WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Exactly. It gives you a choice as the default.

Yep. In that isolated instance, yes. Now pick a fighter and try playing a special move other than the default moves it gives you. 5e is like that, too. The default for rolling characters is array or rolling. You get a choice by default.


Okay, so you CAN have a choice as the default. You agree with that being possible. Why then did you respond that I was wrong in this instance? To remind you of the conversation you butted in on.


The default can "choose one of these". That is still a default.
Not quite. A default is what you fall back to if you don't want to choose or can't be bothered to. If there's a "choice of defaults" that's not a default, as it still forces you to choose.
The default can be a choice. A default is not "what you do when you don't want to choose" it is "the standard or baseline"

And you focused on me saying, A default is not "what you do when you don't want to choose", which again, look up, was Lanefan's position. That a default CANNOT include a choice. If there is a choice, then there is no default because you must choose. And then, responding to "A default is not "what you do when you don't want to choose""
That's literally what a default is. A default is what happens unless you choose something else.

So, you were either agreeing with Lanefan that a defaul cannot include a choice, in which case you just backtracked and 180'd since you just said a default CAN be a choice... or you YET AGAIN jumped into a conversation to reply to me, without understand the context of the discussion. Because where you started trying to prove my position wrong, it turns out you support my position.

You have no such choice with the planes. The default is all of them unless you change the default.

Why is it impossible that we could rewrite the DMG to give a choice of the planes? Why is that not an option, because again in my journey to teach you about the conversation you are participating in, this idea of choosing a different cosmology STARTED with this conversation. Bolding so you can follow along:

If we are going to claim that all Cosmologies are equally valid and equally supported, then I'd like to see at least one other cosmology detailed and supported in the DMG. Right now, there is one cosmology that is treated as true, and a few names thrown out to make it seem like the others actually exist.

So, to translate for you. I was talking about rewriting the DMG, to change what it says, in comparison to what it currently does. So telling me that there is no choice with the planes means that you are either saying that while it is possible to have a default with choices, it is impossible to do so with the planes. Or, not understanding the conversation, you are once more trying to insist that I can't change things because the current books states... which completely ignores the fact I was talking about the NEXT book, which isn't this book.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

So, to translate for you. I was talking about rewriting the DMG, to change what it says, in comparison to what it currently does. So telling me that there is no choice with the planes means that you are either saying that while it is possible to have a default with choices, it is impossible to do so with the planes. Or, not understanding the conversation, you are once more trying to insist that I can't change things because the current books states... which completely ignores the fact I was talking about the NEXT book, which isn't this book.
The next DMG will still probably only bother detailing one cosmology, though who's to say whether that cosmology will be the same as the current one.

To put in more than one, in enough detail to make doing so worthwhile, would either make the book too big or cause something else important to lose page-count.
 

Yes, THE standard or baseline. As in, one.

One Choice is still singular. There is no contradiction here.

For most of those, it's in terms of how to run adventures in/with them; and handwaves at best at how to design them. Religions and governments are the only aspects they touch that involve actual worldbuilding.

A decent worldbuilding guide would have, at the barest minimum, the following (though in a more coherent sequence!):

--- tips, tricks, and how-to's on designing and drawing maps; and what to do with blanks spaces (leave 'em blank!)

This is not part of the bare minimum. You do not need to know how to draw or design a map to worldbuild.

--- a brief primer on medieval social geography e.g. how frequent are villages and why, the frequency and spacing of larger towns/cities, etc.

This could be useful... if you are building a medieval world. What if you aren't? Medieval Social Geography doesn't really apply to Athas or Eberron after all.

--- some ideas on species distribution e.g. a completely mixed society or each species has its own discrete enclaves or a mix of these
--- a guide to different governmental and-or social structures (including the bad ones!)

Governments and social strcutures? Sure, a list of those could be nice. Species distribution? Less certain that's really something needed. That could easily be handled under different social structures.

--- something about food and agriculture in terms of how much land is needed to feed how many people
--- a maybe-not-so-brief primer on weather and climate, with tips and ideas on how different world designs would alter the weather there (e.g. what if the polar axis is vertical thus there are no seasons as we know them)
--- a piece on setting astronomy and what differences would arise if the world had, say, multiple moons or two suns or was a binary planet
--- corollary to this, a guide to how tides and currents would work under different astronomies; essential if the party ever goes to sea or adventures on a coastline
--- a rough guide to ecology; just how many monsters can coexist in a given area, how do-can they interrelate, etc.
--- a rough guide to setting biology; just how are all these monsters created

For Minimums? No. I'm not saying I've never done research on this, but you are basically saying "give me parts of a biology textbook, climatology textbook, astronomy textbook, agriculture textbook" I mean, you want specific tidal information just in case people go to the beach? This is all useful information, but it is far too comprehensive to be considered "the basics". This is advanced stuff.

--- a deep dive into how to create a coherent, if brief, history of how things came to be the way they are today

You realize this is like... an entire book on its own, right? This is a full "how to write alternative histories" writing book. Inside of everything else? Again, this is WAAAAY beyond the minimums.

--- thoughts on how-if your world will or could connect to other worlds/planes
--- a deep dive into cosmology; what other planes are out there, what is their function, who lives there, etc. and how those planes all relate to each other

How, when you make this insane claim below.

