View Profile: D1Tremere - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
No Recent Activity
About D1Tremere

Basic Information

Date of Birth
November 4, 1977 (41)

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
58
Posts Per Day
0.01
Last Post
First Impressions – Guildmasters Guide to Ravnica Today 02:18 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
1
General Information
Last Activity
Today 02:18 AM
Join Date
Monday, 3rd March, 2008
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
No results to show...

Saturday, 19th May, 2018

  • 02:17 AM - pemerton mentioned D1Tremere in post Pathfinder 2's Armor & A Preview of the Paladin!
    D1Tremere I know nothing about you, your background, your education except what I can take from your posts. But if you want to know some prominent contemporary moral philosophers who accept the objectivity of morality on non-religious objective grounds, here are some: Onora O'Neill (Professor at Cambridge, Kantian) Frances Kamm (Professor at Harvard, Kantian) John Tasioulas (Professer at King's, Oxford-school Aristotelian) Peter Singer (Professer at Princeton and Melbourne, utilitarian whose argument for objectivity is a version of RM Hare's) Frank Jackson (Professer at ANU, whose argument for objectivity is based on his general approach to response-dependent properties) Michael Smith (Professor at Princeton, a student of Jackson who runs a similar sort of argument for moral objectivity) These are just the first six people I thought of. (Seven if you include Hare.) I could mention Pettit, or Estlund (I'm pretty sure he's an objectivist) or Michael Moore and Heidi Hurd...

No results to display...
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tuesday, 13th November, 2018

  • 04:28 AM - Jester David quoted D1Tremere in post First Impressions – Guildmasters Guide to Ravnica
    The world colloquially known as "Nerath" was never fleshed out more the Nentir Vale in any great detail. The first of the Known World Gazetteers only covered Karameikos. The current Wayfarer's Guide to Eberron really only gives any detail about Sharn, while every other area gets between a paragraph to a page of info tops. While some setting books take a macro-cosmic view of everything, some, like these ad GGtR, prefer a micro-cosmic view; a single ward and the major players in it vs the whole world/plane. Sometimes, its worth detailing one small part fuller than giving a shallow overview of a millions things. The point of Nerath was for you to invent your own details. It was a starting point. The Known World wasn’t a planned setting so much as an assemblage of areas seen in adventures. And while the first only covered Karameikos, they planned more from the start. Wayfarer’s Guide to Eberron works as a player’s guide because you can get a dozen other past Eberron books on PDF. I ...
  • 04:00 AM - gyor quoted D1Tremere in post First Impressions – Guildmasters Guide to Ravnica
    I could be wrong, but I think the intention of this book is to set the stage for a guild campaign in Ravnica, not provide an entire history lesson, as was the case with 2e and 3e campaign setting books. I have nothing against the way that campaign products used to be marketed and structured, but 5e is not the same. There will likely be more books containing adventures in Ravnica (if the existing line is any indication), and they will likely flesh it out a bit more, but I think the main thing they wanted to do in 5e was to allow DMs and players to slide into campaign worlds, instead of immersing them in decades of accumulated minutia. If they do not give details for things in a 5e book, it is usually because they are leaving space for DMs to fill in the blanks as need be. A less is more kind of approach in keeping with 5e being more centered around acting out scenes against backdrops. The Art of Magic the Gathering: Ravnica as well as the novels and short stories might help fill in the lore i...

