Sunsofold @ Sunsofold @lemmings.world

Posts

10

Comments

727

Joined

10 mo. ago

No idea. Rome was never my bag. As far as OP, though, I can only guess they didn't have quite your interest in the subject either.

NFPA 101 -

7.1.10.1 "Means of egress shall be continuously maintained free of all obstructions"

7.2.1.5.2 "Locks and latches shall not require the use of a key, a tool, or special knowledge or effort for operation from the egress side."

Option 1, admit you were wrong. Option 2, claim to be a part of a group hated by anti-racists Option 3, claim to be a part of one of the most hated groups in the world Option 4, 2 and also 3

Somehow they still preferred 2 over 1

Nero was in a position of power and hypothetically could have done something, hence the criticism of him for 'fiddling while Rome burned.' Are you suggesting the twenty-something year olds of this world have some power to turn things around?

You walked out and laid down in their home. What else do you expect?

The GUIs are nice, sometimes, especially for visual things. (Selecting an image, color, etc.) The terminal remains extremely powerful though in that it's much closer to the object, as it were. If you want to, say, change a setting on your personal machine, as long as the GUI designer thought that option should be included in the GUI (because including every possible setting gets very large and unwieldy very quickly) you're fine. But if you want to adjust that setting on 5, 10, 100 machines, that 30 second trip to the settings app turns into lots of work. If you want to set a setting that the GUI designer didn't decide to include, you're stuck. If you want to have an explanation of what you are doing, or what that other setting might do, terminal has man pages. GUI might have tooltips or a crowdsourced explanation.

I played another guy's game (game dev thesis project) based on the Milgram experiment. It definitely didn't have this level of graphical fidelity. I'd be happy to give some feedback. I'm running Bazzite at the moment so if you need someone to look at for proton compatibility, etc. I'm happy to be the guinea pig there as well.

Switched over someone I know just recently. No headaches. Video card worked without issue from the jump and they've been playing Fallout 76 on it with more stability than they ever had with Windows. I put it on my own machine a few months back, and it was the same. Smooth. Either I got double lucky or you got unlucky.

Does anyone actually still do that? I haven't heard anyone identify with their system since I was a youngling.

Hedgepig!

Somehow I think ducks would have an accent like the old 'transatlantic' accent used by actors from the 1940s.

Re the first: This is a semantic dance. Immersion is not rigidly defined. I define it as the sense of losing oneself in the diegetic space, usually by identifying with a particular element within it. I took it as self-evident that no one is achieving total immersion, but yes, you are correct there, no one is achieving full immersion. But the GM cannot have even high immersion. They are an individual. The NPCs are many. The GM is the embodiment of the laws of physics, nature, cause and effect, etc. That is not a human, or even sapient, identity with which they could identify.

Re the second: That's a simplified workflow that applies to basically any GM-based system. Nothing that could be reasonably added would change the fact that the chain is shorter with fewer steps. That's how real number subtraction works.

    
n-x<n where x>0

  

Re the rest of it: I'm sorry. I assumed you would understand that my saying 'don't discount this possibility' is not the same as 'absolutely everyone must do this my perfect and correct way.' I assumed you would take it as patently obvious all methods one might approach any game with must involve participant consent, but, okay, let's start with the full text of Principia Mathematica so we can establish 1+1=2 and then move on to establish a shared moral framework of consent and all the other things that I would consider obvious but you feel the need to spell out explicitly, and then finally we can have a nice, clearly defined discussion about dice.

Image generation is fun, and LLMs can be a great way to find a starting point for learning something already known by humanity as a whole, but not known by one in particular. Because they are statistical association machines, they are practically perfect for answering the 'what word am I looking for?' question when you can only 'talk around' the concept.

However, that's not what they are being used for, and the user cost does not match the externalized cost. If users had to pay the real cost today, the AI companies would die tomorrow. (This is probably true of a great many companies but we're talking AI ones here.)

