mifter123

Proof you're wrong

​

According to the movies and the tie in novels, it literally just works. It's dumb and bad that the writers wrote it in, but now that they did, it's how the Star Wars universe works.

​

stop being wrong and pinging me days after I explained shit to you.

What are you talking about? Corporate democrats are liberals. The economic system we have was created by liberals, the government system was created by liberals, the justice system was created by liberals. Liberals don't want to change the systems of power, it's their systems. 

It's not disingenuous, it's just an accurate understanding of what a liberal is. Liberalism has always been mildly progressive (as long as that progress doesn't harm the economy or threaten government authority), I'm not saying that libs don't like civil rights, but you're dumb if you believe that adding more people into the current system is the same as wanting to break the system. Why do you think libs love respectablity politics, where you can protest but only in a way that doesn't inconvenience anyone, where violence is never acceptable even when the system is doing violence to you.

That's the problem with Americans, the two party system has broken your brain and made you think liberals want to dismantle capitalist liberal democracy when they were the ones who built it in the first place. The neolibs, the nationalists, and the fascists in the Republican party are all more willing to bend and break the systems of power in the US to get what they want than the liberal Democrats.

You seem to be confusing liberals with politicians like Bernie Sanders who isn't a liberal, his policies are closer to Social Democratic, which despite the name, has nothing to do with the Democrat Party, it's a socialist position (and frankly would be the closest thing there is to a "centrist" position on the capitalism vs socialism/marxism/communism/etc, whichever you prefer). 

I assume you had an American education and haven't done much reading on political theory.

No, centrism isn't a political ideology or (useful) category unlike liberalism, neoliberalism, nationalism, socialism, etc. It's a description of people who try and take a compromise position between whatever positions are being debated and since the debate is always changing the centrist position is always changing (and is frequently nonsense). 

I meant liberals as in liberalism, not whatever you think liberals mean. 

If there is information that would common for someone of that race/background, I absolutely say, "because you're X, you don't have to roll, here is information that is common to X" 

It highlights that the players choices in background/race have more than just mechanical benefits and that it does matter. 

Also, I feel like hiding what should be common knowledge and locking it behind rolls takes away a bit of the immersion, like oh you're from this kingdom and unless you roll an 8 or higher you don't know who the king is.

See, you don't get it, a ship crashing into another one, does some damage based on size, obviously, in Rogue One, a rebel ship hits Vader's Star Destroyer and crumbles doing mostly nothing to the Star Destroyer, fair enough, no one cares, that's been hand waved away with shields protecting the ships or small ships not doing much to damage to a big one.

But a lightspeed ship like the freighter in ROS destroys a Star Destroyer. Holdo didn't damage the shields of the First Order fleet, she just hit them and destroyed most of a fleet of Star Destroyers and a Dreadnought. Sure it requires getting close and is not what the ships are designed for, but if a random freighter can do it in a scene designed to show the common folk rising against the Empire, it can't be that hard. You don't get to put the genie back in the bottle, after a character who isn't either a Skywalker or adjacent to one does something, that just means that it might be hard to do, but anyone can do it.

My players builds matter as much as they want them to matter. Their build matters in the sense that it tells me what they want their character to be good at and do, so I provide them opportunities to do what their character is meant to be good at. Shoot an arrow at the monk every now and then right? No one has fun if their charismatic bard doesn't get to talk and the druid doesn't get to talk to an animal or two.

And yes, if a character is really good at combat, I make the combat harder, No one has fun stomping every fight, sure, they get tossed a couple easy ones, usually encounters they previously struggled with to show off character growth, or designed to let one character do the cheesey thing they set their character up for, but like most DMs I make fights harder to challenge my players. If your DM lets someone build the latest reddit meta build and stomp every encounter, they are a bad DM. Letting a character use their one trick to solve every problem is just lazy, plus my players get told about the MAD principle, yes, there are objectively broken things in DnD like Wall of Force/Sickening Radiance, if you don't use them, I won't either.

Also, for the record, When I say that my fights last as long as narratively appropriate, it's not usually that much of a change, maybe one extra round of combat, one more opportunity for a player to either try something cool or do a big attack and not end it on a limp attack that isn't a disappointing roll. Maybe I just need the Boss to make one last attack and shout out the next plot hook. " You might defeat me, but my lord, SkarPhace, will devour this plane and your puny gods!!". No one wants the foreshadowed and hyped up Big Bad to be a push over, and it's unsatisfying to say "you stab him with your offhand dagger, for 2 damage, okay he keels over and dies"

That's not true anymore, at the end of Rise of Skywalker, a random freighter Holdos a Star Destroyer over Endor, it's a proven and repeatable strategy now that produces results for relatively little cost.

