I do agree with you but have to note that this might be the most sensible use of Copilot I’ve seen so far.

“Tiefling” looks like a German word, “tief” meaning “deep”. As a matter of fact, that’s exactly where they got the name from, referring to their “lower planes” heritage. And it’s in German because, well, no idea. Maybe Sigil has a significant German minority?

The same is roughly true of games with a more broad skill system, e.g. The Dark Eye with its dozens of skills. However, those systems tend to spread out abilities between party members by making it impractical to have all skills but affordable to have some. I actually like that a lot since skills can give depth to a character and can tie in the backstory in little mechanical ways.

To construct an example party:

The warrior is, of course, a good fighter proficient in several weapons, but also has good knowledge of strategy, tactics, and the history of warfare, knows how to treat wounds and maintain his equipment, and has the leadership skills to maintain morale in combat. As the son of a vintner he has a surprisingly refined palate regarding wine.

The wizard has detailed knowledge about the arcane, astronomy and astrology, speaks several languages (especially ancient ones), and knows his way around myth and legend. Coming from a culture of sailors, he has a basic understanding of how to operate a boat and navigate on the sea.

The social character is a formally trained courtesan. Along with weapons-grade charisma, she has skills in seduction, rhetoric, games, singing and dancing, plus a broad but shallow education that ahead allows her to maintain light conversation on any topic. A weak fighter, she excels at any kind of social interaction.

The last character is a dwarf who lists his occupation as “craftsman”. He likes to take things apart. Like locks, traps, mechanisms, doors, or people who get handsy with the courtesan. He also knows how to treat wounds, diseases, and poison, stemming from when he was a healer’s apprentice.

I mean, I can kind of understand the perspective. Having one party member being responsible for non-combat skills is suggestive of an extremely combat-focused game design. I come from systems where having skill monkies isn’t practical due to the breadth of the skill system; someone doing the job of a rogue in D&D would have to wildly outlevel the rest of the party.

Then again, those systems are typically more grounded than having PCs become powerful enough to butt heads with demigods after a year of adventuring, so D&D having a bit of a cartoonish vibe to it is very much in character. It’s not a flaw, it just feels different. I still think it’s kinda funny, though.

“Here’s Joe, he hits things with a sword and is athletic. There’s Bob, he gets angry and hits things with an axe and is athletic. Over there’s Jim; he turns into animals and hits things and knows stuff about nature, plus he’s athletic. Lucy here hits things with a blessed mace and can heal people and is athletic. And that’s Wayne, our salesman locksmith armorer medic seaman carpenter commando.”

That’s probably where I’d plan for a later twist where the GMPC was actually the BBEG at one point but got replaced by the current, more ruthless BBEG. There’d be a whole succession of people of varying evilness sharing the same name and title. Kind of like a Dread Pirate Roberts situation.

I remember a one-shot that had a twist like that - followed by the twist of the recently disarmed fighter removing his armored gauntlets, pointing at the traitor, and casting the system’s equivalent of Magic Missile. As he pulled his magic sheet out of his pocket he explained that he’d just been a misleadingly strong and well-armored wizard all along but hadn’t told anyone but the GM.

That was a fun little moment.

DSA (aka The Dark Eye, as it’s international release is called) does tend towards a low power level so magic is severely limited compared to e.g. D&D. You can throw fireballs but not as frequently. High-level magic can take days to recover from. I have my own criticisms of how the magic system works but it does work if you accept that a high-level TDE caster is at a lower power level than a mid-level D&D caster.

The overall complexity was insane in the 4th edition; 5th ed did a lot to fix that. There are still a lot of skills but it actually feels manageable now.

I actually like that the system can model mundane professions; it can be pretty cool to play a regular person who gets forced into adventure but is still competent at something, even if that something is not generally applicable to adventuring.

Oh come on. It’s not that complicated.

If it’s 3rd edition you just do basic skill checks on any ones of the 30-odd should skills for everything. Yes, including leveling up.

If it’s 4th edition you run a spreadsheet program to track the five dozen skills you selected and curse yourself as you have to walk down a stone stair but you only have points in walking up wooden stairs.

If it’s 5th edition you basically play it like 3rd ed but with a point buy system that allows you to accurately construct an artistically inclined vintner with a large bladder.

(Yes, having a large bladder capacity is an official perk from an official rulebook but few DMs are going to be insane enough to actually play with that rulebook.)

Plenty of systems have something for that, often with a variety of options.

A bookish Exalted character might roll Intelligence + Lore to remember having learned about the weakness to fire before. Or maybe Intelligence + Occult if the weakness is supernatural in nature. A combat-oriented character might roll Wits + War to deduce that fire is needed based on the knowledge of old battle reports involving trolls. Maybe even something involving Survival if they’re familiar with a region trolls can appear in.

A game with a flexible skill system has a lot of room for such things.

Assuming a civil war, the side a given government wants to support might not have the backing of the army. And honestly, in a war scenario a bunch of dudes with AR-15s are going to do jack shit against tanks, UAVs, and actively defended military installations. Few people have TOWs at home, much less anything BVR capable. The army, meanwhile, is perfectly capable of burying a militia under missiles from a hundred miles away.

