jjjalljs @ jjjalljs @ttrpg.network

Posts

10

Comments

5,715

Joined

3 yr. ago

This supports my hypothesis that most players "playing" DND could easily swap to some other rule system and not even know. Many of them would probably be happier in other systems.

I'd rather spend N minutes reading a list of book recommendations than 5*N minutes watching a video. Presumably the target audience for books is literate.

I'm tired of video.

On the one hand, this might help fence sitters that are like "there's no content there".

On the other, I just don't personally care for a stream of random images like Instagram et al do.

There's something off about a video about books.

It's not "retire and live a life of luxury" money, at least in many parts of the world.

It's a lot of money in terms of paying down debt and covering rent for a while, though.

Poor emotional regulation.

Someone speaking another language makes them afraid (maybe they're talking about me) or feel bad (I only know one language am I stupid?). Getting angry at the other person is easier on the ego than healthier options.

I love mage, but its magic is so involved and powerful I wouldn't want to use it in a game unless everyone was a mage. You don't really want one players options to be "I hit him with my club" and the others to be boundless.

Awakening 2nd edition was really good, imo, but I never actually got to play Ascension

I used nWoD for fantasy games. The core dice pool system works pretty well, and few things are tightly coupled to any setting in particular.

I mostly don't like d20, so when someone tells me they're doing a game about secret vampire societies in it, I'm a lot more disappointed than if they ported a system I like or am neutral on. Also 5th edition in particular makes a lot of assumptions about how things work.

Isn't that what people were calling it anyway? Well that's nice I guess.

I dunno man. I've had a lot of conversations with players that go like "do you think your character is the first to come up with this hijink? If it works, why doesn't the entire setting revolve about this infinite damage trick you're trying to sell me?"

Like, if it was as easy as casting Charm Person on the king to become the new ruler, other people would already be doing that. Therefore, there must be reasons why it doesn't work.

My parents are difficult. Not the worst people and not monsters, but at many times unpleasant.

Plus it was a house in the suburbs. Not ideal for socializing or culture.

And lastly, living with parents in the suburbs would be huge negatives for dating.

Still, the costs for defendants, even if ultimately exonerated, have been enormous, with many having their mugshots blasted by the government and some forced to languish in jail or have criminal charges hang over them for weeks and months

Fundamental flaw in the legal system right there.

In several high-profile cases, the prosecutions fell apart because they relied on statements by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officers that had no supporting evidence or in some instances were proven by video footage to be blatantly false.

Prosecute the liars. Ruin their lives instead.

All it takes is one cop to be like "he was resisting arrest and I feared for my life so I had to shoot him 17 times in the back".

“Top-down mandates to use large language models are crazy,” one employee told Wired. “If the tool were good, we’d all just use it.”

Yep.

Management is often out of touch and full of shit

Sounds like a good start

I don't like to think of people as immutably good or bad, but I get what you meant.

There's a bunch of factors.

• are they honest?
• are they kind?
• do they care about things other than themselves?
• do they try to make the world better?

So, someone who lies, is cruel, doesn't care about anyone else, and leaves the world a mess is being a pretty bad person.

Someone who just keeps their head down, goes to work, and is polite to people they meet is kind of middling.

The cap was in place because the Social Security benefit doesn’t increase above the that income.

I don't think that's necessarily a good reason for the cap to exist. I expect it's a compromise to get rich people and idiots on board.

It's kind of insane to me that there's an annual cap on social security payments. If your salary is high enough, you stop paying into it partway through the year. That's ass-backwards. You shouldn't pay anything for the first chunk of money, and then pay more as you make more.

Why aren't the pro-brexit people being shamed? Stripped of their wealth and made to spend the rest of their miserable lives doing community service?

It's always been pretty bad for large chunks of the population. This seems like a low point, but there have been many lows in living memory. Civil rights movement in the 60s. Vietnam war. War on drugs. Countless cruelties done to non-whites and queer folks.

Even the idealized stuff of "buy a house on one income" was more for white people than anything else. Redlining, mortgage discrimination, "and then the white people burned down our house" were all realities.

This country has always been deeply racist. The wealthy ownership class has largely been soulless ghouls. Maybe they build libraries and museums for a while, but they still oversaw tremendous suffering and poverty.