First off, I do "science" every day, for a living.  And the near-religious reverence you seem to have for the slanted pronouncements by politicians in the name of science shows you know nothing about the subject.  Science is a process, not a product.  In science, you can do everything right 100 times, and still get the "wrong" answer, for many reasons.  Sometimes because you are asking the wrong question, or the right question in the wrong way.  Sometimes because something you've never considered is confounding the issue.  And sometimes because people's biases affect the results (unintentionally, and intentionally).  I'd bet money I've read more peer-reviewed science articles in my professional capacity than you can name journals, and 75+% of them get contradicted within 6 months.  Science is not the Bible.  Scientists are not priests.  They have no "special" knowledge that ordinary people do not, except that gained through years of study or experience.  But they are wrong more than they are right, and they are people.  So appeals to science are nothing but masked appeals to authority.

Which takes us to the heart of the argument.  When you declare certain ideas to be objectively true, due to your (limited) understanding and your faith in "science," you also implicitly allow others to assert the same.  So whoever has the "best" authority wins.  And in this day and age, all of those authorities that are quoted by the media are both woke, and willing to lie to get what they want.

I, on the other hand, don't believe that I should have the power to force you to live according to the pronouncements of my "authorities," be they religious or political.  But that is what you advocate (you started off talking about your politicians and Navy, both of whom exist to FORCE others to do what is demanded!).  The reality is that NOTHING is settled beyond dispute.  Even if you could prove the Earth was warming (which depends on a LOT of assumptions.  For example, what is the proper temperature to measure?  The highest during the day?  The lowest?  The average?  A weighted average of all of the temps in 24 hours?  Even if we could measure these things, look into it and you'd be surprised how little temperature data is actually available, even to scientists who study it... I had a friend at UVA that did it for a living), the decision as to what to do is political.  And you have joined the side of those who believe that their "science" gets to tell you what to do to "fix" the problem.  I believe that we all need to decide what trade-offs we are willing to live with.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on February 26, 2021, 12:18:00 AM

:0

What's the STR/CON checks for how 2e handles it? If there's a way to do it in 5e without it turning into a slog then I'm game.

I thought OD&D was the one that mainly did retreats, where you run blindly through different hallways and might be doomed.

AD&D 2e, PHB, Time and Movement chapter, p. 120 (earliest printing). It's an Optional Rule in a blue box. 

By core rules Human MV is typically 12, which is x10 in feet indoors, and x10 in yards outdoors.

You can go up to 5x your MV: 1x is basic Move (as above), 2x is Jog and freely available without STR/CON checks. 3x 4x and 5x are all Run and require STR/CON checks.

Run 3x is STR check (no add'l mods) to reach, and CON check -1 cumulative each round (e.g. 1st rd is -1, 2nd rd is -2, 3rd rd is -3, etc.).

Run 4x is STR check -4 to reach, and CON check -2 cumulative each round (e.g. 1st rd is -2, 2nd rd is -4, 3rd rd is -6, etc.).

Run 5x is STR check -8 to reach, and CON check -3 cumulative each round (e.g. 1st rd is -3, 2nd rd is -6, 3rd rd is -9, etc.).

...snippage...

Quote

It's interesting how players that can role-play in a role-playing game are often called "cosplayers/ren-faire/indie-RPG types who are into RPGing."

Yeah nope.
Role-playing is not the same as acting. Role-playing is creating decisions and actions of character in believable way considering who this person is, acting is well playing out those decisions in a way like in TV or theatre. You can be great acting and terrible role-playing, or great role-player without shed of acting - referring to your PC's action in third person's laconic manner.
And yes while it's perfectly acceptable to choose table where all people are good actors - it can also become quite toxic, when One True Wayist try to imply only good acting is good role-playing and try to demean and lessen players without acting chops. And those guysa re toxic shitlord and madonnas, and kill them with fire.

Quote

So many of the players interrupt with comments or actions based on things their characters cannot possibly be aware of, or involved in. Face to Face you can "quiet chat" or hidden note things but in online sessions everyone hears everything and tries to respond to what they hear.  Both DMs and players need to be more conscious of this.

Exactly like on most real-life tables so...