Search results

No. You are 100% wrong. You could, and I did. There is zero percent chance I am misremembering this. I played it day one. I shot it from a distance. I played it one other time, a year later. I also shot it from a distance. I never played it again until launch. I never dealt with it any other way...

This is factually incorrect. I was a day EA player and I very distinctly remember the first time I encountered this. The fishers around it were mind controlled to clear away rubble and dig it out, which is a very clear reason. You could absolutely just shoot the thing in the face with your bow...

This is the "my uncle is a good cop, though" of answers. Of course his stories are that he's a good person. What a meaningless metric. Well, I'll see your anecdote, and match it with one of mine. There was a guy in my friend group in high school that was a colossal asshat who constantly started...

lol... chat bots have been passing the Turing Test for decades. We still don't have anything like actual AI. We're not even heading in that direction in any real or meaningful sense. The success of crappy trend-copying algorithms we have now and pretend are making art (success at making tech...

This is a study of literal children. If your assertion is that you never get better at basic arithmetic after the age of nine... well, you're the reason I made the comment you responded to, and I sincerely hope you get the version of D&D that doesn't require you to take off your shoes that you...

1) This was true long before pdfs were invented, to the point that in the 90s, they more or less openly admitted that their published adventures were written to be read, not played. (And they don't admit it now, but I rather strongly feel like it's still true, otherwise a lot of the glaring...

I wish I could argue against this... but we are operating in a hobby where even people who are deeply invested, have been playing for a long time, and play in multiple widely divergent systems can say with a straight face "subtraction is significantly more difficult than addition" and everyone...

This is equally true of D&D. People don't talk about it a lot, but the simple fact is that huge numbers of ttRPG books literally never see play. The further you get from core "PHB" style books, the more true this becomes. The majority adventure module type books sold are never played, only read...

"Bounded accuracy" is marketing speak for "the numbers are lower than other 3e clones." That's it. Pretending it's an actual design paradigm is hilarious. The phrase exists as an excuse for the lower numbers to try to mollify the 3e fans they were trying to lure back.

People are quibbling over the semantics, but it's very clearly a new thing, and "evergreen, 5e is the final edition" is a hilarious lie. Based on what we've seen so far, the scale of changes are pretty fairly analogous to the 3/3.5 transition, and we can reasonably expect to see more or less the...

I was directly and explicitly responding to the assertion that the budget of a film determined whether or not it was an independent film. I made no other claims, and would appreciate them not being ascribed to me as if I said something ridiculous, thank you.

It could be the most expensive film ever made, past, present, and future, and it would still count as indie if it was made independently of the studio system.

I 100% agree that martials should get scaling at-will cantrip-like attacks. This is a great idea that should go right next to other popular adjustments to the game such as making short rests actually short, scaling your bad saves so you don't just fail automatically in the upper tiers, and...

I mean, your last point is correct, but the rules have actually been clear about this since the beginning. AD&D1 specifically called out the alignment listings as a "bent" that was modified by specific intent. And AD&D2 said that it was only describing the average individual and that you could...

The icing on the cake when it comes to them whining about orc alignments is that orcs have never been fundamentally evil in D&D anyway. That's not a even a thing. But, you know, since when have D&D players ever actually read the rules very much?

Disentangling someone from any plot is a trivial exercise. What would you do if the character suddenly died? You're playing Vampire, so it's pretty safe to assume that's on the table. The Word of Darkness is a dangerous place, after all, and literally every vampire has entire organizations out...

The logic is still the same for a dead person, and in fact, still applies even more to them. It no longer affects Granny who gets her necklace after she's dead in a much more profound way than anything to do with Bob and his character. Unlike Bob, you can be 100% certain that she'll never come...

Your disagreement with me is a semantic one over the definition of an NPC, and not a substantial one over who has ownership and control over a formerly adventuring PC who retires from adventuring. Your last sentence indicates a substantial confusion over that, since I literally and explicitly...

It's not even a slope. It's literally the same argument. If you don't hold the same "They're not here, so why should I care about their wishes?" stance in regards to everyone who isn't there, then it was not an actual description of your reasoning, it was just a justification you threw down...

Obviously, there's often a difference between what you can do and what you should do. You can do all kinds of things that no one could stop you from doing. Lots of them are still dick moves. For example, if you ever find yourself saying "Why should your wishes be honored..." it might be worth it...