Crawford won't answer my calls.
Ahdok @ ahdok @ttrpg.network Posts 124Comments 857Joined 2 yr. ago
Ahdok @ ahdok @ttrpg.network
Posts
124
Comments
857
Joined
2 yr. ago
I think the illusory duplicates made by the magic are designed to "move around in your space" to make it hard to tell which one is actually you - the purpose of the spell is to make you harder to hit, so it's behaviour probably works to let that happen. It'd also be very difficult to get away with it in a social setting because you have to cast the spell first, it makes four duplicates, and they don't last that long...
Now on the other hand... Trickery Cleric "invoke duplicity" allows you to control the movements of the duplicate (which is incorporeal), so it might be possible to hide it inside you if you were really practiced. Konsi sometimes summons it in her exact position while standing still, then uses her second channel divinity slot to turn invisible and run away.
It'll only give you cover for a moment, but if they're doing some sort of "check every visitor for vampirism" check on the door, it might get you past.
I'll make a nice transparancied version and post it :)
Yeah, she has a few goblinoid features, larger ears, lack of pronounced tusky teeth. She's taller and prettier than most goblins (4ft) because she's free of Maglubiyet's hold, which twists and corrupts his servants.
I think the idea of the initial post is that, when presenting someone with a "guide" for running a game, you kind of expect someone to have read the whole thing at least once, and then use it for reference.
With the case of the 5e DMG, it actually has quite a lot of good advice in it, but most people running games haven't read it fully... You constantly see complaints about 5e saying "there's no advice for (x)" where the advice is just in the DMG
If you want the best rules to base a videogame on, I'd probably recommend you look at 4th edition.
4th edition rules are, largely, designed around running a systematic, balanced, combat simulation - most of the rules are deterministic and leave little ambiguity, or room for interpretation.
Most other editions of DnD have... more freeform rules, in places they read as guidelines for running a game, or they are ambiguous, or leave it up to the DM to decide how to run that particular thing. They're more conducive to roleplay but much less useful if you're trying to adapt them for a computer to run.
When I first picked up the Nobilis RPG, I read it cover-to-cover, the margins were always crammed full of stories and examples that really helped develop the setting and ideas and contextualize everything. I think the majority of RPGs that I've picked up have been read back to front... because what else are you going to do on your first pass?
I'll definitely agree that it's good to have books that work as decent reference manuals, especially for rules heavy games... but... have you tried to use the indexes in the 5e books - the PHB index is an experience and a half.
It's true. The fastball special is all about positioning, and closing the gap.
This is why you polymorph the fastball into something small and fuzzy first.
The main thrust of my argument is simply, and throughout, has been this:
In the last 50 years, "worker productivity" has increased dramatically. compensation has not. The increased wealth that we are all generating is not making our lives better - it's going into the pockets of billionaires.
As you put it "the real median wage has not changed since 1980". As you showed with the graph you posted, the increased wealth that is being generated is increasingly going to the wealthiest people. This is all the data we need to support my argument, and they're both claims you have made.
The "improved living conditions" from better technology and industrial processes do not REQUIRE us to be giving all the extra wealth we're generating to the wealthiest people. These would still exist if we were taxing billionaires and large companies more, enforcing better wages for regular people, and investing that wealth into social programs.
It shows extreme confidence to draw that many horses... One of the three impossible artist feats.
While it's true that new inventions do make people's lives materially better, the point that's being missed is... this is an inevitable consequence of the development of society, we'd have these new inventions regardless of our economic systems or choices of where to tax people, or economic policy. Those benefits aren't caused by the widening wealth gap, and the wealth of billionaires isn't required for new inventions to be made.
What we're talking about here, specifically, is that people are producing more wealth, but not getting wealthier. The wealth of people has "effectively stayed constant since the 1980s" but the total wealth we're creating has gone up significantly. It's certainly nice that we have more things we can spend that wealth on, but that's a distraction from the issue of where the rest of the wealth is going.
If you actually look at people's lives, "materially" and look past the inevitable march of technology, what else is happening? 70% of people are "living paycheck to paycheck"; poverty, and child poverty are massively increasing; many schools can't afford to give children textbooks; and teachers have to buy school supplies out of their own meager paychecks; the cost of healthcare is increasing, leaving many unable to afford it (or in non-USA countries, where everyone can afford healthcare, waiting lists are increasing due to poor funding); Towns are bankrupt and can't afford to repair infrastructure; the quality of most goods (clothes, houseware, and furniture especially) are decreasing to the point where they fall apart in a few years; and most public services are on the verge of collapse.
The cost of housing is so high that younger generations don't even aspire to own a home any more, the cost of higher education is so high that people expect their student debts to never be paid.
So yes, it's nice that we have Facetime and Playstations, Those things do make our lives better... but you have to consider, if the "increased productivity" of workers was going towards society and making our lives better instead of enriching billionaires, could we address some of this?
