And I’m stealing that idea for my game, and that one, and this one is cool too …

Is it nut cake or is it nut cake?

I think I may have responded to the wrong comment with that one, as someone was misrepresenting something I said and my intent was to point out how misrepresenting a statement is bad by misrepresenting another statement. I’m honestly having a hard time finding the comment that I intended to respond to.

I wish I had a pr agent, I’d get in way less trouble with the internet police.

ok, I was being unfair with my single line response. I’ll go back, re read it, and actually give a proper response.

I’ve come to the conclusion that you and I look for very different things in a tabletop rpg. Something of a spectrum, if you will, on one end is maximally role-play and on the other end is maximally game. Everyone’s preference is going to be at some point between those two extremes. You lean more towards the roleplay, I lean more towards game. We would not have a good time if we were at the same table, and despite my enjoyment of making fun of playstyles other than my preferred, your table has every right to exist and do things how you want to and my opinion doesn’t matter to that.

It’s an opinion that I agree with and therefore it is absolute fact and is not to be questioned. Please send all complaints to file 13.

because I love being told “your character knows nothing about subject that you personally are intimately familiar with”. Makes for fun game play, I promise.

The DM always has the right to throw curveballs at the players, and screwing with player precconception is part of what makes dming fun.

The player is responsible for figuring out how the setting is different from expectations, and plan accordingly.

“The read-aloud text spend a lot of time descrribing that door-”

fuck yeah we’re searching that bitch again. We call that media literacy, and that’s a good thing.

In my experience, knowledge checks are for “My character has a high int stat and I can’t be bothered to think about this puzzle, solve it for me”.

I won’t deny that I’m being an ass, but I will point out that the conversation started with the original post effectively calling me a bitch. Me being somewhat of an ass is a measured and proportionate response.

you have no idea how badly I want to play dnd 4th edition.

Ok, I’ll throw my hat in the ring.

Metagaming is fine, actually.

Obviously, don’t read the module you’re a player in, but knowing to use fire on trolls is just basic game knowledge. It’s ok to be good at the game, because it is a game. If you’re playing dungeons and dragons, or pathfinder, or any other rpg that spends most of the pages on combat rules, then you’re playing a tactics game. I like tactics games (I’m not good at them, but that’s a separate conversation).

I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to come up with a brilliant plan to do a thing, and then be told that I’m not allowed to do it because me figuring out the puzzle is metaknowlede.

It is exclusively in the tabletop rpg space that being good at the game is considered a bad thing. It’s in a similar vein that I hate tutorials in video games, especially when I’m being prevented from doing things that I already know how to do (because I’ve been playing games for multiple decades now and I have some amount of media literacy) for no other reason than the game hasn’t taught me yet. So arbitrarily, I’m not allowed to use fire damage on the trolls until some npc tells me that trolls are weak to fire? That’s asinine.

If you want to play let’s pretend with dice, that’s fine. just be honest about the kind of game that you’re running from the get go so I know not to join your table.

I think that it’s highly setting dependant, and also dependant on the kind of game your DM is running. I’ve exclusively run things in my own setting, so any particular race’s natural alignment was more of a suggestion than a requirement.

Now what really threw me for a loop was orks loosing the ‘powerful build’ feature. Orks can be twinks now and I love it.

There is a significant difference between something being entertaining to watch in the moment, and it being good.

I watched D&W in theaters with my boyfriend. Had a deadpool themed margarita. Had an excellent time, highly recommend.

Hours after leaving the theater, I started actually thinking about the movie. The more I thought about it the more I decided that it actually wasn’t very good. At the time, I had a detailed list of complaints. I’ve forgotten the details since then.

The broad strokes though, it’s insulting.

D&W actively disregards and insults established MCU canon. They had a chance to expand the lore, instead they shat on it.

The best moments in the movie could be described as “HEY! HERE’S THAT THING YOU LIKE!!! YOU LIKE THIS RIGHT?!?! LIKE THIS!!!” Which is the most disrespectful kind of reference you can do, as it’s insulting to the media and even more so to the audience.

Ryan Renolds has a writing credit for this movie, and he has demonstrated that he fundamentally does not understand the metaphysics of marvel comics. Therefore, his commentary on the state of the MCU can fuck off. Sure, the later MCU movies had a lot of problems, but I can tell that myself, I have the power of media literacy on my side, so I can tell when the pot is calling the kettle black.

If I were willing to actually put effort into it, I could come up with actual examples to go with my complaints, but I don’t feel like watching the movie again any time soon.

if applicable.

new evidence

evidence based logic and reasoning.

“people” say this all the time. people who don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about, or aren’t in their right minds. Usually, these people are victims of propaganda, as the US has spend decades convincing everyone that anything socialist or communist is evil. These people exist, and pretending they don’t is almost like ignoring that 1/3 of the US population actively supports fascism.

and the barman will serve anyway because trump is immune to consequences.