ProfessorOwl_PhD [any] @ ProfessorOwl_PhD @hexbear.net

Posts

0

Comments

387

Joined

2 yr. ago

To my knowledge she got away without any real consequences - last I heard she had the same position at one of the competitors.

One time I got back from annual leave only to find out that my job had been done away with by the board over a year beforehand and my manager had spent the last year submitting fake timesheets claiming I was working a different position, so I could do the parts of her job that the assistant manager wasn't already doing. The company had assumed I knew about it as they couldn't get in contact with me when they discovered it and came down on the manager (my job was only the beginning of her fraud), but I was in the middle of nowhere and had no signal, so the first I heard about it was when I walked into the office and one of my coworkers went "what are you doing here?".

Amazing article, just for this phrase:

the inventory of drugs [Hunter S.] Thompson consumed for what could broadly be defined as recreational purposes

I used to think fudging Vs not fudging was a stylistic decision, but as I've played more I feel it's a system issue. If you feel a need to fudge rolls, either to raise or lower the stakes, to force desired plot points or avoid unnarrative deaths, or to fix broken challenge ratings, you're probably using the wrong system for you and your group.
Think about what issues you're actually trying to avoid by fudging, and then look for systems that are structured to avoid those issues. If the rolls get in the way of your narrative, switch to a more narrative system. If you're fighting against the system to build satisfying combat encounters, switch to something more tactical.

It'll always take a couple of sessions to get used to a new system, but learning one is always a lot faster than continuing to waste time trying to force a system to do things it wasn't made for.

Really accurate tape measure.

Diagram of when I learnt about capitalism

It's always difficult finding the balance between in character and out of character knowledge. I recently had to explain to my players that their characters definitely knew about a major historical event in the setting, because while it happened 10,000 years ago it's important to the origin of several gods, so is a widely known story.

The alternative is sitting down, having a talk, drinking some tea and talking about our differences.

You really don't understand that the things you say have meanings, do you?

The alternative is sitting down, having a talk, drinking some tea and talking about our differences.

You literally talk in your other reply about how you'll join them. You can't just sit down and talk about how they want to kill the jews and you don't - your willingness to hear them out inherently legitimises their ideas as being reasonable and able to be reasoned about.

I know you don't fully understand how the way that you say something can be as informative as what you actually say, but I don't need to assume - you did actually tell me in your comment that you don't really mind nazis as long as they're not being violent towards you.

Am I really going to have to argue with some stupid loser who has to reframe things without the context I specifically included so their argument makes sense? Nobody goes to therapy for work related stress for non work related reasons you fucking dweeb. Go sit on the shitter and look at the backs of shampoo bottles until you learn to read.

US banks won't even issue chip and pin cards because their customers would find entering a 4 number code too arduous and complicated.

Ok, but it's what telegram has. So would you rather keep your "free" speech and put others in danger, or lose it to keep others safe?

Just Google the paradox of tolerance. It's really not as complicated as you're making it out to be.

Also, punching Nazis is always morally correct. If you wouldn't attack a nazi because they're not currently threatening you specifically then you won't develop any additional moral prerogative in time of civil war - you'll join them, because they're still not threatening you specifically, while fair and equal redistribution of resources will effect you. You don't have any sort of morality or ideology underlying your objection, you just think extreme things are bad because you're not given a choice.

Your client must be displaying the wrong picture, this isn't either of those things.

How do you know that psychedelic therapy papers over anything?

That's literally the concept of using any form of therapy to deal with work related stess. Solving the issue involves changing your work conditions and removing the source of stress, while using mindfulness and medication is just a sticking plaster to numb yourself to the cause.
You're trying to use the socratic method but you need to ask questions that aren't fucking stupid for that to work.

Where do you want to start? The player mechanics are way outdated and overcomplicated for what it wants to be, the GM mechanics are functionally nonexistant, the lore is cliched at best and still incredibly bigoted in many areas, the better adventures are just rehashes of 2e and 3.x adventures and still need entire communities dedicated to making them runnable, it's unbalanced until you get to about level 10 at which point it becomes unplayable, and without pirating it's incredibly expensive.
Trying to strap every possible setting and mechanic onto a fantasy rule system was one of the issues 3.x ended up with, and 5e hasn't been designed to solve that.

Are you sure they're not saying "you're whale cum", because that's what I do.

It's amazing just how bad at lying some people are. My players were investigating a building for the mayor, and attracted attention when they just tried picking the lock on the front door. Instead of just saying they were there on the mayor's behalf the bard decided to try to convince the guards it was "just" a piece of performance art.
I was just tryinbg to give them an in game reminder that there was a back door that would be easier to pick or force, but instead they talked their way into being dragged back in front of the mayor 15 minutes after being given the task.

Israel is a state, not a country.

Palestine is a country, not a state.