@BESW I'm wondering how much of this is that the profession hasn't figured out how to make a 3D HFR movie yet, so they make 2D LFR movies and render them in 3D HFR, which doesn't work.
Yes, but less useful. In cases where films were shot using 2D technology and then upgraded in post, you're absolutely right--but that's why The Hobbit is such a great example of the pitfalls of 3D HFR: it was framed and shot from day one with 3D HFR in mind, using the best 3D HFR technology available to him.
So its flaws can't hide behind "it was an afterthought in post."
The issues brought up in the article like the fact that 3D lets the director force the viewer's eye toward a particular part of the screen.... maybe we'll learn how to watch that, but I'm not sure.
Having to actively seek for the focus of an unusual shot isn't unique to 3D, but being physically punished with discomfort for failing to find the focus quickly, or for wanting to look at another part of the shot? I'm not sure that's something we should stick with.
@Grubermensch Yeah, but it's not actively uncomfortable to look at the blurry bits of a 2D movie.
"Oh, it's fuzzy" is a long way from "Ow, my eyes."
As the article points out, 2D film has learned to avoid techniques that make the audience hurt.
I'm not sure it's possible for 3D to "figure out" how to do that, because it's a problem with almost every shot in a 3D film. What can a director avoid?
Part of it might be evolution in the technology that makes the focused region larger.
The article also did point out that 3D HFR did not have the focal point problem IIRC. But that it became impossible to identify the important objects instead.
I'm not saying that we won't--as some combination of technical and culture change--get to a point where these challenges are resolved.
But it's very clear that seeking hyperrealistic experiences can be detrimental to the storytelling experience if not handled with great care, to the point that sometimes it's better to step back from the realism because we don't have the ability to balance it with the other demands of the narrative.
I'm thinking in terms of RPGs and writing as well, here.
Shalvenay's been struggling with this balance in his gaming, for example, valuing hyperrealism to the point that it breaks the immersion of his fellow players.
@Grubermensch -- re realism vs. story -- where it bothers me the most is because I have trouble understanding why people design plots to rely on characters being idiots/acting well outside of their training in the field they are supposed to be good in...
also -- a piece of RP advice I've been told in other places is "let your character lose/fail" -- I find that that doesn't make sense to me, though, because my brain wants to derive failure from logical preconditions, not from "what's needed to make the story go"
@BESW That sounds like a broken mechanic. Ordinarily I'd assume you misinterpreted some part of the rules to arrive in this situation, but since the rules themselves acknowledge the problem, I'm not sure there's a clean solution here.
It's this great gaping hole in the system that nobody seems to have noticed. It'd be like the Internet being totally silent on the subject of 3.5 fighter/wizard imbalance.
Is it possible that the situation is just not very likely?
Or are there circumstances that make it more likely to occur that are unlikely to be present in a more contrived, shorter game (of the type that would be common as an AP or review)?
@Shalvenay Tags characterize questions to make them more discoverable by users that can answer them well. BESW's joke tag is not a meaningful characteristic, and mechanics-bugs is actually an answer judgment, not information about the question.
specifically, tags describe the content of the question, represent a topic people can actually have expertise in, and are there to help connect experts with questions.
Additionally, if you want to see all the questions on a certain topic to familiarize yourself with it, the tags will pull all questions referenced that way.
in most cases they describe only what is evident from looking at the question - they add no information on their own.
we bend the rules with system tags, 'cause people just skip the "I'm playing Pathfinder" part.
[rules-as-written] and [system-agnostic] also break those rules but not in a way that everyone's okay with; they're a topic of continuous debate on meta.
@BESW yeah i'm looking forward to seeing how this question even gets answered
suspense! is it a "yeah this sucks so don't use it"? or a "it sounds like you skipped this entire portion of the rules"? or a "don't tackle the master until you're almost guaranteed to win"?
@Shalvenay What you need to do is think of logical preconditions that will make your character fail. There's no need to make your character behave out-of-character in order to induce failure (indeed, this will ring false). It's better to approach the matter by designing characters who are able to fail in the first place -- even likely to fail under certain conditions.
You're used to finding reasons to justify success. Consider that you can also justify failure.
@Pixie -- and I am willing to find reasons to justify failure -- but I find that the players I am with tend to never get to the type of reasoning I use to justify failure
when I'm justifying failure, I'm leaning heavily on Reason's Swiss cheese model
People do silly things. Because they have incomplete understanding, or different priorities, or they're just not thinking carefully because of anger or love or just pressure.
Yeah. Failure can be based on a combination of character flaws and situational aspects which prevent all from going well. I really don't think the Swiss cheese model is appropriate to a lot of the situations that are going to come up in RP.
