Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)Q
Posts
0
Comments
832
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • At least Kanye West's lack of awareness stems from him refusing to take medication to stabilize himself (on top of being a petty bitch who'll die on any hill he's standing on, even if he found himself there unintentionally).

    Taylor Swift is just milquetoast, "I don't understand why the poors are complaining" rich apparently.

  • Holy fuck, yeah, she's near 40. I'm near 40.

    This reframing has destabilised me.

  • That's because you're still poor enough to be acquainted with the idea of paying for things. When you're rich enough, you just acquire things with the assumption that someone who works for you will do the nerdshit fix the numbers so people won't bother you later by asking for more (or any) payment.

  • But that reads like families in Israel and Palestine suffered equally. Clearly they did not.

  • I'm presuming that the "scare" is that you didn't give it location perms? Although that looks like Snapchat, which I remember having location perms.

  • This isn't new. People keep asking celebrities about things they have no expertise on, and politicians have been more celebrity than political servant for a long time it seems.

    I don't care about Ariana Grande's opinion on the Trump administration insofar as learning whether or not she's a fascist and I don't care what kind of music my governor thinks slaps during halftime.

  • squints

    Jump
  • Dat's caked up heels

  • The latest aid flotilla to Palestine that she was taking part in was abducted by Israeli forces in international waters. I've seen various comments on her treatment by those Israeli forces but none of them were humane, spanning from forcing her and other victims to sleep in pest-infested conditions to actual physical assault.

  • I imagine they're expecting some beautiful moment where she messages back "Thank you for allowing me to see my dad again! This is so beautiful and you're a saint for doing this for me!"

    An astounding amount of people are incapable of processing context. And are likely just layering vaguely similar events of people appreciating artistic renditions of the deceased without understanding how profoundly they screwed the pooch.

  • Yeah but what about the remaining 94 to 83% of regular people who rightly judged their ability to judo-chop a bear to death? Or does having the self-awareness to know you probably can't win against a bear make you abnormal? I didn't miss the point, I scaled the challenge. Because a bear is much less threatening and dangerous than a 20 ft giant.

    Listing that stat is just assuming that adventurers are mainly pulled from the 6% group who, once they get their hand on a bit more power, would try something even dumber. I don't think that is reasonable.

    And the backgrounds in most RPGs are so varied that you can't map it on to any amount of training. A background as a soldier might mean you spent years fighting and then you start as a level 1 fighter, so it took you decades to reach level 2. Or you could be a farmhand and then, after a couple weeks of travel later, you're now a level 2 sorcerer. A year of serious BJJ training is rather generous.

  • Wasn't familiar with "Touch of Death"; I don't play clerics often. But it's just a smite.

    Assuming average HP on level up and +3 CON mod: Barb: 25; Fighter: 22; Cleric: 19.

    And Touch of Death does +9 damage at level 2.

    I'm only breaking out numbers to get a better idea of what the users of the ability would be seeing, and what level of lethality they would come to expect from repeated usage. And that's not killing anyone with a touch except commoners, and level 1 wizards and sorcerers.

    My only point is: people who have had to risk their life to even get to level 2 (unless they're reckless or an idiot) probably wouldn't have an overly big head over middling magical abilities. They might be feeling themselves and think they can fight a group of thugs at 4 to 1 odds but it's bonkers to pretend a normal adventurer would need some ex machina explanation to warn them off fighting something like a giant or a dragon at level 2.

  • Again, if you want to play a character that doesn't think well, that's fine. But 6% (or even 17%) is not a majority of people and when a person sees something taller than most houses looming over them, I assume the average person would correctly adjust their chances of success.

    This is about the need for a GM to establish for PCs that they can't engage a giant in combat. Most people don't do a year of BJJ and think they and 3 mates can wrestle down an elephant. I just have a higher opinion of people's self-preservation instincts, especially when they haven't been as far removed from nature as most people on the internet are. People used to be afraid of forests and the wilds, and I think that level of society is closer to RPGs than we are.

  • Yeah, but you're not that at level 2.

  • Kinda hard to stay fat when you're on the move all the time, both marching around and fighting for your life. It'd take a conscious effort to overeat (and/or a relatively sedentary work situation) to stay fat.

  • If you're playing a character that foolhardy to see a creature anywhere from 2x to 10x their size and think tbey can fight it, then let them die. It's not metagaming to see something large and make the reasonable assumption that it could crush you.

    Can you beat an orca in a fight? How can you assume that without metagame knowledge of its stats?

    Edit: quite a few people have very low opinions of a reasonable person's self-preservation instincts. Or assume every PC is the type of internet person that says they could fight a lion mano-a-mano.

  • Potential partners don't have to be rapists or murderers to be worth avoiding. They could have anti-social tendencies, explosive tempers, or violent reactions. Or, just be generally unpleasant. Like you.

    I wouldn't have discovered I'm not much a fan of you, if I hadn't made an innocuous comment about not holding it against women if they do a single smoke test for bad actors. We might have otherwise been buddy-buddy, with years of casual friendship, before something else triggered this, or a similar, conversation. And then, months or years down the road, I'd have to grapple with whether the friendship is salvageable. Because I don't think shrugging at women who have to play russian roulette for love is very cool.

    But, as I said, I'm lucky. I can say we're done here, right now.

  • It's so on the nose, it almost feels like bait.

  • That is so utterly devoid of empathy that I have nothing left to say to you.

  • It might seem like a game to you but that's someone's life.

    Do you have an alternative for how they should determine if a potential partner is a danger? Besides hiring a private detective or rolling the dice by finding out after they're invested?