Given what we’ve learned from Ukraine, the most reasonable weapon to smuggle into a warring USA would be tons of cheap suicide drones. Small enough to possibly get in unnoticed (unlike, say, an MLRS battery), capable of taking out armored vehicles and strategic targets, cheap enough to manufacture at scale.

Even if another country wanted to swoop in, that is specifically what the American nuclear arsenal is there to prevent. No one’s gonna eat nukes for America’s benefit.

At most, other countries could try to smuggle arms across the Canadian or Mexican border to help in a civil war – but Canada and Mexico might be reluctant to participate given that they might get dragged into the war. Also, it’s pretty damn hard to smuggle large quantities of gear without being noticed.

I generally find that cutting taxes is more popular with the politicians who think that reducing the debt is more important than a functioning power grid and bridges that don’t collapse. Don’t ask me how the hell reducing tax income is supposed to help with the deficit but it’s probably built on the assumption that the kickbacks economic growth will make up for it.

To quote that same document:

Figure 5 looks at the average temperatures for different age groups. The distributions are in sync with Figure 4 showing a mostly flat failure rate at mid-range temperatures and a modest increase at the low end of the temperature distribution. What stands out are the 3 and 4-year old drives, where the trend for higher failures with higher temperature is much more constant and also more pronounced.

That’s what I referred to. I don’t see a total age distribution for their HDDs so I have no idea if they simply didn’t have many HDDs in the three-to-four-years range, which would explain how they didn’t see a correlation in the total population. However, they do show a correlation between high temperatures and AFR for drives after more than three years of usage.

My best guess is that HDDs wear out slightly faster at temperatures above 35-40 °C so if your HDD is going to die of an age-related problem it’s going to die a bit sooner if it’s hot. (Also notice that we’re talking average temperature so the peak temperatures might have been much higher).

In a home server where the HDDs spend most of their time idling (probably even below Google’s “low” usage bracket) you probably won’t see a difference within the expected lifespan of the HDD. Still, a correlation does exist and it might be prudent to have some HDD cooling if temps exceed 40 °C regularly.

On the other hand, austerity politics (aka “don’t spend money in order to reduce the national debt”) tend not to work, either, because they offload maintenance to the future. Repairing broken infrastructure costs more than keeping it from breaking in the first place.

I suppose you could just raise taxes but even with WWII-level tax ceilings it’s damn expensive to run a country.

Hard drives don’t really like high temperatures for extended periods of time. Google did some research on this way back when. Failure rates start going up at an average temperature of 35 °C and become significantly higher if the HDD is operated beyond 40°C for much of its life. That’s HDD temperature, not ambient.

The same applies to low temperatures. The ideal temperature range seems to be between 20 °C and 35 °C.

Mind you, we’re talking “going from a 5% AFR to a 15% AFR for drives that saw constant heavy use in a datacenter for three years”. Your regular home server with a modest I/O load is probably going to see much less in terms of HDD wear. Still, heat amplifies that wear.

I’m not too concerned myself despite the fact that my server’s HDD temps are all somewhere between 41 and 44. At 30 °C ambient there’s not much better I can do and the HDDs spend most of their time idling anyway.

It’s the basic idea behind ordoliberalism – companies get free reign until their actions start harming the common good, at which point the government imposes fair rules to even the playing field. It’s… reasonably functional as far as political theories go. Still wildly suboptimal, though, and not long-term stable against the influence of hyper-wealthy entities.

Violent and nonviolent resistance often go hand in hand. They amplify each other’s effectiveness, ideally leading to the nonviolent side teaching its goals.

I feel that right now we do see the American people moving in a similar direction – on the one have we have large protests that try to be as peaceful as possible, on the other hand we have people running ICE agents out of town.

This will probably intensify before the government is willing to negotiate, in lockstep with the government increasing its use of force. I hope that the violence will not escalate to an outright civil war before the government relents.

Good luck to everyone over there.

I think you’d like how Exalted handles money. (Note: I’m talking about second edition here; I never got familiar with third edition.)

In Exalted, wealth is represented by a Background called Resources. Backgrounds are essentially stats that represent useful things your characters has in a general sense like wealth, fame, contacts, or a mentor. They go from zero to five.

Resources is a vague representation of wealth. At Reduces 1 you’re one meal away from total poverty. At Resources 5 you have something that passively generates substantial amounts of money for your character, whether that’s ownership of a lot of land or an army of accountants maintaining your investment portfolio. Whatever is is, it works without you having to deal with it.

In terms of game mechanics it’s easy to use: Prices are expressed as Resource scores. If you want to buy something you just compare your score to the item’s.

• If yours is higher, you just get the item as the price doesn’t affect your wealth significantly.
• If both scores are the same you get the item but have to reduce your Resources by one. This represents you having to liquidate a large amount of your assets to cover the price.
• If your Resources score is lower than that of the item, you can’t afford it.

It’s a nice system for a game that doesn’t want resource management to get in the way of epic adventure.

And that’s okay. I can understand not wanting to see your son get put in harm’s way.

Of course it would be in really bad taste for your son to subsequently ask for a military parade in his honor. Just like it is when Trump does it.

The movie has gained a redeeming quality over the years. That quality is that it’s not the live-action series.