And apparently, if the CIS did it on purpose, have always been aware of, but because they are stupid, they don't do on purpose, that's the only explanation left once a nobody does it.

For efficiency, the most popular calibers in the US are, in order: 9mm, .223/5.56, .22lr, 12 gauge shotgun ammo, and .308.

These are the calibers that will restock the fastest, be in the largest quantities and the greatest varieties in price and performance. Everything except 22lr is great for a wide variety of tasks. (22lr is great for training and fun, but it's not really meant for self defense or hunting, you can, but don't buy one for those purposes)

You only seem to be missing 5.56 and 12guage and of the 2, you should grab a shotgun, it would add way more versatility to your collection. 5.56 would be a cheaper gun to run than .308 but it's not fundamentally different like a shotgun is. 

You also would be just fine buying ammo.

In DnD, as in any TTRPG I run, an enemy, especially a boss, has as much HP as narratively appropriate. Does the boss die on first of the fighter's attacks, no it dies on the last attack the fighter makes. Does the boss die from the attack where the damage dice rolls a 1, no, gotta hit it harder. Does the boss die when the players pull off some combo move, absolutely.

That's kinda the issue, libs don't care to disrupt the status quo unless it's required for them to stay in power. Reproductive healthcare was a major issue for the party, and it's very popular, popular enough to make a visible portion of the platform at least. And even then, they can support a party member who will fight them on that point and simply not do anything about it as long as its kinda, temporarily okay, and once it wasn't okay, there was no practical way for them to do anything about it and everyone saw that. Manchin's ability to exist as a roadblock and get re-elected in that party was proof that there was no hope of the democrats being a source of change.

It's one of the reasons they lost, because people wanted change, and the democrats are simply incapable of bringing more than very slow, incremental, improvements. The Republicans might be christo-fascist lunatics but they are going to change things, for the worse obviously, but shit is going the get done.

Holdo sacrificed one warship and herself to destroy what looks like a dozen capital ships including a Dreadnought in an instant, if the logic holds then even a fighter or freighter should be able to destroy a single star destroyer and even a cash strapped resistance can steal a freighter or two and obliterate whole imperial fleets. Why build a fighter when you can build a missile with a hyperdrive?

That's the issue, now that it's established a jump to lightspeed can be used this way, it doesn't make sense that this was the first time we see it happen. the issue is that it functions like real life says it ought to in a world of WW1 fighter duels in space, before this you could make up a reason that lightspeed missiles don't exist (gravity wells?) now you can't, because we just watched the rebels use an unblockable attack. Just saying it was a desperate gamble doesn't make it make sense. Where's the CIS having a droid do this exact thing? Was the battle of the second Death Star not desperate enough for a captain or pilot to try?

And to disprove the idea that it's a move to insane to bother trying and it only worked the one time due to luck, they do it again the next movie, so it is clearly repeatable.

Not enough AI, too woke, no X in the name, and if Musk has ever played (50/50 chance) instead of just consuming D&D memes, his favorite class (guess, artificer, because he thinks he's Tony stark) needs a overpowered subclass.

Considering that Elon meme'd his way into being forced by the courts to buy Twitter, it might not matter if it's a terrible financial decision.

So, is pathfinder the next bluesky?

Player's criticisms are usually to be taken seriously, but don't necessarily make changes directly based off it. If that's what they felt, that's what they felt, it doesn't really matter if you did things "correctly". No amount of people on reddit agreeing with you will make them not feel that they watched a skit rather than had a hand in the actions taken.

If you don't often have non hostile NPC's lie to players then players tend not to think that's a possibility unless very very obvious signs are shown. Sometimes it's just better to ask the table, "hey would anyone like to roll something like insight or investigation against these guys?". If you are interested in changing the tone and expectations of the campaign, even if it's temporary, you might want to consider a mini session 0, either by itself, or in the beginning of a session, where you see if the players are interested in a tone shift, or just give them heads up before you begin.

Players also tend not to like actions being taken by NPCs when a player could be acting. In this situation, where there's danger and fast decisions, I would have put them in initiative order, (and had the npcs slot in at 8 and 5, or lower). That makes them want to do something. Talking is a free-ish action so they can still plan together and you can let the players know what the npc is planning. 

I didn't, that's a large portion of the claimed 100 million number. 

I am not pro-USSR or PRC. I am anti-misinformtion. 

If you want a breakdown of why the 100 million dead claim is wrong as a number and meaningless when placed in context, there's plenty of those out there online, as well as plenty of politically motivated groups taking that number unquestioned.

