This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion / Re: Orcs vs goblins
« Last post by Rhymer88 on Today at 03:54:52 AM »
I make a distinction between the two: While goblins are small mischief makers (albeit generally very sadistic ones), orcs are simply demonic and don't naturally procreate. Moreover, you can reason with goblins, but it's nigh impossible to reason with orcs. I always disliked pig-faced orcs, even back in the days of first edition.
2
Yes and no. If you use the modern 4 person adventuring party, one is probably going to be useless except for that one fight where he uses sleep.

But back in the day if you had 6 to 12 people in the party, he could hide in the back throwing darts or whatnot until sleep was needed.
3
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Greta is at it..AGAIN
« Last post by GeekyBugle on Today at 02:20:59 AM »
The lifetime emissions can range from 20% less to 60% less than a gasoline car, depending on how its made and especially on what source you're charging it from.

So, by only comparing lifetime emissions, you are conveniently leaving out the environmental harm done in the process of strip mining for the minerals needed to make the batteries to make the EVs.  You can't be unaware of this problem since GeekyBugle has brought it up several times in detail.  I can only conclude that you are being deliberately disingenuous and deliberately presenting a false view of the costs.  In short, you are arguing in bad faith again.

By "lifetime" I mean end to end, including both production and disposal -- i.e. including the minerals needed for the car body, engine, battery, etc.

BUT you're ONLY focussing on gas emissions, because?

If I was a betting man I would say it's because you can't argue your way out of the TOTAL environmental damage done by EVs

EVs have low energy returns and quantity because much of mining, at least half of manufacturing, and the bulk of shipping involve fossil fuels. Similar applies to mechanized agriculture.

Meanwhile, energy returns from fossil fuels have been dropping, from a hundred barrels for each barrel used in the 1930s to three today. Why do you think the oil industry has been resorting to not only fracking but tar sands, biofuels, natural gas, etc., with even countries like Saudi Arabia investing in nuclear and solar power?

It's like debating with Greta and her counterpart, and both living in a fantasy world: one imagines utopia based on environmentalism and the other based on the Jetsons.

If only we had electric freaking roads!

Huh? Gasoline is less energy dense now than in the 30s? Or what the fuck are you talking about?

Tell me you haven't read a freaking thing I've written without telling me you haven't read a single thing I've written.

Either that or you have ZERO reading comprehension.
4
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Greta is at it..AGAIN
« Last post by ralfy on Today at 01:33:26 AM »
The lifetime emissions can range from 20% less to 60% less than a gasoline car, depending on how its made and especially on what source you're charging it from.

So, by only comparing lifetime emissions, you are conveniently leaving out the environmental harm done in the process of strip mining for the minerals needed to make the batteries to make the EVs.  You can't be unaware of this problem since GeekyBugle has brought it up several times in detail.  I can only conclude that you are being deliberately disingenuous and deliberately presenting a false view of the costs.  In short, you are arguing in bad faith again.

By "lifetime" I mean end to end, including both production and disposal -- i.e. including the minerals needed for the car body, engine, battery, etc.

BUT you're ONLY focussing on gas emissions, because?

If I was a betting man I would say it's because you can't argue your way out of the TOTAL environmental damage done by EVs

EVs have low energy returns and quantity because much of mining, at least half of manufacturing, and the bulk of shipping involve fossil fuels. Similar applies to mechanized agriculture.

Meanwhile, energy returns from fossil fuels have been dropping, from a hundred barrels for each barrel used in the 1930s to three today. Why do you think the oil industry has been resorting to not only fracking but tar sands, biofuels, natural gas, etc., with even countries like Saudi Arabia investing in nuclear and solar power?

It's like debating with Greta and her counterpart, and both living in a fantasy world: one imagines utopia based on environmentalism and the other based on the Jetsons.
5
HAHAH true. Dickering about numbers in RPG's is no different than arguing about who would win in a fight between Cap and Batman (We all know it's Cap. Right? RIGHT?)

My money's on Bats...  (activate force field)

FIGHT!

I could see it either way. My general feeling is that if it's a cage match, Cap is gonna win. If Bats gets *any* environmental edge - it's dark, or he has the proverbial "Time to prepare"- then Bats has the advantage, but I'd never count Cap out.

In comics, the JLA/Avengers crossover is about the purest demonstration of both universes operating together. Kurt Busiek and (RIP) the legendary George Perez honored both universes. I can accept it.

Yeah, I can see it going either way. Like you mentioned, if Bats can take advantage of the environment (especially darkness) he's got the edge. I think they're about evenly matched in terms of fighting skill and tactics.

But when it comes to the movie screen-- Evan's Cap fights far better than Bale's Batman. That elevator scene in Winter Soldier-- damn. "Before we get started, does anyone want to get out?"
6
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Greta is at it..AGAIN
« Last post by ralfy on Today at 01:29:35 AM »
Right, and fracking took place because world conventional production peaked in 2015, which the IEA confirmed in 2010 and King predicted correctly in 1976.

If any, fracking supports what the Club of Rome said. Otherwise, there'd be no need to resort to uncoventional production in the first place.

