Search results

What? While "malice" does have a specific meaning in law, the word is by no means limited to that context. Maybe you don't use it otherwise, but the rest of the country can and does use it to generally mean "ill will" or "desire to cause harm".

Mod Note: Hey, doc (and others)! This thread is not about who has blocked who. Nor is it about how to go about circumventing board content controls. So, if you don't want more than red text, cut it out and don't derail other threads with this sort of thing in the future.

Mod Note: Folks, Several of you seem to be getting... snippy and irritable. You may want to take a break or a breather or something, because this post serves as a warning for everyone - be respectful and kind. That's all. Just dial it back, folks.

Well, now you would be expected to. IIRC, on original release you couldn't. DL1 was released in March of '84, and DL5 didn't come out until December.

Then, by all means, write the book that educates them. But, maybe try to do it without being a condescending, insulting know-it-all. It won't help you there any more than it does here - turning the discussion into an ego contest against you isn't going to help anyone understand narrativist play.

Mod Note: Folks, How about we remember the rules, and avoid discussion of real-world religions, please and thanks.

And that would mean something if they were continuing to run 18-month old AIs, but they aren't. His estimates will also be 18-months and more behind on the computational needs, too. Increases in efficiency almost never result in reduction of power use - they typically lead to increase in use...

Also, if you can point to a cause (like lunch) it isn't random. And our lack of personal control also does not equate to randomness.

Nobody out here knows what the goals were. The game hasn't been out a year yet. You wanna know success/failure instantaneously? Get a grip. It takes time.

If a player nitpicks at a GM over things that don't really matter, I'm calling shenanigans.

Mod Note: Perhaps, when a person says something insulting in the generic, they are insulting everyone who fits within the generalization they are making. Insulting folks with a broad brush is a thing. You don't get away from being insulting by being non-specific.

Yep. But not for long. The spell is a 10' radius cylinder, and now there is a man on a horse thrashing around in the middle of it. Who do you figure is going to get to stay in there?

Exactly. So, the limbic system works the way it does because that fast emotional response is used to drive potential fight/flee/freeze reactions, and other behavior which has to happen NOW if they are going to be useful. Unfortunately, this doesn't work for things that require deeper...

The nightmare's Ethereal Step should be able to get past the circle. The narzugon has a high Charisma, and can likely make the save. The nightmare has a lower Charisma, and may need its master's help to pass that check (and give a monster that is known for having a mount Animal Handling, for...

Not a gaping hole. It is actually a trait that enhanced survival once, but now is maladaptive in our current circumstances.

Make that pretty much everyone, from time to time. The human limbic system give us our emotional response to a stimulus before we can logically respond to it - which means we typically know what we feel about a thing before we can analyze it. So, when we do get the analytical possibilities, we...

With respect, I find a major difference between "justify" and "explain". "Justification," includes a defense against judgement - justification is making it so nobody can say, "You should not have that preference." It is, by its nature, defensive. The OP calls for us to explain why a thing is...

Well, you are talking about "justifying" your preferences. The OP is actually talking about understanding your preferences. The difference in how the activity is viewed is part of how the internet interacts with human social and psychological dynamics.

The dynamics of internet discussion loom large as an issue here.

It is hard not to see this as a piece of grand "whataboutism" :"You don't like X? Well, whatabout Y, which is similar to X?" As we all know, there's a fallacy in that, an unproven assumption that there's some reason why we should be consistent across cases - as if there was some problem with...