Monday, 5th November, 2018

  • 10:35 PM - Henry quoted D1Tremere in post More Details About RPGSports Emerge
    There can be, almost by definition, no such thing as RPGSports. If everyone was actually roll playing a character involved in a fictional sport, sure. But we are talking about real competitive players using an RPGs rules system to run through the mechanics of a competitive scenario. Who has time for character development when you are payed to pwn noobz and make inappropriate social media posts? And yet, here we are, "No True Scotsman"-ing our way through this very circumstance, people playing an RPG in a way different from what others think it SHOULD be played, because "it can't be done and still be called that thing." People used to play the old RPGA for points, and still roleplayed just fine through it, and people still currently play in organized play like Pathfinder Society. Although there are plenty of people in the "Stop talking to my experience points" crowd (as the Happy Jack's podcasters call them), there are plenty who aren't, as well. Rather than saying it's impossible to do ...
  • 06:15 PM - gyor quoted D1Tremere in post WotC President Chris Cocks Talks Magic and D&D
    I don't mind the MtG crossover book (though I would have preferred Eberron get a full 5e treatment, or many other settings). What does concern me (much like the competitive D&D noise) is the possibility of diluting or destroying the thing I enjoy in order to milk more money from a larger and more generic base. MtG is a game where people compete against each other using characters and lore that are usually incidental to the game being played. The player takes on the role of a powerful Plainswalker (though not really, as there is nothing in MtG that encourages role playing). In D&D, even level 20 characters would be hard pressed to do what a MtG player can do, so I am not sure how or why the two should be mixed. The lore in MtG was an afterthought to competitive mechanics that has become larger in order to sell tie in novels and other generic merch. I like MtG, I played tournament level Magic for years, but I have never felt the desire to mix it with my role playing groups games. Premending...
  • 05:41 PM - Parmandur quoted D1Tremere in post WotC President Chris Cocks Talks Magic and D&D
    I don't mind the MtG crossover book (though I would have preferred Eberron get a full 5e treatment, or many other settings). What does concern me (much like the competitive D&D noise) is the possibility of diluting or destroying the thing I enjoy in order to milk more money from a larger and more generic base. MtG is a game where people compete against each other using characters and lore that are usually incidental to the game being played. The player takes on the role of a powerful Plainswalker (though not really, as there is nothing in MtG that encourages role playing). In D&D, even level 20 characters would be hard pressed to do what a MtG player can do, so I am not sure how or why the two should be mixed. The lore in MtG was an afterthought to competitive mechanics that has become larger in order to sell tie in novels and other generic merch. I like MtG, I played tournament level Magic for years, but I have never felt the desire to mix it with my role playing groups games. The PCs wou...

Saturday, 6th October, 2018

  • 05:42 AM - pickin_grinnin quoted D1Tremere in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    t is perfectly reasonable to like 3.5 or any other system, and people can do so without being jerks. The problem is that as the rules try to account for every possible scenario in order to make games more homogeneous from one table to another, they begin to select for players who approach the rules as immutable law. This type of selection favors min/maxing, rules lawyering, and a heavy meta game focus on right vs wrong ways to do things. Even this is not really a problem if that is how everyone in the group enjoys their experience, but it can create players who are ill prepared for games that do not function to such specifications. It encourages a competitive approach instead of a cooperative approach from some players. Yes, exactly! I started playing and GMing D&D way back in the Holmes boxed set era. There have been a lot of changes to D&D over time that go beyond simple differences between the rules in various editions. Back when I started, the basic rules were very minimal (and sometimes...

Friday, 5th October, 2018

  • 08:23 PM - Satyrn quoted D1Tremere in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    To be fair, his original definition of obnoxious players is never really given. In this case he seems to be referring to competitive or mechanically inclined players. I think he's referring to the kind of player who finds a ridiculous exploit in the rules (like the Whirlwind Attack/Great Cleave/bag-of-rats combo) and insists upon using it the game because "it's in the rules."

Sunday, 23rd September, 2018

  • 02:48 AM - pemerton quoted D1Tremere in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    If there are not a million different mechanics for Barbarian builds then perhaps the difference becomes who the this particular Barbarian is instead of what it can do differently.In the mid-90s Chris Kubasik wrote this in his Interactive Toolkit: Characters drive the narrative of all stories. However, many people mistake character for characterization. Characterization is the look of a character, the description of his voice, the quirks of habit. Characterization creates the concrete detail of a character through the use of sensory detail and exposition. By “seeing” how a character looks, how he picks up his wine glass, by knowing he has a love of fine tobacco, the character becomes concrete to our imagination, even while remaining nothing more than black ink upon a white page. But a person thus described is not a character. A character must do. Character is action. I'm with Kubasik. I don't see the contrast between who and what. You know who a barbarian is because you know what ...

