSchenck posted:

A guy who actually knows what he's talking about comes in and uses historical medieval figures for wages and construction costs to estimate realistic prices (500-600gp) and people get weird and snotty because he says the rulebooks are stupid.

D&D.txt

# ? Jul 18, 2015 10:45

spectralent: Oct 1, 2014; Me and the boys poppin' down to the shops

Ronwayne posted:

You elf gamers lack discipline

This is probably the most bizarre battlecry that's come from grogs lately.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 11:12

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

quote:

So here are the rules: At the start of the campaign we rolled 4d6-drop-lowest 36 times and arranged our rolls in a grid. Then we get to pick one row, column, or diagonal (forwards or backwards) of that grid to be our starting ability score array, in order. When a character dies, we have to pick from the same grid, but the row/column/diagonal we chose before is unavailabe (though the scores in it can be used with another row they're part of). The idea is that you start with a strong character but get progressively weaker as you keep dying, I guess? My character died in the first session cause we had 0 healing (and weren't allowed to buy healing potions, though we have some now), so I made another one, but things aren't looking too good for him either (he got paralyzed twice by gelatinous cubes and almost died tonight, plus I have 10 Con and foolishly cast Shield Other on the ranger), so I'm mentally prepping for my third character. We're level 5, with no starting wealth for magic items (using the innate bonuses rule from Unchained and picking up random treasure as we go along) and no races but Human. Here's my grid:
pre:
 11	12	12	7	15	18
 7	12	10	12	17	15
 9	12	14	16	12	8
 17	9	10	13	12	12
 12	15	15	18	16	10
 14	11	11	12	9	14
The struckthrough numbers represent score arrays that were already used, but again, I can use the individual scores in different arrays. So for example, using the diagonal from the bottom left to the top right gave me a Str 14, Dex 15, Con 10, Int 16, Wis 17, Cha 18, which I used to build a Shaman for my second character - but I could still take, say, the top row and use that 18 in the corner as either my Str or Cha. The scores do have to be in the order that they're given in that straight line, though, but since they can be backwards or forwards, I could have used that diagonal and taken the reverse - Str 18, Dex 17, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 15, and Cha 14.

The other two PCs are a melee Ranger with a glaive and no animal companion, and an archer Bard with mostly mind-affecting spells. My first character was an Investigator who died after some very bad stabilization checks and the ranger being too hurt to use his Heal skill on me, and my second & current character like I said is a Shaman. As far as the game goes, we're exploring the mountains in the south pole of this homebrew world which we thought were populated by ice giants, but we haven't met any in this mountain yet, just some ankhegs, gelatinous cubes, creepy evil shrines, and plenty of traps.

So, yes, I'm having a pretty rough time trying to come up with a playable character based on what's left to me on the table. As you can see I'd be stuck with some pretty huge flaws - if I took that 18 in the corner as my Strength, for example, I'd be stuck with either a 7 or 8 Con. I probably want to do either melee or a gishy kind of character (not a Magus or Summoner, though, they're incredibly boring), preferably with a decent number of skill points. An interesting full caster build would be cool too. Also I know practically nothing about the religions in this world, except that the major churches tend to mostly control people's lives. All Paizo material is available, but no guns

# ? Jul 19, 2015 01:02

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

Some people don't want to have fun when they play games

# ? Jul 19, 2015 02:32

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

Oh, and between attributes and alignments I'm not sure which one causes more brain damage

# ? Jul 19, 2015 02:33

Mormon Star Wars: Aug 13, 2005; It's a minotaur race...

It's time.

Imagine someone getting a day's probation for this post:

quote:

"I think what makes Blue Rose controversial is that the people it is designed to appeal to have a long history of spitting on people who like traditional power fantasy, which makes the progressive power fantasy of Blue Rose somewhat hypocritical. Like go back to the very beginning of this thread, and the first few pages are full of posts that are just dripping with condescension for the game's detractors and cringeworthy self-congratulation for being so enlightened as to like Blue Rose. But ultimately, it's not any different."

What would your reaction be? Wait a day and resume posting? Just ignore blue rose threads? How about call the moderators fascist and then create a series of increasingly unhinged threads with a second account? :getin:

quote:

Holy poo poo, you people are ridiculous.

What a loving joke this forum is. What a bunch of thin-skinned, hypocritical poo poo-for-brains little fascist fuckwads you all are. No wonder people hate progressives so much. You people are loving sick in the head. You're disgusting. Little authoritarian creepazoid fucks.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoA_zY6tqQw[/youtube]

gently caress YOU AND gently caress YOUR GROUPTHINK, YOU BRAINDEAD CONFORMIST ZOMBIE FUCKS!

AND BANG UP JOB RUINING A ONCE GREAT FORUM, YOU IDEOLOGICAL poo poo-FOR-BRAIN OXYGEN WASTERS!

-- A REAL PROGRESSIVE

quote:

You're all fascists pukes, and you should shoot yourselves in the head.

You loving oxygen-wasting maggots, hiding behind the dispossesed and disenfranchised, using minorities and the underprivleged as an excuse to bully and ahrass pthers.

You're all HYPOCRITICAL< SELF_RGHTEOUS FASCIST FUCKS, AND YOU ARE RUINING EVERYTHING I VAUE!

gently caress YOU ALL!! DIE IN A FIRE< YOU SHITSPEWING, CONFORMIST loving ZOMBIES!

AND STOP RUINING GAMING, YOU HATEFUL, HYPOCRITICAL loving ZOMBIES!

YOU ARE SUCH poo poo!

quote:

Please stop me, I can't help myself. I keep thinking for myself! I keep asking questions! I don't accept everything my feminist overlords teach me through tumblr. Clearly I am a woman-hating, gay-hating, minority-hating fiend. I keep thinking thatnot mindlessly conforming is a virtue, I am clealry an evil, evil person.

Punish me for having a sense of humor and being able to crack a joke. Punish me for not joining in on obvious circlejerks. I am a bad progressive! Bad! Bad! Bad!

Dirty Erisian, thinking his own thoughts, he is evil. He must be punished. All non-conforming thought is repressive and must be suppressed!

FOR THE GREATER GOOD!!!

quote:

GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK! GROUPTHINK!

quote:

Dear Moderators,

I accidentally thought for myself! Please ban me, as I am clearly in violation of your rules.

I'm SORRY! I will prostate myself before a statute of bell hooks and murder my individuality!

This Blue Rose kickstarter is the best. :smaug:

# ? Jul 19, 2015 05:42

Mormon Star Wars: Aug 13, 2005; It's a minotaur race...

quote:

FASCIST PUKE

I hope you eat a b ullet, JamesCat. I hope you get run over by a car. I'd kill you myself if I knew who you were. You're a dog, a maggot, pind scum. A loving FASCIST.

Only a loving bunch of poo poo-sucking fascist would get upset by that joke I made, which is why i made it. I knew you fascist pieces of poo poo would react liek this, because you're thin-skinned, cowardly authoritarian pukes who don't deserve life.

All of you fucks get raped and die of cancer!

lol this guy is really mad about blue rose

# ? Jul 19, 2015 05:43

Error 404: Jul 17, 2009; MAGE CURES PLOT

Haha Pundit rereg spotted.

# ? Jul 19, 2015 05:47

Maxwell Lord: Dec 12, 2008; I am drowning.
There is no sign of land.
You are coming down with me, hand in unlovable hand.

And I hope you die.

I hope we both die.; Grimey Drawer