Note what's glaringly missing from that list: religion and deities. Those need their own separate book, in tandem with this one.

Wut? How do you expect to build a proper world with a proper history without religion? You want to talk about the outer planes of the gods... without talking about the gods?

And you want it to be a completely different book than the world-building book?

I'm sorry to tell you Lanefan, but you don't want a book, or even two. You want a series of books, likely around five at a minimum. And that is insane for a beginner. The way the DMG handles it, even if not perfect, is leagues better than this idea.
 

The next DMG will still probably only bother detailing one cosmology, though who's to say whether that cosmology will be the same as the current one.

To put in more than one, in enough detail to make doing so worthwhile, would either make the book too big or cause something else important to lose page-count.

I suspect what you mean by "enough detail to make doing so worthwhile" is far more detail than I would ever consider necessary for an overview.
 

He did not. He was no longer with xcom when Confinity/xcom started doing business as PayPal (2001) and when it had its public offering (2002). He had very little to do with the company's success.

He absolutely did turn it into a billion dollar company. Paypal was bought by Ebay for $1.5B and Musk was the largest shareholder with over $160M in holdings when that happened and most of that value was established before he stepped down as CEO.

Edit: You may be right about this. Many sources disagree with each other on this point.

Because it depends on the value of the stock the day you look at it.

As I type this Tesla Market cap is $504 Billion, which I am fairly certain is the highest value car company in the world right now. At its peak in November 2021 Tesla had a Market cap of $1.2 Trillion which is more valuable than any publicly traded car company in history has ever been.

You might not like Musk but nothing at all in that history would suggest WOTC would "crash and burn" if he took over. That may be difficult for some to swallow but it is undeniably true.
 
Last edited:

Mod Note:
The default is that red text is telling you to stop engaging in some behavior that's going badly.

If you're not gonna budge, folks, spare the rest of us watching you wrangle over it. Thanks.
 

Because it depends on the value of the stock the day you look at it.

As I type this Tesla Market cap is $504 Billion, which I am fairly certain is the highest value car company in the world right now. At its peak in November 2021 Tesla had a Market cap of $1.2 Trillion which is more valuable than any publicly traded car company in history has ever been.

You might not like Musk but nothing at all in that history would suggest WOTC would "crash and burn" if he took over. That may be difficult for some to swallow but it is undeniably true.
I think the history strongly suggests that Tesla and SpaceX function mostly despite him. Twitter shows what happens when the company doesn't have dedicated and trained staff specifically keeping him out of trouble and making sure he's presented with options framed so he'll pick the one the competent people picked. Before he started on it, Twitter had made money in the past and was not currently profitable, but had a very survivable rate of losses, and was on track to be profitable again by next year sometime. In the process of buying it, he added a billion dollars a year in interest payments, and has since systematically torched his relationships with advertisers, very publically and loudly made a number of decisions catastrophically bad enough that he had to reverse them almost immediately, broken a large number of laws or agreements with governmental agencies, and created the most spectacular pool of labor lawsuits I've ever seen. I would consider that crashing and burning.

It's true that Tesla stock is priced unusually high, but I don't think that reflects realistic expectations for the company's potential; he's great at delivering lots of cool-sounding hype and getting people really psyched about it, but nothing suggests it's ever going to actually deliver on the promised products. People are doubtless quite excited about the Tesla semi, but the actual truck drivers who would have to want to use it for it to be a viable product are absolutely horrified by how little it matches their actual requirements.

He hasn't been shown to be any good at running actual businesses that have a business model, as opposed to selling hype and dreams. WotC is well-established. Showing up and announcing that he intends to be the primary seller of card games on Mars isn't going to get people thinking the company is worth 20x as much as companies that sell 10x as much product as it does.
 


I think the history strongly suggests that Tesla and SpaceX function mostly despite him. Twitter shows what happens when the company doesn't have dedicated and trained staff specifically keeping him out of trouble and making sure he's presented with options framed so he'll pick the one the competent people picked. Before he started on it, Twitter had made money in the past and was not currently profitable, but had a very survivable rate of losses, and was on track to be profitable again by next year sometime. In the process of buying it, he added a billion dollars a year in interest payments, and has since systematically torched his relationships with advertisers, very publically and loudly made a number of decisions catastrophically bad enough that he had to reverse them almost immediately, broken a large number of laws or agreements with governmental agencies, and created the most spectacular pool of labor lawsuits I've ever seen. I would consider that crashing and burning.

It's true that Tesla stock is priced unusually high, but I don't think that reflects realistic expectations for the company's potential; he's great at delivering lots of cool-sounding hype and getting people really psyched about it, but nothing suggests it's ever going to actually deliver on the promised products. People are doubtless quite excited about the Tesla semi, but the actual truck drivers who would have to want to use it for it to be a viable product are absolutely horrified by how little it matches their actual requirements.

He hasn't been shown to be any good at running actual businesses that have a business model, as opposed to selling hype and dreams. WotC is well-established. Showing up and announcing that he intends to be the primary seller of card games on Mars isn't going to get people thinking the company is worth 20x as much as companies that sell 10x as much product as it does.

He's basically a huckster crossed with a cult leader.

EDIT:
Maybe WotC needs a Keith Ranier?
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top