One of the concepts I keep returning to is 'X was cool, but then the idiots got it.' Early internet? Absolute nerdity; the only people on there were highly educated, usually intelligent as well, and the new people came at a pace the community could absorb. Then the idiots came, including business majors, kids, and eventually just everyone. Early mass media? Libraries of printed books. It was still expensive, so no one bothered making and distributing 3,000,000 copies of Ted from the pub's musings on redheads, but as it became cheaper, and eventually even cheaper in electronic form, gates were no longer kept, and the idiots got in.

In this same way, AI in the form of statistical analysis tools has always been fascinating, and kind of cool. AI assisted radiology is great. Data analysis tools are great. But the idiots have the controls now, and they're using them to put shrimp Jesus on their deep fake pizza, at the top of GPT-generated 'articles,' and we're all paying the price for their fun in the form of uncountable subsidies, environmental damage, and societal damage.

Bazzite. It was the absolute smoothest spin-up I have had in my distro hopping, and has been nice and stable the whole time. KDE gives lots of pretty options. Gaming stuff and Nvidia stuff is ready to go out of the box. Unless you need to be bleeding edge, which it seems you don't, you'll be just fine.

If you make a 'feature' opt-in, 3 people will use it, so the person who added it would have to work much harder to justify their paycheck. If you make everyone use your 'feature' by default, you can say 'look how many people use the feature I added,' while actually pointing at the number of people who didn't turn off the feature according to the spyware metrics.

You might be surprised how many old people commit crimes. They aren't tagging houses or robbing banks and museums (usually) but they can do a lot of other things. Petty theft, drunk driving, sexual offenses, etc.

And the effect of lead is subtle, like toxoplasmosis. It's not a 'touched lead, now I'm guaranteed to become a serial killer' effect. It's more like the lead dulls your ability to think 'I probably shouldn't do X,' so you have a higher probability of doing things that get you into trouble.

Immediate flaw there; there is no immersion for the DM. You aren't breaking their immersion because it can't exist.

You could argue for breaking their flow, but that's only an issue where they aren't used to it. Once everyone is used to the flow of things, you shorten the workflow from 'player:intent>player:declaration>DM:mechanical interpretation> DM:request>player:roll>player:report>DM:mechanical interpretation>DM:report>repeat' to 'player:intent>player:declaration>DM:mechanical interpretation>DM:report>repeat'

One of the problems that people have understanding RPG dynamics is the GM/DM is not playing the same game as everyone else. They aren't an entertainer, like a Martin Clunes, they are an entertainer like a Martin Scorsese, or like a one-person, brain-powered Superblue. Their real role is in 'making the magic happen.' The players are 'playing DnD' or 'playing Changeling' or whatever. The GM, in any GM focused system, is playing The GM's Game. It's the same game, no matter which of the GM focused systems they are using to play The GM's Game. Sometimes, the group of players is of a certain type, and the numbers don't distract them. Such a group doesn't need the GM to handle the numbers, but many players do find them distracting, and if the GM can handle it, it can make the game better, which means the GM is winning their game.

What are they rolling unquestioned? Genuine question. I've had players roll unasked because they wanted to see if their character would do X or Y but that's not mechanical. That's them letting dice handle something they can't puzzle through in real time.

As for feats, rerolls, and their analogs in other systems, those are things for the character to decide to use. Most of those rolls, in most systems, are 'may' actions, which means the decision lies with the character. You wouldn't decide things for them, even if it seems obviously 'better' in your head for them to do it. You just let them avoid thinking about the numbers. You can even use software so you don't have to do the math. The point is just to move away from the distraction of the numbers.

Same place as everyone else. They're just a peculiar bunch of people who get more enjoyment out of supporting the players than being the heroes of the story. Not having one of those people means you are not equipped to play the game, just as much as if you didn't have dice. You can try to put someone else in that slot, in the same way you can try to play Eberron as a setting using Werewolf: The Apocalypse rules, but your expectations will need to be low.

The only thing that changes is the number of people and institutions that hold you responsible for your actions. No more chance to be tried as a juvenile for crimes. Fewer people will say 'ah, they're just a kid,' if you make a mistake. Your financial decisions are more likely to follow you. Etc. Etc. You won't feel different, but the expectations will be there.