erin (she/her)

(not who you replied to) We can be anti-zionists without being pro-Iran. They have a horrific history of human rights abuses. Their sovereignty is being violated, but their government is not a good one.

Les Mis does not depict the second French Revolution, but the June Rebellion years earlier.

You should read Butler’s “Who’s Afraid of Gender?”

It would be on sight.

I feel like you’ve made a lot of assertions that don’t make a lot of sense when compared to the real world. I agree that WotC is nothing like they used to be, have been gutted by Hasbro, and 5e is a pretty stale and lame example of a TTRPG. That doesn’t make it any less easy to learn or homebrew. The starter sets and basic adventures were simple enough for my mother, a teacher, who has absolutely no TTRPG experience, to run a game with her 5th grade students, who were perfectly capable of handling the premade characters and simple module. The game has a very easy entry point, and even when approaching the full ruleset, isn’t hard to understand when actually reading the books (especially the new ones, all their other major flaws aside), which more people do than you’re suggesting. New players get excited, the PHB is easy enough to follow with interesting art and ideas, and you really don’t even need the DMG to run a successful game, though the frameworks it sets up can make your life easier.

There is a reason other than branding that DnD remains as incredibly popular as it is, as no matter how many streamers play it and how much sponsorship money DnD beyond gives out, if new players enticed to try the game couldn’t get the hang of it pretty quickly, they wouldn’t stick around. Are there better systems for modularity and ease of play? Obviously. But that doesn’t make those things untrue for 5e. The million Kickstarter projects with homebrew should be examples enough. You keep asserting that “no one plays 5e as designed,” which is technically true if you define that as only using rules strictly in the books, but really misses the point. People are using the classes and mechanics put into the game, and a great deal of official optional rules have become ubiquitous in every game. Popular house rules get added on, and people make up their own mechanics, because it’s a TTRPG, and that’s true for any of them.

Obviously there aren’t great sources that aren’t anecdotal, but a quick glance around LFG posts, LGS events, and online DnD specific communities should be enough to show that people are indeed playing the game “as intended,” and home brewing to their heart’s content. The reputation you claim 5e has simply doesn’t exist to the casual player. You’re totally right, in that this is how most dedicated TTRPG communities see the game, but to the casual player (which is most of them), 5e is what the cool streamers play. They watch it, think “Hm, that doesn’t look so hard,” grab a book and run with it. I’ve seen this happen repeatedly with friends that have never played a TTRPG in their life. They don’t know about WotC’s past, they don’t know about the company being gutted, and they don’t know about the designers abandoning a lost cause. All they know DnD as is the default TTRPG (which it shouldn’t be), and pick it up, finding it easy enough to play and homebrew.

I’m more concerned with the “people don’t play the rules” part, but fair enough.

I don’t fully disagree with you, but you’re just wrong about the area of effect shapes. The rules are very defined on how to represent and find spheres, cylinders, lines, cubes, cones, etc. The new 5.5 rules make it even more defined. The game is absolutely designed to be played as written, because it’s braindead easy compared to most systems, which is basically all 5e has going for it: easy to learn and run, easy to homebrew. Every DnD 5e game I’ve played has followed the rules, not just for areas, but most mechanics, especially when using actual battle maps. Theater of the mind gets a bit more loosely goosey. Every group has their own house rules, but the game is definitely meant to be played, and it is. It almost seems weird to even make that claim, because a quick trip to a LGS or playing in a few local groups would tell you otherwise. Everyone wants to be Critical Role or Dimension 20.

I mean the danger of capsizing in a cruise ship is vanishingly tiny, and the Navy has similarly top heavy vessels, like aircraft carriers. They have massive keels, and their displacement is so huge that rough seas mean almost nothing to them. You’re far more likely to die in millions of more common activities than to a cruise ship capsizing. I don’t really see how taking statistics is helping your argument at all, as statistics are on the cruise’s side. Driving or riding in a car is far more dangerous.

Now, cruise ships suck for other reasons, like their exploitation of poor countries and massive carbon emissions. Arguing against cruise ships from a statistical safety standpoint is like arguing against airplanes because they could crash, regardless of how likely. The cruise ship excursions and activities on board are more dangerous than their seaworthiness.

