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 4 ... 10
11
I think part of the reason why character INT isn't just the attribute score on the player's character sheet and sometimes instead maps to the player's intelligence is that INT is a relatively abstract concept. You can quantify STR in various concrete ways, max press, for example. But distinguishing between what types of puzzles or riddles someone with a 13 INT should be able to solve compared to someone with a 15 INT isn't as readily quantifiable. How would you really know whether you were accurately role-playing an INT score of 13 versus 15? Compare that with physical attributes like STR. You typically don't role-play STR. Your character either has the requisite strength to do something or doesn't.

And INT shows up in more places than puzzles and riddles. Problem-solving in combat is another area where player intelligence (and experience) matters. I don't think most DMs would disallow some clever tactic or strategy on the ground that the fighter in question lacked the requisite INT score to have that insight in combat (and players typically do not place one of their better attribute scores in INT when playing fighters). If so, then why get bent out of shape about a character with a mediocre INT score solving a difficult puzzle or riddle based on the player's ability?

Old-school D&D is a messy amalgam of character ability and knowledge and player ability and knowledge. I think it works fine, despite the inconsistencies, and that there is no problem to solve here. With a hard-to-quantify attribute like INT, it would strip player characters of a lot of their agency if the DM was routinely adjudicating whether they were intelligent enough to take "x" action or think "y" thought based on INT scores.
12
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Greta is at it..AGAIN
« Last post by GeekyBugle on Today at 12:02:29 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.
13
Constant gaslighting makes reactionaries of people who wish to end such practice. I also see trannies lurking in every slob who wants to play an anime girl. You have chosen to die by stay-puft marshmellow man and i feel fine.
14
When the HKs and T-800s turn up who is staying behind to help him/her/xe/zi  with his/her/xem/zim wheelchair.


Being in a wheelchair, taking care of such survivors, and lacking alternatives, is not an unlikely scenario in a post-apocalyptic war against machines. And as long as it's treated as a liability and not some superpower it shouldn't be antithetical to verisimilitude. But at this point simply seeing a wheelchair is apparently just as triggering for yall as those hypothetical 'dogwhistles' the wokies keep complaining about.

This ideological bullshit is so tedious.



15

Incorrect. This is under the Tactics section of Combat. It applies to *any* attack that is Blunt Slugfest, Escaping, and Energy and Force Powers. Punching/kicking/headbutting etc. is Blunt Slugfest. This rule has been part of MSH since Basic.

So yes, a "high level street hero" can take out an *entire* gang in one action if he really wanted to - i.e. has a good roll (and if needs be use Karma). What you seem to be disagreeing with me is "how easy it should be." Frankly, I think MSH/Heroic is perfectly fine. YMMV. It's such a non-issue to me that it's mostly irrelevant in light of the other mechanical issues with MSH which Heroic currently resolves.

The Multiple Attack issue? Not sure if it matters much? It's a taste thing. I think it tracks nicely, but there are some adjustments I'd do but it would make things a tad more granular. MSH wasn't designed to flow like D&D - it's a mechanical snapshot of a comic panel. Rarely do you see big-sluggers doing "multiple" attacks in a single panel vs. more "Street Level" heroes, where you're trying to emphasize movement and speed. But does *anyone* really believe Captain America is a better fighter than Thor? or Hercules? It works for the emulation that MSH is trying for.

This same "Hit Everyone" rule is also in Heroic.

And if you want to really push the issue (in Heroic) the PC could also do an All-Out-Attack on *everyone* in the area, for an additional -3CS (for a total) of -7CS and do an additional +2CS. So sure it's an outlier - but that's precisely what the Karma system is for. In this case our "High Level Street PC" would do IN(40) damage to everyone in the area.

Could he sustain that against 30 goons? No. But that's kinda the point, right? We're dickering around about how/when a High Level Street character can take out goons. You and I can agree/disagree all day on MSH. But in Heroic? *All* of these issues are addressed.