Your first argument is, again, very American-centric - yes the rate that wealth inequality is growing in the USA is less pronounced than in other places, but it was always pretty bad in the USA. The argument that "trends are similar in almost every developed country" is also a little disingenuous - it's true for the G8. In many European countries, they're actually taxing the wealthy sensibly and putting that money into public services to make everyone's lives better, the wealth gap is much smaller and the quality of life and happiness of regular people is better.
Again "a century ago" or longer doesn't matter because it's pre-industrial revolution. The total amount of "wealth to go around" was much smaller, and we were living under very different systems.
If a king or an emperor owns 50% of the wealth of a nation, and everyone else is equal, then yes, your graph will show "the top 1% have 50% of the wealth" but also your system is specifically designed to give all the money to one person. Arguing "well 100 or 200 years ago this was worse" is moot, because we're comparing different systems... Unless your point is that our current system is also designed to deprive all wealth and comfort to the masses to enrich a select few, and we should be "thankful" that it's less good at it.
We have to compare within the same system, and look for the best we can do. Unless you're specifically arguing that the wealth distribution in the 1970s is unsustainable, then that's an example of when we were capable of doing better, and it's okay to find that as something to aspire and build towards.
Lobbying your representatives for better worker protections is a joke, especially in America. Many representatives in the USA don't even hold surgeries, you can't talk to them directly. You can write them a letter, which they ignore. Rich corporations pay our representatives massive donations to their campaigns (or in other countries, they pay them via more circuitous routes), and they get the policy that benefits them.
Here's an example - Back at the start of the Trump administration, a bill was written by the house to make it legal for ISPs to sell your private information and browsing history to corporations for their own profits. A number of polling institutions went around and took some credible large-scale polls of public opinion about this. 98% of respondents opposed the bill. The legislation passed congress and is now law. Who's "lobbying" of congress matters? individuals, or Comcast?
There are a very small number of US representatives who refuse to take money from large corporations - and those, in general, seem to hold the interests of the people to heart. Before "lobbying your representatives" can work, there needs to be widespread grassroots movements to elect more of these people. Until that happens, there aren't representatives, there are rulers.
It's not inflammatory to argue for better systems. It's not a lie that while we've had a massive industrial revolution that increased the productivity of workers, those benefits have not been seen by the workers. We still work just as long, and just as hard, for an ever diminishing amount of the pie. You can say "oh but you have a fancy car" but... just look at the percentage of people who own their own home by generation. The current trends are extremely concerning and need to change.
I think this happened once in Buffy.
Fortunately, Faelys is an unreliable narrator.
There were some fairly major studies in the UK last year, across many companies and multiple industries, where they reduced the 5 day workweek to a 4 day workweek, whilst keeping the compensation of workers the same overall (i.e. salaried workers got the same salary, hourly workers got 25% more per hour)
The majority of companies involved in the study found that their workers were significantly healthier and happier after adjusting to the new schedule... and as a result significantly more "productive". Profits even went up despite the reduced working time. Most of them elected to keep with the new system once the study ended.
Obviously you can't do this with every industry, certain industries need 24/7 coverage or the like... you can't run an ER 4 days out of 7 - but the takeaway is that it'd be better to employ more people for less time and pay them well - you'll get better results than you will with an exhausted and depressed workforce
I'm not talking about the single outliers at the top, but about the "billionaire class" in general, it's a pretty modern concept. There's a reason I said "Average" and not "Richest"
Yes, if we go back to before 1900 the wealthiest people had more of the pie, but this is largely a product of the bottom of society having, essentially, nothing. 1800s societies were capable of producing enough for (most people) to survive, and there wasn't much excess "wealth" to go around. While the rich collected most of that, the difference is in the scale of "available resources." It's not a comparable system when most of your population are serfs.
I don't find it encouraging to say "oh well, this isn't unique, look it used to be like this 100 years ago!" when 100 years ago the quality of life for regular people was abysmal.
The fact that your graphs show wealth inequality steadily growing is the major concern. We had a more equitable society in the 1970s by a long shot. Our current state isn't inevitable, it's a result of the policies we've implemented. With current trends, do we want our society to return to those dynamics of the1800s? In a world where we've so much automation and wealth in the world that we could care for everyone why do people still have to work 40+ hours a week just to get by?
Funny you should say "we" and "American History" though :) Maybe the American model is the problem here.
"Worker productivity" has been going up for 50 years, but compensation hasn't been. That extra money goes into the pockets of the board and shareholders and CEOs.
80 years ago, the average CEO pay was about 20x the lowest pay in his company. Now, instead, we have billionaires.
Aw man, imagine using technology to reduce the amount of time people had to spend working, rather than making rich people more money... what a crazy world.
There's a reason I left garlic off the list ;)
I don't I can make a good case for "looking in a mirror" to use the "attack" rules. If it's an attack you'd have to make an attack roll (if you're not making an attack roll, it's not an attack.)
Likely, if there was a d20 roll involved, it'd be a perception check.