You decided I’m mad, not me. You also didn’t answer the question. Obvious rage bait, shouldn’t have fed the troll.

Can you elaborate? What is “honest and open” about being rude to someone for no reason?

Nothing irks me more than the “sharing your unasked for opinion at any time is just telling the truth” crowd. Come on. You must know the difference between honesty and integrity for the sake of good communication and being insensitive because it’s “the truth.” You’re not being honest, regardless of the truth of your beliefs, you’re being a dick if you tell someone they’re not attractive without being asked.

If someone asks, “Am I attractive,” not fishing for compliments but asking for an opinion, you wouldn’t be a dick for saying “I wouldn’t describe you as conventionally attractive,” or “you aren’t my type, so not to me.” You would still be a dick for saying either of those things to someone who didn’t ask, or delivering your answer in an inconsiderate manner. Truth doesn’t make your words right. You can be correct and still very wrong.

Dollar Tree has about 200,000 employees. Paying each of them $8 an hour for 20 hours a week, 52 weeks a year is ~$1.6 billion. This is just napkin math, taking a guess at where an average hourly employee would be working, hours-wise. Assuming the profit is going straight into company coffers, they could afford to significantly increase pay or hours overall, but the money doesn’t stretch as far as our intuition might think. The problem really might not be Dollar Tree specifically, but the system of economy that led to its creation, and the creation of other massive corporations that rest on the back of underpaid workers.

Their only real options as the system stands (not that it wouldn’t be moving in the right direction) are to pay less people more money, or increase hours. Their margin is thinner than it looks. Far better to throw the system out than pretend that the $10 million CEO check is anything but a drop in the bucket compared to the crushing reality of shareholder-driven profit margins. Fuck capitalism.

It’s the same argument, that the character only looks like a child, but isn’t. I chose a hyperbolic example for emphasis, but it’s the same argument. It looks like a child. That’s the point.

I have always felt the “actually she’s 1000 years old and just looks like a child” argument is both ridiculous and disingenuous. They’re interested because she looks like a child, not because of her character supposed age. Again, but rephrased, what’s the difference if someone makes a character that looks like a real child but is fictional and much older in their characterization? At what point is it morally acceptable? Do you need to use an ambiguous art style? Do you need to include inhuman character traits? I simply cannot take the argument seriously, because clearly the character looking like a child is important. What difference does the story you tell yourself about their age make? Why not just pretend real CSAM is just young looking aliens that are a million years old? If it looks like a child, I believe it’s unequivocally immoral, and there is no line you can draw that would convince me that a childlike drawing that falls on the “OK” side of the line isn’t immoral.

But… that’s not what the discussion or post are about lmao

Legality and morality don’t necessarily align. I would find it very immoral, but as far as I know, not illegal, to get off to drawings of children. Additionally, what’s the difference between a photo of a child and a realistic drawing of a “fictional character” that looks like said child? I think getting off to children is wrong, regardless of criminality. If that’s something someone desires, they should seek help, not indulge in fantasy.

Ignoring the part about the super credits and fomo stuff, the money confuses me. Is regional pricing so different that you’re paying an additional $10 AUD compared to US and EU pricing? Additionally, $25 AUD as a full day’s income? Even a low hour, part time job earns way more than that. I feel like your situation might not be financially compatible with buying things like that, I’d cheat or pirate if it’s that important to you. $10 USD is not much for DLC, and while I strongly dislike purchasable gameplay mechanics in games, it’s supporting the continued development and it isn’t egregious. $10 is a burger, or a coffee, and I’m saying this as someone well below the poverty line.

Then don’t go scuba diving? And don’t complain about it?

Which camper hurt you? You’re through the entire comments with a massive chip on your shoulder lol

Yeah, but if someone says “I hate sounding, stabbing myself in the balls sucks!” you’d have a pretty good idea that they are doing it wrong. There’s a difference between “I hate activity, it’s not for me” and “I hate activity, I actively participate in it in a way that is easily avoidable and will make me miserable.” It’s just a meme, let people discuss it lmao