What more, if you're an MSH purist, you can use any/all rules from Heroic and drop them into MSH...and vice versa without missing a beat.

Or you know, just use MEGS if that's your jam.

The dickering over numbers or whatever is just that, genre emulation of having the bad-ass street level guy plow through the goons to get to the 'real' fight.  Sure, you can narrate it, but it's more fun to roll dice.  As we've established, Heroic has that covered. :)

We haven't really played MEGS or any other Supers in forever. Just haven't found the right fit. Heroic looks like it addresses a lot of my irritations in this area. Have to read over it more for the other minor things we worked around, but I'm definitely interested in it.
16
I show you how simple or complex random generators can help you create new (and weird) character races for your #osr or #dnd #ttrpg

17
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Greta is at it..AGAIN
« Last post by ralfy on March 27, 2024, 10:34:20 PM »
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.
18
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Greta is at it..AGAIN
« Last post by ralfy on March 27, 2024, 10:32:37 PM »
We use alternatives all the time - it's around 40% of our electricity nationally, and in many other countries it's the majority - like France or Sweden. You keep speaking as if either we use zero fossil fuels or nothing matters, but that's obviously hyperbole. There are lots of in-between steps.

Well, IF it's not ZERO fossil fuels then what is it? For electricity generation you don't have a more reliable, cheaper and cleaner option.

For transport you DON'T have any other option:

No country is 100% off fossil fuels, but many countries that use *less* fossil fuels have overall more reliable, cheaper, and cleaner power. France and Sweden generate less than 20% of their energy from fossil fuels, and their energy is cheaper than average in Western Europe - thanks in part to early investment in nuclear power. (Germany and Denmark which have no nuclear are doing much worse.)

In particular, about the "cleaner" part... Fossil fuels are considered cleaner only because air pollution is given a free pass, even though it has clearly documented health effects, causing 5 million or so early deaths every year worldwide. If there was even the slightest health effect from a nuclear accident, a city would be shut down and evacuated. But we've been conditioned to think that air pollution is acceptable because it's just "normal". As Brad put it "Breathing in diesel exhaust will kill you from carbon monoxide poisoning a billion times sooner than anything else in there." -- as if that is some sort of reassurance that really diesel is safe.


Batteries weight the same full than empty, which limits the cargo and range of ANY vehicle, which in turn impacts prices. EVs aren't good even for commuting, as proven by Commiefornia asking their ressidents to NOT charge them because the grid can't service them. In winter EVs often can't start.

For what it's worth, my stepson is driving an eGolf that he got from his father. I think in your charging comment, you're referring to the record-heat week back in August 2022 when California asked everyone to reduce electricity use. Is that right? California does have below-average electricity reliability, but it's #35 out of 50. The three lowest are Oregon, Texas, and Louisiana.

https://generatordecision.com/states-with-the-most-least-reliable-power-grids/

I wouldn't dismiss all problems with EVs, but you're claiming that they don't even exist as an alternative.

You said before that there are no easy answers. I agree about that. EVs exist and are currently being used as an alternative to gasoline cars. Gasoline cars have greater range and weigh less, but they also spit out harmful pollutants into the air that are proven to damage lungs and reduce lifespan. There isn't a simple metric for how these trade off with each other.

Around 70 pct of heavy equipment in mining, around half of manufacturing, petrochemicals, the bulk of shipping, and mechanized agri are heavily dependent on fossil fuels. That's why even renewable energy is made using it or from it. The other set of materials needed are minerals.

What's the catch? Both oil and minerals face diminishing returns. That's why capex tripled for the oil industry while new oil went up much slower, and why increasing amounts of energy are needed to extract smaller quantities of minerals, and of lower grade.

The public gobble news about "game changers" and all that, but they always come up with catches, like that news about drilling for geothermal almost anywhere using new drilling tech, but with the catch of figuring out where to move the ash produced from drilling. Meanwhile, Greta dreams of an eco village where everyone will be happy. Good luck with that.



