Skip Navigation

Posts
7
Comments
479
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • As DM, things only happen if you let them, so you are in complete control. And roleplay is where I'm at my most brutal, so I don't think you can make a judgement call on quality based on that alone.

  • But that attack roll isn't a group attack. This is a group check. You are testing the skill of the group, and part of being stealthy as a group means making sure nobody else makes any noise as well. The group supports each other.

    Those kids are going to be shushing, watching, keeping everything stable so it doesn't wobble... Yeah, the 20 is doing well enough to catch the jar.

    If a single success is not a success, a single failure should not be a failure.

  • I'm confused what you disagree with in the second part.

  • "Oh, yeah, safety tools are an absolute must. And that's regardless of intensity. I'm pretty brutal when I'm in the zone, and I've hurt people to the brink of tears time and time again, but I always check in to make sure they're okay with that. And the same goes with something gentler. Remember, even if you're in control, it's not just about what you want."

  • So, sort of a BPBPR? Bait-Prokoved Bait-Provoked Reaction?

  • That's why the doctor needs the practise.

  • This is why my group takes the median result on a group check. That 20 should be able to make up for the 1, and the final result is a 17 (rounding down).

  • "It's really prolific. It's been accepting bribes since before it was even switched on, and seems to be creating fake evidence that it was ME accepting those bribes!"

  • What better celebration is there for Trump's America than locking people in cages?

  • This was very clearly a "this got axed half-way through the story I planned" ending. You could feel them getting more and more rushed with every chapter recently.

  • Removed Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Wikipedia is backed by nothing but donations, and the youtube video is sponsored by the stock market. If anything, wikipedia is backed by the engines of socialism.

    Did you do any research beyond watching this youtube video? Because everyone else's research seems to discredit it.

  • Removed Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • But if I compare a free and unbiased knowledge resource asking for a one-time donation and a YouTube channel backed by the engines of capitalism, which one am I going to trust?

    Even if Wikipedia doesn't need the money, they deserve it.

  • Removed Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • How much money do you give to online creators so they can do stupid shit? Surely you can give at least a fraction of that to the biggest free knowledge source in the world.

    I'm willing to trust it more than a guy with a stock broker sponsor.

  • Look, isn't there something you can do?

  • And why should I believe a liar like him?

  • The price for one week of access is 50 cents. They are charging $7 for it. They are charging the price of three and a half months for 1 week of access. Even if that's better than paying $26 for a service you only use for 1 week, it's not good.

    Okay? Read that again. Especially that last part. Now read it again. "Better does not mean good." Are you understanding that? I'm sick of saying it, so if you don't get it, just keep reading it.

    There is no option to pay 50 cents for a week and cancel it. That's a problem. You also imply there's no option to pay $2 for a month and cancel it. Which is weird for a monthly payment option.

    Now, do you want to keep explaining how economics works if you're not greedy and stupid in the naive belief that Wapo execs aren't greedy and stupid? As if they aren't akin to a farmer who loses a cow, so they milk the remaining cow twice as much? Or do you want to move on with your life?

  • Yup, real soon. Aaaaaaany second now. Aaaaany second...

  • Execs know you make profit by raising income and cutting costs, and think no further than that. They will not lower income by lowering the price. You are naive if you think differently.

    The difference between 50 cents a week and $29 a year is $5 a year, or 6 cents a week. Is the lack of that $5 losing them money? Even with the data harvesting and advertising? And since the higher price is 56 cents, then it's STILL not worth $7.

    Plus, this is Jeff Bezos. He makes 2 cents per second. He is not in a position where he needs the money, nor your defence of his pricing policies.

  • I can't be the only one wanting to just push their faces together, right?