Saturday, 22nd September, 2018

  • 08:31 PM - Charlaquin quoted D1Tremere in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    "DM-empowering and options-light" I disagree with this statement. Not having a specific rule for everything under the sun is rules light, not options light. An empowered DM and rules that allow for creative engagement means more options to me, not less. Sure, whatever term you want to use for it is fine. Point is, not having a rule for everything under the sun is empowering to the DM, and the part of 5e I like. An emphasis on who the character is, as opposed to the minutia of combat mechanics, means you can create highly fun and original characters instead of optimal, suboptimal, or broken build variants. But having lots of decision points in the character building process does not preclude the possibility of emphasizing who the character is. I want the emphasis to be on who the character is. But I want my choices about who the character is to be reflected in the mechanics. I don’t just want to describe my character doing different things, I want actual different options of things for my chara...

Sunday, 15th July, 2018

  • 01:52 AM - Charlaquin quoted D1Tremere in post THIS Is The Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook!
    It seems a lot thinner than the previous Pathfinder core rulebook book. I wonder if this is because or rules reduction or less art? Either way, slightly concerning for a time serving as DM, Player, and monster guide. That said, I'm still excited to get my hands on it soon. Have you considered it could be a similar amount of content presented more efficiently?
  • 01:49 AM - Staffan quoted D1Tremere in post THIS Is The Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook!
    It seems a lot thinner than the previous Pathfinder core rulebook book. I wonder if this is because or rules reduction or less art? Either way, slightly concerning for a time serving as DM, Player, and monster guide. That said, I'm still excited to get my hands on it soon. To my knowledge, it is not intended to serve as a monster guide - that'll be a separate document. And I went and dug up my old Pathfinder beta PDF - it was 410 pages long, including two pages for the front and back cover, compared to the 578 pages (again including cover) it turned to when actually published. I'm guessing there are two main reasons for the shorter length of the playtest book: less art, and less to no "handholding" texts (how to design encounters and such).

Friday, 13th July, 2018

  • 04:38 PM - houser2112 quoted D1Tremere in post THIS Is The Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook!
    It seems a lot thinner than the previous Pathfinder core rulebook book. I wonder if this is because or rules reduction or less art? Either way, slightly concerning for a time serving as DM, Player, and monster guide. That said, I'm still excited to get my hands on it soon. It's just a playtest document in book form. It's not intended to be anywhere close to the equivalent of the PF1 CRB.

Friday, 8th June, 2018

  • 03:53 PM - jayoungr quoted D1Tremere in post Who Was at Fault?
    If one or more people didn't like the way events transpired, that is a great opportunity to communicate with each other so that things go more smoothly in future. This was done; what do you think of the GM's response to concerns being expressed? Do you think Player B should also have spoken to Player A?

Monday, 21st May, 2018

  • 07:15 AM - pemerton quoted D1Tremere in post Pathfinder 2's Armor & A Preview of the Paladin!
    Singer says, for example "I must, if I am thinking ethically, imagine myself in the situation of all those affected by my action (with the preferences that they have). I must consider the interests of my enemies as well as my friends, and of strangers as well as family. Only if, after taking fully into account the interests and preferences of all these people, I still think the action is better than any alternative open to me, can I genuinely say that I ought to do it. At the same time I must not ignore the long-term effects of fostering family ties, of establishing and promoting reciprocal relationships, and of allowing wrongdoers to benefit from their wrong doing." That is a reasonable code, but hardly objective.Singer doesn't just assert it. He offers reasons.
  • 07:01 AM - pemerton quoted D1Tremere in post Pathfinder 2's Armor & A Preview of the Paladin!
    Science works by disproving a hypothesis. You create a test for the hypothesis, and if it passes then it is reinforced. If it fails, then it is rejected, and you modify your hypothesis or start over. A mathematical fact is only as true as our ability to test it empirically. Until then it could always be something other than we believe it to be. Just look at the switching of scientific paradigms in physics. Every one of these claims is controversial. There are plenty of philosophers of science who don't agree with Popper about the role of falsification in science. One reason is because it is hard to see any connection between testing and "reinforcing" on a falsification approach! (And Popper himself didn't use the notion of "reinforcing" as he is an induction sceptic.) Your claims about mathematics are controversial too. Quine believes some version of them. Dummett doesn't. Frege doesn't. Wittgenstein doesn't. That physics should be understood on a paradigm model is controversial. And that ...