The same with the Ehrlich wager: they were focusing on price, not diminishing returns, which is what the mining industry has been experiencing for decades:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFyTSiCXWEE

A century ago, you could get lots of high-grade copper with no heavy equipment. Now, you need the latter to get lower amounts of copper and of lower grade. It's the same with oil: you start with an energy return of a hundred barrels for each barrel used, then after several decades it goes down to three, and then you resort to fracking.

No, it proves that the Club of Rome's basic premise is wrong.  We have proved reserve than before, not less.

It's not unconventional production that we are resorting to.  It's a new method of extraction that was invented.

There is a direct connection between supply and prices.  Prices were used as a proxy for supply.

Then you come up with a new technology to access resources that were not previously accessible at an economical cost.  Saying that we are "resorting to" this doesn't change anything.

Why are you using proven reserves? That doesn't make sense, including what's technically recoverable. What you should look for is capex vs. production rate increase.

New methods of extraction is unconventional production. The depletion rates per well are higher, which is why capex is higher. Why do you think Hubbert talked about it back in 1956 but oil industries didn't resort to it until much later. Read the BP Stats report from 2012 for details.

Direct connection? When oil prices went up, demand didn't go down. When oil prices plummeted to zero or lower during the early stage of the pandemic, demand didn't soar. And do you know who sets prices? Not the end users but the ones who speculate at the bourse and negotiate with the sellers.

For the same reason, price is not a proxy for supply. Did supply soar when price plummeted during the pandemic. Did it go up after 2005 because supply fell?

Worse, did you also look at demand per day, which is 100 Mbd? You got a field with potentially 5 billion barrels. How much supply is that for the world economy? 50 days?

Finally, what economical cost? Capex has been doubling the last two decades, and in exchange for what? A third of the previous increase in oil production? And covered by increasing debt, consisting of mostly junk bonds?

7
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Greta is at it..AGAIN
« Last post by ralfy on Today at 01:19:22 AM »
Bill Gates: The Net Zero transition will require the energy grid "to be about three times bigger than it is today".

"Consumers can help us by stretching to buy an electric car, or an electric heat pump, or food that's made a low emissions way."

"The rich countries owe it to the world not only to reduce their emissions, but to drive down the cost of these green products."

https://archive.is/l8M85

Exactly! So why is the Club of Rome seen as wrong? In order to meet the basic needs of the world population, we'll need at least an additional earth in terms of energy and material resources. To meet wants including EVs for personal use, three more.

BECAUSE all their predictions, since the 70s have been wrong and BECAUSE your lñeaders are buying beach front property comrade.

Then why did real data from 1972 to 2012 track the LtG standard run model?



8

I have. It is possible to interpret the rule that way, since I interpreted it that way, so I remain correct. Posturing as a bizarrely aggressive sperg because you believe your position is popular is not an argument.


You have not interpreted it that way.  You have instead made up something that is directly contradicted by the text.  You do this in a lot of rules threads just to start drama with people who are correct.  I'm not sure if you're trolling or earnestly incorrect.

I interpreted it that way. Don't tell me what I did or didn't do. Disagreeing with people is not starting drama, and you're not the arbiter of which positions are correct.

I'll tell you exactly what you didn't do; you didn't interpret it.  An interpretation doesn't contradict the text.  Instead, what you said doesn't line up with what is in the book, and I provided the quote proving so.  Your misunderstanding about the text preventing what you wrote from being an interpretation.

Disagreeing with people is not inherently starting drama, you're correct about that.  But like, separate from that point, you'd agree you do start drama in threads, right? 

Also, as far as "not being the arbiter", I mean, anyone is the arbiter of stuff when they are correct.  Like me in this case.  I can definitely judge a position incorrect if it doesn't line up with the text.  What we can't do is come to a conclusion about which of the "subtract the constant and add the new die" or the "roll everything each time" position is correct, based on the text.  That was the premise of the blogpost.  Within that scenario, I'd generally argue for the progressive thing instead of the reroll.  I'd say something like, the reroll itself would be notable enough to include in the text.  Or, the reroll isn't obvious enough to count as implication.  I'd point out that you can reach the conclusion in the example by a method wherein you add dice and subtract constants, and that this is probably what was being done, as the charts already have other things that don't stick around at each level.

But for all that, the new hypothesis isn't contradicted by the text; it's a valid interpretation, even if I don't think it's the best one.

Something that does contradict the text, however, isn't an interpretation, it's a misunderstanding.
9
HAHAH true. Dickering about numbers in RPG's is no different than arguing about who would win in a fight between Cap and Batman (We all know it's Cap. Right? RIGHT?)

My money's on Bats...  (activate force field)

FIGHT!

I could see it either way. My general feeling is that if it's a cage match, Cap is gonna win. If Bats gets *any* environmental edge - it's dark, or he has the proverbial "Time to prepare"- then Bats has the advantage, but I'd never count Cap out.

In comics, the JLA/Avengers crossover is about the purest demonstration of both universes operating together. Kurt Busiek and (RIP) the legendary George Perez honored both universes. I can accept it.




10
HAHAH true. Dickering about numbers in RPG's is no different than arguing about who would win in a fight between Cap and Batman (We all know it's Cap. Right? RIGHT?)

My money's on Bats...  (activate force field)



Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10