ProfessorOwl_PhD [any] @ ProfessorOwl_PhD @hexbear.net

Posts

0

Comments

387

Joined

2 yr. ago

This comment really highlights the lack of materialism in liberal ideology.

Queer people getting rights in the past required people to change their behaviour and modes of thought, and the modern queer movement still just want to be treated like everyone else - like not having to constantly correct people about their gender.

Nothing has changed. They're the exact same movement, still trying to claw its way to equality.

I'm not sure where you got the idea I think that every death is the DM's fault? I said this is a crutch for the specific situations when it is the DM's fault a PC will be killed. If a PC stays in the front line on low HP, it's absolutely not the DMs fault if they die, that was a decision the player made. If someone just has a really unlucky turn and gets critted into oblivion it might not be anybody's fault, just the luck (or lack thereof) of the dice. It's the DMs fault when the players are missing information that would let them make informed choices.

As for your second question, you could have it said by a character in game, but coming from a DM to a player it's a loaded question designed to stop them from taking actions. There are only 3 scenarios where it's appropriate to say seriously: firstly, when the player has too little information and is going to take an action without properly understanding the context. In this scenario it's more appropriate to ask what they think is going to happen or what they're trying to achieve to iron out the misunderstanding, rather than let them bumble about trying to work out what their mistake is.
Secondly, when a player is about to walk into some kind of hazard they had no way to know about or reason to think about - this is at worst gloating that they couldn't read your mind, and at best a sign you shouldn't have put the hazard there.
Thirdly, there are times when a player is fully aware of the situation and is taking a suicidal action - you don't need to ask if they're sure, they already decided. They might be intentionally trying to get the character killed, trying to have an epic character moment, or trying to set off a trap because the last 30 minutes have been pretty boring and they feel like throwing some excitement into the mix, but your warning won't change their decision, because it was made with that danger already in mind. There might be an underlying problem to deal with, but you're telling them something they already know.

Ultimately if you feel a need to say it you're better off thinking about or asking them about why they're doing it, and if it's not character shit solving the issue that caused it.

Oh, I'm not pretending that even the best players aren't a bunch of free range maniacs heart, it's just that it's rare that a player will actively choose to do something that is likely to kill them - They might set off a chain of events that digs them into a hole and leads to their death over a series of decisions, but if they're aware of what's going on they generally shy away from single "are you sure you want to do this" moments with a real risk of causing immediate death.

If you have to ask if they're sure you've either not described a situation clearly enough, or you're giving them meta knowledge of an upcoming complication - and if you need to stop them from triggering a complication you shouldn't have put that complication there in the first place.

It's a popular and well known phrase, but it needs to be acknowledged that it's a crutch to make up for DMing mistakes that are in danger of killing a PC, not a way of protecting them. You shouldn't get to the point where you need to warn a player they're about to get their PC killed - if they are taking a potentially suicidal action they should already be aware and have made their decision based on it.

This is why PF2e made weapon and armour runes transferrable. It also mitigates the problem of getting a powerful magic weapon that nobody can use - just move the runes onto a weapon you're already using.

All our loot goes in the party bag so we can distribute it later, then I forget to distribute it and we pay for everything out of the party loot.

It's possible to get really anal about the things that they've cut out to keep things moving, but honestly I was blown away by how well they've transitioned the feel to live action. Everything about it is slightly hammed up in a way that really helps sell the fantasy, and the cgi really works.

Sam wasn't any better at resisting the ring than the other hobbits. There's a reason Frodo carried the ring the whole way, not Sam.

Hobbits' natural lack of ambition protects them from the effects of the ring. All of the hobbits had that power.

Anyone can swear an oath to a divine being, it doesn't make you a paladin. You have to swear an oath so hard you get superpowers to be a paladin.

Zephyreks is being sarcastic by highlighting the US's doublespeak that they employ to wage war without declaring war.

God, you're such a big dumb idiot of a lib. That's the definition of a democratic socialist, not a social democrat - you can tell by the way one of the groups are call socialists and the others are called democrats. Not only did you mix up your definitions, but you never actually managed to define democratic socialist - do you really know what the difference is if you can't even remember to talk about one of them? The answer, scrolling down your post history to where you called yourself a socdem, is no, you think they're the exact same thing, because you don't even have a surface level understanding of leftism. It only takes 5 minutes in leftist spaces to discover that anarchists, socialists, and communists of all flavour hate socdems for exactly your "no really, somehow we'll manage to vote socialism in this time" attitude, but you've never spent a single minute in them, because you're not a leftist.

My version of leftism is called Marxism and is based in historical reality and current material conditions. Your version is fantastical utopianism that's convinced the elite are just going to give up the reigns any day now.

You don't know the difference between a demsoc and a socdem. You're not any kind of socialist, just a lib who likes the idea of being seen as leftist.

Ah, I see what you mean - that the superposition is a model of our uncertainty of unobserved actions, rather than the actual state of the particle. While that was my understanding initially too (because it makes sense) our testing, things like the double slit experiment, has shown behaviours that only make sense if they do occupy both states simultaneously. Quantum computing is actually reliant on qubits being in a 0/1 superposition for it to work. It's what makes the entire thing so maddening, because experimental evidence has disproven every attempt to make it make sense.

First thing my quantum mechanics professor told us was that if you think you understand quantum mechanics you definitely do not understand quantum mechanics. He was at the time one of the world's leading experts on quantum applications, and had just proven the existence of an additional state of matter that quantum theory predicted, and straight up told us to our faces that he didn't understand it, he just knew that it works.

Observation in quantum physics isn't about a consciousness being able to see it happen, but about it interacting with the universe in a way that could potentially be measured. There doesn't need to be a physical observer, just a theoretically measurable result of it interacting with something.

Quantum superpositioning. Schrödinger was right, it's absolutely ridiculous and the cat can't be alive and dead at the same time, box or not.

The problem is it provably does work that way, or at least in a way that is indistinguishable from it, ridiculous or not, and we don't really know why. We've learnt many of the rules, managed to trap particles in superimposed states, even discovered that plants take advantage of it to transport energy more efficiently, and it's just a thing that happens, an apparently fundamental rule of existence. And it doesn't make any fucking sense.

I'd say it's more of a 5e & PF problem, PF2e is much better about general rules that apply to most cases, with player abilities adding additional things on top.

But yeah, generally if you want to play 5e OSR is a better choice.

Yeah, you people, people who used homophobic insults about dick sucking but insist it's ok because they're gay/bi/have an LGBT friend.

I agree that you're not bigoted because you disagree with our ideology, but you are definitely bigoted for using bigoted insults to point it out.

"umm actually I used it as an insult because it's a good thing!"

How do you people survive the cognitive dissonance necessary to convince yourself you're not being bigoted?

Sure, but the evil potato chips are still Cuba, China, Vietnam etc, right?