@Shalvenay The expectation here is likely that everyone will do some of the work to prevent their own characters from becoming too powerful for the standards of the game. You have to make come concessions, and so does everybody else.
yeah -- I just don't grasp why games set limits on power -- to me, the more power-mad and crazy a game is, the more fun it is in a regard :)
although that's not nearly the issue as having the power standards reduced out from under you, which is I think what happened to my character originally
This is a multi-faceted thing that might be veering too close to the abstraction discussion for this chat and which also touches on the paradigm shift that Doppelgreener has suggested. It's stuff you're just going to have to get accustomed to if you want to play in this environment. At the heart of it: people want to play that way because they enjoy it, and that's what they want, and if you want to play with them, you'll need to work on that level.
@Miniman I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be a lighthearted suggestion that I just wing it and improvise an alternate endgame scenario. Which doesn't seem to really reflect an understanding of the system and its goals.
@JohnP So needless to say none of us actually have information on whether it got flagged (moderators will notice things on their own fairly often and do clean-up of their own volition), but if that was the content of your comment it is unsurprising it got deleted.
When a comment isn't requesting clarification, suggesting an improvement, or the author responding to those comments, they are at great risk of being deleted. It seems that was in the category of clever quips, which usually also get deleted in the name of maintaining a high signal:noise ratio.
The site works well in part because it is almost pure concentrated business and helpful stuff; forums don't work well because all the good material is a needle in a pile of other, strangely shaped, unhelpful needles, and we're avoiding the same.
Considering the pace of changes here, it might be a while until we move. :)
We were supposed to move up to the 4th floor last Sunday. Then it became "Sometimes during the week". Then Thursday evening. Then today. Now it's "soon, soon, real soon".
Last I checked the new office, on Wednesday, they were still missing two desks, all the chairs, and no-one had checked the network sockets.
"I'm not using D&D but a different system with the same rules"
@doppelgreener I like the idea of real-life reverse lockpicking. You go around looking for people who forgot to lock their doors and lock it for them, before real thieves come.
Pratchett had something like that in some footnote somewhere, about anti-crimes. "Breaking and Decorating", or "Whitemailing"
@JohnP Well, getting flagged is what has happened to the countless others you no longer see. If you see others like that, you can go ahead and flag those too.
You do and did sound upset, or at least incredulous and possibly offended that your comment got picked out. (In reality, if we could see all the deleted comments, it would be more like one more femur in a field of bones expanding as far as the eye can see.)
@Pixie mentioned that the Swiss cheese model was not "appropriate to a lot of the situations that are going to come up in RP"...could someone expand on this please?
We have a group of three characters: The lawful good paladin (acolyte), the lawful good fighter (soldier) and the chaotic good druid (criminal). All try to help NPCs in need, won't fight between themselves, but of course have different alignments and personalities. The druid is greedy, but otherw...
@Shalvenay It's an organisational model for predicting errors in the interactions of multiple humans; sounds like you're using it as a psychological model for predicting errors in a single person's decision-making process, and that looks like a misapplication of scale to me.
Even if you're using it for predicting errors at the right scale, though, most RPG situations aren't going to have an appropriate context: that is, the SCM is still an organisational model and RP is rarely about organisational interactions.
@doppelgreener "hmmm, roll for shoes could work/ yeah why not, lets go with RFS I'll work out my realistic zombie fate game another day."
@JohnP This means that more fluff should be getting flagged, not less. If you see fluff, flag it.
Every week or so I go through a few pages of my own comment backlog and delete comments that are no longer useful. In the process I usually flag a dozen or so comments/threads too.
@Miniman This is why I go back through my comment history.
A lot of what I delete is my old "welcome to RPG.SE!" comments, unless they contain suggestions for improving the post which haven't been responded to.
I was tickled purple when someone said something like, "I've been lurking here a long time and it never occurred to me I'd get my own BESW welcome when I started posting!"
Pathfinder: Going towards an arcane archer, and creating a level 8 character from scratch. Going with a draconic sorcerer/ranger base build, is it better to go Sorcerer (3)/Ranger(5) and wait on level 9 for the first level of arcane archer, or sorcerer(2)/Ranger(5) and arcane archer (1)
Draconic sorcerer, you get the first blood spell at 3rd level. Otherwise I'd have gone with one S, 5 R and 2 AA
And I'm not sure, I'm joining a campaign in progress. 95% water, and all land is actually the back of ginormous turtles. I was thinking an AA would make an awesome crows nest sniper.
Or is 2 levels of AA better than 2 levels of sorcerer?
Never played pathfinder, so I'm kind of freebasing my go to ranger class, and trying to adapt it for the water environment.
Magic: +1 scale of shadow, +1 composite longbow of distance, +1 bastard (backup), +1 amulet NA, +2 belt of dex (on top of 19 dex as a halfelf), boots/cloak elven, efficient quiver, 50 +1 arrows of shock and hewards haversack
wait...change that 19 to a 20. Took a 17 + the 2 starting bonus for 1/2 elf, and added one at the 8th level.
How hard is it to convert adventures from one version of D&D (or PF) to another? ie, if you replace the monsters with their version-appropriate stats, will they be of comparable difficulty to the same level characters in each system?