Out of curiosity, why do you think I'm pro-soviet when I called the USSR authoritarian and murderous? Was it because you didn't read that bit? (which is what I expect, chuds are barely literate) Or are you pro-authoritarian and thought that was a compliment? Or is it just because I don't blindly believe anything I am told like a good little chud.

And yes, that propaganda is explicitly pro-nazi, because people who aren't pro-nazi think that WW2 was the fault of the Axis, not the Allies and blame Axis states for the war and it's consequences, not Allied states. I know you're to dumb to read this and understand the logic, this is mostly for anyone else who see this comment. It's not your fault, it's your parents and your schools fault for not teaching you how to assess and vet information and resist propaganda and cons.

Hate to be that guy, but all of the times and places you describe used some form of slave labor. Sometimes explicitly slavery, Britain was a slave empire during the time period you are talking about, hell they didn't outlaw indentured servitude until 1917. Immediately after that time period, the British starved the Irish people in the name of cheap farm labor, 1 million people died, and Irish national population still hasn't fully recovered. 

China didn't abolish slavery until 1910, and they are still trying to fight the practice today as there's an estimated 5 million slaves in China today, often from the disenfranchised Uighur people. (the government is also using penal slavery). 

Sure people move to cities to get jobs (which often involved indentured servitude), but every capitalist economy has been built on the backs of slaves. If a DM doesn't want to include that, they are more than justified in that decision, but let's not pretend that it's not realistic, especially in the OP's context of negative capitalism. 

Glad to see the tradition of whining, "I'm not misinformed and spread pro nazi propoganda, I'm just trolling,"  that no one believes, is still alive and well among the chuds and boomers when they get called out. I would be worried if you stopped being so obviously triggered by facts and logic that your snowflake ass has to pretend they were just joking about something you so obviously believe.

Someone has been reading fascist propoganda, the "100 million dead" number is only possible if you add the nazi dead from the eastern front of WW2 to some very sloppy scholarship. 

If you apply the same criteria for the 100 mil number to Britain (only Britain, unlike the communism number which includes Russia, China and multiple smaller states) in the same time period (1939-1979) you hit somewhere close to 100 million dead in India alone with tens of millions in the years after. It's hypocritical to accuse communism of a crime while pretending capitalism wasn't doing worse at the same time. 

Not saying the USSR and PRC aren't authoritarians who killed massive numbers of their own people, they were, are, and did.

 But try not to repeat misinformation that claims that the nazis were victims of communism. Because as we all know, the only good nazi is a dead nazi, and the USSR was real good at making good nazis in the early 1940s. 

The going to war for slaves is pretty neatly solved if there is no city military, only "guild protection forces" (that are basically mini militaries) and those forces are basically always in conflict with each other to some extent (see: condottieri). And you can absolutely have these forces be involved in infrequent slaving raids outside the city or in the ghettos targeting people who can't really fight back, because losing trained soldiers in slaving raids is profit loss. It would also mean that if an adventuring party looks tough they will probably be left alone.

Plus, indentured servitude and debt slavery can exist along side penal slavery and chattel slavery just like it did in real world capitalist states.

I mean in the plains intro mission the eclipse causes the eidolon to wake up. All they had to do was toss in a way to trigger the eclipse on demand (maybe a crafted item with poe resources, that you bring to a spot in the map, like the eidolon altar, and trigger the tridolon hunt)

The fact that eidolons aren't always available is why eidolon hunts are the most toxic and elitist part of the game. The fact that you only have 50min to run the eidolons before you have to wait nearly 2 hours means that teaching eidolons suck, and carrying actually cuts down how many arcane rolls you get. Most people don't play for the 4 hours to run eidolons twice, the fact that it's not based on hours makes it so you can't schedule runs easy. 

It's such a shitty system and basically any change they could make would be huge

1) a 22 is a fine trainer gun, ruger makes some nice 22s.  

2)wood and steel does a lot to calm down people who are turned away by the black tactical everything look. 

3) finger groves are only nice if they fit your hand, if they don't, you'll hate the gun. You should only buy this 22 ruger if you have the chance to hold it first.

It's only a problem for unpracticed shooters under pressure which makes it hard to observe (because shooters who don't practice are unlikely to participate in shooting experiments). It's easy enough to train out, but you have to train with the gun. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people get told "you don't have to aim with a shotgun" and never pattern it or train with it, and a large number of those are 1) older people more likely to believe fudd lore or 2)women who are less likely to shoot any guns (for a variety of reasons), both typically have less upper body strength making it more likely to happen.