• 0 Posts
  • 168 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 11th, 2023

help-circle
  • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgtoRPGMemes @ttrpg.networkTrust nothing
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Detect Magic telling someone “it’s chowder” is a cop-out, same as a DM saying “you failed the skill check because you looked suspicious.” If a spell exists to reveal a magical aura, use it to reveal an aura, not to sass the player.

    My answer in that case is “You detect no aura” from the non-magical chowder (or maybe they do detect one if it was flavored with prestidigitation), unless it’s an edition where the effect is a cone, and they are sitting across the table from their friend blinged out in magical gear, in which case they are definitely detecting an aura. Several of them. And they’re going to have to take time, focus, and make checks to recognize that none are coming from the chowder.


  • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgtoRPGMemes @ttrpg.networkTrust nothing
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    Paranoia, the game where every character is technically engaged in a crime punishable by death at basically all times, and you’re given a number of clones because you are expected to die…a lot. Also the R&D gadgets, like the personal disintegrator which does exactly what it says on the tin - disintegrates your person.


  • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgtoRPGMemes @ttrpg.networkTrust nothing
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    Like forcing the players into an encounter where all their toolkits are nerfed. Close quarters for casters, magical monsters that can’t be harmed by melee, or NPCs that are way OP for the group and they stick to the Monster Manual to the letter.

    When I GM, it depends on just how narrow and just how powerful your particular toolkit is. I’m not going to ensure that you can do whatever your thing is at absolutely every opportunity, and if your schtick becomes well known, enemies capable of planning will plan around it when feasible. The more narrow your schtick is, the more scenarios you might encounter where it does not apply simply by chance (for example, if you’re a flying archer every room in a dungeon won’t gain a minimum 30’ high ceiling to maximize your use of that). The more disproportionately powerful your schtick is compared to other party members, the more likely I am to specifically come up with occasional scenarios meant to make it not apply so someone else gets to shine.

    Sometimes I will signpost something is a very bad idea, and if you do it anyways (or do something else absurdly dangerously foolish) I’m not going to pop up a guard rail to save you at the last moment - retrieving your body from somewhere adrift on the astral and your soul from the gemstone the archdevil you pissed off is keeping in his treasury to try to save you is the next adventure hook.

    You encounter a huge, elaborate tome, on a concealed lectern, in a library connected by a hidden door directly off the bedroom of a powerful wizard, you detect magic and get extremely powerful auras of conjuration, transmutation and evocation maybe “I flip it open to a random page and start reading aloud, I’ll sound out any words I don’t recognize” is not, in fact, a wise decision. The copy of “Words You Mispronounce And Die: A Primer For Apprentice Wizards” you saw on one of the shelves on the way there, the references to a cursed grimoire of terrible power, the book being bound in the skin of an angel covered in burns and scars, etc, etc should have maybe hinted at that.




  • She is quite important in contribution to the society, but when we talk just about working people, we overlook her.

    …even then, since her contribution is to her own household should that marriage collapse society decides that not only is she owed a share of their produced assets to date but also a share of his future production for her part in enhancing it to date (alimony), including the requirement that he must continue to produce at that level at a minimum (aka alimony is based on what a judge believes you can earn, not what you actually are earning). Sometimes this also includes a share of any future retirement income as well.

    Everyone should be able to live without poverty.

    Ultimately, what you would consider living without poverty requires the labor of some number of people to maintain, and eventually the question of why they do that labor for people who don’t do that labor will be asked, by them if not by you. Usually the answer is that those people are doing other labor which benefits the first group, usually abstracted out to some generalized representation of debt (aka money).



  • Homelander, from the comic then Amazon Prime series The Boys. He’s basically Superman, if Superman were raised in a lab by a literal Nazi super-soldier program, then used as the face of a giant corporation with massive influence in the media, biotech and social media spaces, to start with that also buys up contracts with the highest profile superhumans (and also on the sly are responsible for creating them). Then just think what the realities of that would look like. And yes, he is at least as horrible as you think.

    The eponymous Boys are a group of normies trying to take down superhumans, with the main POV character’s inciting incident being when A-Train (think the Flash) runs through his girlfriend directly in front of him.



  • Criminal charges require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. An accusation alone is not that. You paint it as assuming women are lying, but you instead want to treat their word as damning proof unto itself, while people like Crystal Mangum, Tracy West and Wanetta Gibson (to name some who got media attention) thoroughly leave the reasonable doubt in place.


  • It’s less bias against women (demonstrated by male accusers of female perps having even worse odds), but rather that it’s an accusation of a serious crime and thus has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is complicated by very many cases having exactly 2 witnesses (accuser and accused) and often little or no other evidence.

    The usual counter to this is to claim that accuser testimony should always be believed and should itself be proof beyond a reasonable doubt because no one would ever lie about this sort of thing, but that doesn’t jive with reality - for example, look at the Duke lacrosse case, or Brian Banks, or Tracy West accusing her ex (to use a few that got significant media attention), or those exonerated by the Innocence Project (a majority faced sex crime charges). For the first two of those, the accuser actually admitted to lying, (even if Crystal Mangum waited until 18 years later while in prison for an unrelated murder and Wanetta Gibson waited until the person she falsely accused had served 5 years in prison and was on the sex offender registry and partway through his 5 years of probation and then had to be secretly recorded because she didn’t want to reveal to truth publicly and risk losing the damages she was awarded from the school district).




  • This is obviously due to Democrat fiddling with the numbers

    Literally what they’re running with. The person ultimately responsible for those numbers was a Biden appointee and Trump didn’t like the result so she’s been fired under the excuse that those job loss number are “inaccurate”. Her replacement will of course make those numbers whatever best suits Trump rather than anything tethered to reality, but that’s what MAGA thinks truth is - whatever best polishes Trump’s knob.





  • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgtoMemes@lemmy.mlNostalgia
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The more money someone makes, the few drug tests they take.

    The more money someone makes, it’s also the less likely they’re working a job where people can be seriously harmed or killed by the direct, immediate effects of their behavior on the job. Jim from Sales being on smack is less likely to cause injury or death in the short term than forklift driver Klaus being on smack.



  • Best I can give him is that she got the job at least partially because she’s a black woman. Putting a black woman in SCOTUS was a campaign promise. One made early enough that I doubt he had Jackson already in mind when he made it. She’s presumably the most qualified black woman his admin could find, if not the most qualified candidate overall.