Nah, it checks out. I ran the numbers myself and I got 15.33, which is roughly 15. This, of course, assumes the age of adulthood is 21 for humans and 100 for elves, and we don't really have a reason to doubt those numbers.
Oh, yeah, the specific example listed was solved within roughly a month of the comic being posted. But the idea still applies, as seen with the twitter post above.
Do you know what allegory is? Just because you don't match a story 1:1 doesn't mean you can't learn something from it.
And yes, I know what morale is. It's that thing you destroy when you twist the game to punish the players for not doing what you want. Especially since the players don't see the world or characters as anything other than a game, so they don't think of the GM as punishing anyone but them.
I'm trying not to sink to your level and insult your intelligence over and over, but you really should be able to pick this up if I spell it out to you enough times.
I don't know why you think punishing misbehaviour through senseless violence to "teach them a lesson" is irrelevant. Especially since you're not teaching them to behave like you think you are; you're just teaching them to be powerless and resent you. If they think the game is "win or lose" and you tell them "you can't win", they'll stop playing. They'll turn their back.
Now, what were you saying about "refusing to learn anything"?
That's not the lesson they'll learn. The problem is that they don't care about the game as a living story, but as a game they can win through violence. Using this encounter will just tell them that the DM can cheat to win.
To quote the show Sharpe: "Flogging teaches a soldier only one lesson. How to turn his back."
I never get more hate than when I say "hey, this toxic DM behaviour is bad and you shouldn't do it." This time, it's "responding to violent PCs with an unreasonably powerful NPC out of spite just reinforces a player vs DM mentality."
See also "the illusion of choice isn't a brilliant trick, it just removes player agency" and "if one person's idea of fun doesn't match the rest of the group, remove that person, even if that person is you."
Then the meme doesn't make sense. The DM doesn't look like they're having fun, they look spiteful. If the DM's actions aren't spiteful, the meme is poorly made.
The post is about a seething GM putting their players who always start a fight against someone unassuming, but undefeatable. What exactly do you think the DM in the meme is trying to do?
Putting a "random" encounter that didn't exist five minutes earlier in the path of your players, knowing it will be a TPK, is the DM version of murder hobo-ing. You're ignoring the logic of the game and the feelings of the other players so you can have fun killing things. You're not fixing the problem, you're becoming part of it.
No, it is theft. They use an artist's work to make an image they would otherwise pay the artist to make (a worse version, but still). And given how I've seen an image with a deformed patreon logo in the corner, they didn't pay what they should have for the images. They stole a commission.
And it is copyright violation. There have been successful lawsuits over much less than a direct image of RDJ in the iron man suit with the infinity stones on his hand. And if they won't pay an artist's rates, there's no way they'd pay whatever Disney would charge them
Yes, there's a lot of problems with AI. And yes, AI is a part of larger issues. That doesn't mean theft isn't also an issue with AI.
AI is a nazi-built, kitten blood-powered puppy kicking machine built from stolen ambulance parts. Even if stealing those ambulance parts is a lesser sin than killing those kittens, it's still a problem that needs to be fixed. Of course, AI will never be good, so we need to get rid of the whole damn thing.
AI images try to replicate the style of popular artists by using their work, often including work that was behind a paywall and taken without payment, thus denying the artists revenue. AI has taken something from the artist, and cost the artist money. Until such a time as we come up with a new word for this new crime, we'll call it by the closest equivalent: theft.
Also, someone did an experiment and typed "movie screenshot" into an AI and it came back with a nearly identical image from Endgame. Not transformative enough to be anything but copyright infringement.
You can't break a sand pit. You can try, but all you'll do is throw sand around, and then you won't have a sand pit to play around in. Plus, you'll just piss people off with all the sand you've been throwing. I hear it gets everywhere.
Who says "very frightened"? They just say "terrified", which is surprisingly NOT what the infographic recommends! And "very perfect" is just nonsense. So is "very well-to-do", which feels like they worked backwards instead of figuring out what "very wealthy" would be.
These guys need to proofread their own work, I guess.
Susaga @ Susaga @sh.itjust.works Posts 5Comments 537Joined 2 yr. ago 
Nah, it checks out. I ran the numbers myself and I got 15.33, which is roughly 15. This, of course, assumes the age of adulthood is 21 for humans and 100 for elves, and we don't really have a reason to doubt those numbers.