Susaga @ Susaga @ttrpg.network

Posts

25

Comments

268

Joined

2 yr. ago

There was no misleading information. There was no name-calling. It's weird you think there was.

If you're allowed to say "Nazis are allowed a space to hang out", I'm allowed to say "shut the fuck up". If you're allowed to say "yeah, I agree with this" by upvoting, I'm allowed to say "this is a terrible idea" by downvoting. If you don't have to give an explanation for why you support something, you shouldn't have to give an explanation for why you oppose something.

I'm telling you to shut up from the front of my mouth. You are not the first person to put forward this argument, and you're not the first person to do it shortly after being downvoted for defending Nazis. You deliberately want a double standard that limits criticism and it was a pretty easy guess, proven right, that you had recently been justifiably criticised.

Every single time someone makes a post with this opinion, they're either a Nazi or a Nazi apologist. They don't want discourse, they just don't like it when people tell them to shut up. It makes it hard to take their arguments seriously because I know they're just excuses.

Lo and behold, you have a downvoted comment in your recent history where you argue Nazis should be allowed a safe space to talk in. The pattern continues.

Criticism is a part of public discourse as much as approval is. People who allow positive responses freely but put walls in the way of criticism tend to be the ones trying to silence all forms of criticism. They want a positive feedback loop so they can pretend people agree with them. Some people need to be told to shut up quickly and decisively.

Encounters, easy. You were going to prepare those anyway.
Maps, not as easy but there's resources online in a pinch.
Forces... What do you mean by that?
Terrain... That's just maps again, right?
Ecosystem... Yeah, you're definitely over-preparing at this point.
Descriptions... You shouldn't have been prepping this anyway. If you know what the thing looks like, you can describe it yourself during the game.

It's that thing you do in the shower the night before the session and forget to write down "but it'll be fine" and then you forgot half of it and only remember the dumb voice you gave the shop keeper. That, plus those notes you wrote down and you're sure you knew what you had in mind but now you're not sure what "damp lich" was supposed to mean.

I want to play the accordian. I just don't want to pay for an accordian.

I'd accept this as a bad example if it wasn't pronounced "hold". Like, you say "thresh hold" and not "thresh old", and that's why I get ticked off at it only having one H. Even if there's an explanation, it's irritating.

Good point, my mistake on hitchhiker. My brain just merged it in with my hatred of threshold.

It doesn't matter how old threshold is. They merged the h of hold with the h in the sh sound of thresh. There is an H missing from how it should be spelt.

Thresh + hold = threshold. Why did they drop the middle 'H'? You still have to pronounce both 'H's, and they don't even have the same sound. They're the worst kind of portmanteau, but they're in the dictionary.

Depending on exactly how well used, I suspect quite a lot fits.

I feel like actors wouldn't benefit from an adundance of hot coffee they have to spill take after take. Especially if they have to run with it.

I get your point, but I will say the Captain America scene isn't completely out of the realm of possibility. Cap weighs the helicopter down for a few seconds, and grabs a support beam for the helipad as soon as he can. If Cap can keep a grip on both the beam and the helicopter, then the propellers will only lift him if either Cap or the support beams break.

Of course, whether he should have had that much effect on the helicopter for those first few seconds is another matter entirely and I'm not enough of a physicist to make that call.

The only good example I can think of where people actually explain themselves is Agents of SHIELD, which isn't even a movie. It's amazing. She doesn't doubt his loyalty for a second and understands, given their situation, why he had to keep it a secret from her. You still get drama, but it's drama from everyone being on the same dramatic page.

First off, a sword that only destroys evil doesn't mean insta-kill. It just means you only deal a fatal blow if they're evil. You can just rule that it still damages good characters, so you lose basically all of your allies due to constant wounding.

Second, this is consequentialism vs deontologism. Is the morality of an act decided by the outcome or the act itself? You have the consequentialism view that the action is okay because you know it can only kill an evil person. I argue that the sword's properties can change without you knowing, so this knowledge is just belief. As the consequences cannot be truly known before the action takes place, the morality is decided by the action itself (deontology). Stabbing people at the start of every conversation is evil.

The playstyle is stabbing random townsfolk on the off chance you kill a bad guy. Fuck that playstyle.

And for a lore reason, just have the sword be influenced by the morality of the wielder's actions. Stabbing random townsfolk is evil. The sword turns evil.

The sword's power changes with time, and as it racks up more kills. Soon, it gains a +1 to attack and damage. Then, it can become wreathed in flame as a bonus action. Then, it grants advantage to checks made to locate creatures. Then, its base power inverts and it can only kill non-evil creatures.

Do not tell the player about that last one. Insist to the player that it works exactly as you first described. The Paladin can kill innocent shopkeepers and little old ladies, but cannot kill this assassin working for the BBEG.

Will he question his own stab-first ask-later methods? Or will he turn evil without even noticing?

I find it interesting that you have to specify it's not real in a biological sense, which is true, but use this to imply it's not real in any sense. It's a sociological concept, constructed rather than inherent but still very much a thing.

Also, race as a concept was first conceived of by European explorers before America was even a thing, and the concept is pretty widespread.

There's an episode of the Good Place where they discuss this exact thing (well, replace "immoral" with "romantic", but still), and I'm pretty sure the motivations are the same. They don't actually believe in determinism as much as they claim, but they don't want to be responsible for their actions and determinism is a good excuse they can use. You can't use logic to get them out of this belief, because it wasn't logic that made them believe it to begin with.

Oh, yeah, that's totally a good thing to do with living parents too. Someone has to inform them what happened to their child, after all.

After one of my PCs died, my planned backup was going to be of the same class and race, but a few years younger and motivated by a desire to travel with her brother. The brother who had just died, and she didn't know. I am so sad schedule issues got in the way of that...

You know when your parents ask you to fix the printer because you're the IT person in the house? That, but it's goblins. You're the goblin-fighter person in the house. And you're getting paid in a dessert your mum was making anyway.

That's novice stuff. It's a cheap emotional gut-punch that weakens that character's ties to the world and story. You can do so much more if you keep them alive:

• They can hand out quests, as they think their child could handle it.
• They can help out with certain tasks, like watching a tavern or storing stolen goods.
• They can be a good twist villain later in the game, because they're tied to the heroes.
• They can be a good fake-out villain, because it's suspicious you haven't killed them yet.
• Another PC can literally bang this PC's mum.