Sunday, 20th May, 2018

  • 12:59 AM - TheCosmicKid quoted D1Tremere in post Pathfinder 2's Armor & A Preview of the Paladin!
    You make a fair point. If I am willing to accept a definition of Objective that includes logical evidence then it is so. That said, most of the definition elements of the word objective, and all of the definition elements I must adhere to as a scientist, focus on the "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers" aspect.This definition seems problematically narrow. Is the irrationality of the square root of 2 an objective fact? I would say yes, obviously it is, anybody.can run the mathematical proof and see that it must be true. That it is an abstract proposition, outside of empical experience and imperceptible with our senses does not impede its objectivity. Indeed, it enhances it. A mathematical fact is a universal truth in a way no empirical fact can hope to be. Making a subjective decision that a clause must be logically consistent...Wait, what? Logical consistency is...

Saturday, 19th May, 2018

  • 10:32 PM - TheCosmicKid quoted D1Tremere in post Pathfinder 2's Armor & A Preview of the Paladin!
    To be clear, my point is that none of them have ever used any evidence to support their positions.Just because you don't accept the evidence doesn't mean they're not using it. To take a simple example, Kant's argument is, roughly, a proof by contradiction: if he can show that "It is not the case that P is the right thing to do" is self-contradictory for some P, then it follows that "P is the right thing to do" is true. This is logical evidence. Proof by contradiction has been used to establish many, many facts in philosophy, mathematics, and the theoretical sciences, going back to Pythagoras. The question is whether Kant's particular proof by contradiction is sound. His opponents argue that there are various problems in the logic which make it break down. They may be right. You obviously believe they are. And that's fine. But it's still a debate. Kant offered evidence, the other guys rebutted it. If you don't like evidence of such an abstract nature as a proof by contradiction, well, first of a...
  • 07:28 AM - TheCosmicKid quoted D1Tremere in post Pathfinder 2's Armor & A Preview of the Paladin!
    Maybe my question wasn't clear. If you believe there is true debate, maybe you are correct. All I ask is that you provide one example of morality that is objective. Can you? You now have twelve. I have no idea what else you're asking for. Is twelve simply too many? Okay, let's narrow it down at random to, say, Peter Singer. You can, if you wish, go to Princeton right now and challenge him to a formal debate on the objectivity of morality. He's a busy guy, but if he has the time and inclination he might accept. He will enthusiastically defend the affirmative position, and he is vanishingly unlikely to mention a deity in doing so. Ergo, the question is debated in contemporary secular moral philosophy. Ergo, when you said it wasn't, that claim was factually incorrect. Q.E.D.
  • 02:21 AM - pemerton quoted D1Tremere in post Pathfinder 2's Armor & A Preview of the Paladin!
    I am not aware of any evidence for an Objective criteria of ethics.Kant purports to deduce it from the general notion of a universal maxim. RM Hare runs a similar argument (though to utilitarian rather than deontological conclusions). I'm not going to actually run through the arguments - Kant's can be found summarised in any introductory text on moral philosophy, and Hare's argument is readily found also.
  • 01:26 AM - TheCosmicKid quoted D1Tremere in post Pathfinder 2's Armor & A Preview of the Paladin!
    Then enlighten me. Give me one example of objective morality. I gave you six names to look into. I think pemerton mentioned a couple more. You yourself brought up Kant. You don't have to agree with them -- they certainly don't all agree with each other -- but if you want to be a meaningful part of this metaethical conversation, you do have to take them seriously. I can assure you, the professional philosophers who argue against them do. If you tried this "there is no debate" line on any of them, I can only imagine you would get the same response you've gotten from me and pemerton.


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

D1Tremere's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites