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 Ruprecht on Today at 06:06:16 AM »
Does that help, Ruprecht?
Yes it helps a lot. I was thinking to narrowly.
2
A couple of thoughts on this …

I believe the approach with early D&D was that the magic user paid for his nigh-demigodhood late in the game by having a difficult childhood.  This more or less worked, but in retrospect, I think it wasn’t the best approach

My group played more or less RAW starting at 1st level, and the magic-users moved on to higher levels, proving that they weren’t actually too frail to survive.

Playing a first level magic user and getting a critical sleep spell maybe once per session at the right time is glorious, but being weaksauce the rest of the time is boring and not very fun.  It’s a legitimate play style but not one I care for.

My preferred approach follows SHARK’s comments.  I’d like everyone on the team to be a competent but not necessarily expert combatant so they can pull their weight even at low level.  In AD&D (my preferred D&D) I think the best way to do this would be to give everyone a level of fighter from the git-go.  So your m-u would be a m-u 1 / fighter 1, the thief would be a thief 1 / fighter 1, and the fighter would be a fighter 2.  Then progression would happen in the non-fighter class.
3
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Greta is at it..AGAIN
« Last post by yosemitemike on Today at 05:52:32 AM »
Then why did real data from 1972 to 2012 track the LtG standard run model?

That doesn't change the simple fact that none of the Club of Rome's doom and gloom predictions came true.  None of Paul Erlich's predictions came true either.  Climate change alarmists also have a long track record of doom and gloom predictions that didn't come true.

Why are you using proven reserves?

Because that's the best measure of the resources that are actually available.  Production is subject to various economical and political pressures.  For example, the Biden administration blocking drilling in almost half of the National Petroleum Reserves for political reasons.

New methods of extraction is unconventional production.

Bullshit.  All methods of extraction were new method of extraction at some point.  If that means that they are unconventional methods of production, the all methods of production are unconventional methods of production.  You are are just trying to come up with some justification for why this increase in proved reserves doesn't count because it wrecks your entire line of logic by disproving the premise that it is all built on.

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.

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?

I tell you what.  We'll come back here in 50 days.  If were are out of oil at that time, I will admit that you are right.  That's not going to happen though.  We have been about to run out of oil since the 70s and, yet, that somehow keeps not happening.  Instead, we have substantially more proved reserves now than we had then. 

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?

As I already pointed out and, I suspect, you are already aware, production is affected by factors that have nothing to do with resource availability or economics and everything to do with politics. 

4
Been looking for a new Superherovrpgcand this one fits the bill for me at least.

When will it release? Will it be only through Drivethrurpg or in stores?
5
It seems like you're picturing an adventuring party like a SEAL team --

We don't have to wonder what he was picturing.  He said it straight out several times and it was not an elite Special Operations team.  It was a normal rifleman aka everyone in the Marine Corps.  Pretending that he is talking about an adventuring group that's like a SEAL team when he clearly said what he was talking about is highly disingenuous.

As someone else has already pointed out, there is a very large excluded middle ground between people who would be an active liability because they can't walk on one hand and super elite soldiers on the other.  This middle ground is where the large majority of D&D characters are.  The wizard isn't as physically capable as the barbarian but he can still keep up or he wouldn't be there.  Going from one extreme directly to the opposite extreme is highly disingenuous.

I suspect that this entire topic was started in bad faith.  I think you are trying to get someone to say something that you can then use to justify wheelchair bound characters going adventuring.  You are fishing for a gotcha in an argument in another thread.  Something like this

People would bring physically incapable wizards because they bring other utility.
Oh yeah well a character wheelchair bound character can also bring other utility.  Touche bigot.

People just aren't playing ball. 
6
For those curious about Cthulhu Eternal; here's the link to the rules for playing in the 1920s (it's "Pay What You Want"):

https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/384109/cthulhu-eternal-jazz-age-srd
7
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.
8
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.
9
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.
10
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.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10