19
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Greta is at it..AGAIN
« Last post by ralfy on March 27, 2024, 10:27:24 PM »
This is the "nut picking argument":

The  mainstream "green movement", the bulk of whatever "enviromentalist" movement is, is composed of anti-nuclear, anti-human, marxist fearmongerers.

But I guess you would call them "no true scotssman".

GeekyBugle, you specifically asked to name ONE prominent personality who didn't fit your parameters. I named Michael Shellenberger -- and then you came back that naming one person doesn't count because the mainstream isn't like that. You specifically asked about one person outside the mainstream -- you can't dismiss it because he's not like the rest.

The majority of any political movement these days are ignorant fearmongers -- hyped up on social media and outrage, and going on about how we're all doomed because the other side are pure evil.


As for "drill baby drill" what's the option? One that doesn't neccesitate millions of your countrymen to go into poverty or die from hunger, cold, heat?

Again, we don't have a REAL alternative for fossil fuels, thanks to the "enviromentalists".

We use alternatives all the time - it's around 40% of our electricity nationally, and in many other countries it's the majority - like France or Sweden. You keep speaking as if either we use zero fossil fuels or nothing matters, but that's obviously hyperbole. There are lots of in-between steps. As yosemitemike noted,

In 1900, when the global human population was 1.5 billion, almost three million people – roughly one in 500 – died each year from air pollution, mostly from wretched indoor air. Today, the risk has receded to one death per 2,000 people. While pollution still kills more people than malaria does, the mortality rate is falling, not rising.

I agree. Since 1900, we've taken many steps to limit air pollution - like the 1963 Clear Air Act. And we can do more. It's not hypothetical - many countries can and have reduced pollution. One of the best ways is through nuclear power, but there are many options.

Well, IF it's not ZERO fossil fuels then what is it? For electricity generation you don't have a more reliable, cheaper and cleaner option.

For transport you DON'T have any other option:

Batteries weight the same full than empty, which limits the cargo and range of ANY vehicle, which in turn impacts prices. EVs aren't good even for commuting, as proven by Commiefornia asking their ressidents to NOT charge them because the grid can't service them. In winter EVs often can't start.

Let's go with the lightest EV the Nissan Leaf: 3,516 lbs https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/how-much-does-an-electric-car-weigh $25,675

The closest in size is the Nissan Sentra 3,038 lbs $23,325

And that's for cars.

In trucks you're out of luck, to be able to carry ANY payload to any interesting distance you need a lot of batteries, which, since they weight the same full as empty the range is reduced, also the cargo is reduced and since you CAN'T charge the batteries in the same time you can fill the tank your time to deliver is increased. What about refrigerated goods?

Don't get me started on planes and cargo ships.

IF you're serious about reducing air pollution you MUST be 100% behind Nuclear.

If you're not an anti-human authoritarian murderer you MUST be in favor of fossil fuels for transport.

IF you're serious about the environment you CAN'T be for wind, solar or EVs because their manufacture still uses fossil fuels AND their waste is toxic AND they aren't reliable, AND the mining for minerals is environmental suicide.

ANY other question?

Every energy source has low returns and quantity. Even if we put every source online we won't be able to meet even the basic needs of the world population.

That means there's no way that we will stop using fossil fuels, and what's affecting fossil fuels will also affect what we need to replace them, like uranium.

One has to live in a fantasy to think that people are resourceful enough to innovate their way out of simple physics. That's not going to happen.

So the "Final Solution" is to reduce the human population, I agree Fritz, you first.

(You're either scientifically illiterate/idiot or so ideologically possesed you lie by reflex, good bye and have a good life.

That's not the final solution because that leads to population aging. Why do you think industrialized countries have been getting young people in poor ones to take care of their elderly and to fill in jobs that they can't fulfill?

Now, you're resorting to personal insults, and because you can't face the arsenal of common sense that I've been throwing at you.

The world elite want continuous economic growth but it has to rise slowly and steadily, together with population. Anything faster leads to poverty while anything slower leads to population aging, and both are disastrous. That's why they came up with the idea of "sustainable development", which environmentalists and their right-wing opponents thought was sustainability.

In short, with less beef, let's try growing them or make them out of bugs.

Now, what's causing that? It's physical limits: you have less arable land, less fresh water, etc., then you have less food. This isn't rocket science.

In which case, how does continuous growth take place in a biosphere with physical limitations? The answer is, create more credit, which is exactly what happened after 2005: oil prices went up due to high capex, and that was met with increasing debt to cover the higher costs but didn't reverse energy returns. The result was financial crashes coupled with resorting to fracking.
20
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Greta is at it..AGAIN
« Last post by ralfy on March 27, 2024, 10:21:26 PM »
I am not 100% fully educated in the arguments when it comes to "climate change" but:

- when back in the 70s when the "experts" were perdicting a new ice age in the near future AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN

- when in the 90s & 2000s the "Experts" changed their tune and said it's "global warming" now, with Al "The Messiah" Gore blaring the "Earth has a fever" and Miami will be underwater in 20 years AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN

- where there is no real consensus among scientists when it comes climate change. just because someone says "a consensus among scientists" doesn't mean the consensus is correct. there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the causes of climate change. The dissenting voices are harshly shouted down or at least ignored.

- when I'm told in order to save the earth I need to limit my meat intake and eat more veggies, when it is been proven that it takes MORE land and water to produce vegetables and more harsh on the environment using modern agricultural methods.

- or being told we should EAT MORE BUGS for protein. NO, but FUCK NO!

and the "Elites" are still puttering around in gas-guzzling jets, or sitting in gigantic homes with 13 different air conditioners, eating Big Macs or Whoppers?

CONSIDER ME A SCEPTIC. I don't trust any of them. They have an agenda, and it's control of the population. It's not about money. Money is just a means to an end. It's about POWER AND CONTROL.

"He who controls a thing can destroy a thing".

That goes with people.

If anyone really thinks the Elites have the well-being of us poor unwashed masses at heart, you are lying to yourself.

It's all about POWER and CONTROL

In the late 1960s, they thought that pollution was blocking sunlight, and that it would lead to an ice age. They found out they were wrong when global cold spells disappeared after 1976. They realized that while soot was blocking sunlight CO2 was trapping surface heat.

Decades later, deniers funded Berkeley Earth to debunk conclusions made by the NAS. BEST ended up confirming what the NAS said.

What about power and control? The world population is controlled by only a few thousand corporations, and mostly in finance. They can only maintain power not through decreased consumption but by the opposite. Why? Because income and returns on investment are dependent on increasing sales and consumption of goods and services plus more financial gambling.

What about governments and even military forces? They are dependent on the same rich for funds, and they also need more consumption, like more public services and more and better armaments, to show that they're working.

In short, those in power want business as usual, and their idea of sustainability is actually sustainable development, i.e., continuous economic growth.

What's the problem, then? When you look at reports published by the Pentagon, banks like HSBC, insurers like Lloyds of London, and others for their clients and personnel, you see that they are warning of more risks due to combinations of war, epidemics, pandemics, financial crashes, pollution, food and other shortages, energy crises, and more, and ultimately driven by two things: business as usual going against physical limits, and the consequences of that.

Finally, why are the poor, unwashed masses ignorant of this? Because most of them are poor and don't want to be poor, which means they need to earn more in order to spend more. And the non-poor are counting on them to do that because their own investments and income are dependent on ever-increasing production and consumption of goods and services. In short, no one wants to hear bad news even though not just experts but even the same rich that fund them to study the matter know of such things. That's why they've been buying up land in various countries and having places to escape built. They're hoping that they can ride it out.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10