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 5 ... 10
21
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.

Its not so much the wheelchair - as the thought, or lack thereof, behind it. Anymore its more likely these insertions are not in good faith. That is the problem.

I have no idea if its viable or not in a post apoc setting. But circumstance is going to FORCE the handicapped to get out there and fight.

I think the same off-road/rubble problems are going to be a problem though. And anything with stairs. We come back to the need for a PC to act as handler for these problems. Which fits these settings too. And as said before. Can even fit a fantasy one. Work together or die alone.
22
Ruts. Ancient and medieval roads had deep ruts. Dirt roads, stone roads, dry or wet. We don’t get the same thing today except sometimes on unmaintained backcountry roads. The ruts were carved over years by thousands of carts. Speaking of carts…a donkey cart would be infinitely more practical than a wheelchair.

Depends on the traffic. And you can putter between ruts if they are wagon sized. But we lived around alot of Amish and their dirt roads did not have ruts. Or at least ones worth noting. Its been a few decades now. Not sure why. But if they can pull it off...

Rain is still going the be the more pressing problem. And you still have the off-road problem.

You know what occurred to me that could work?

A halfling or gnome ranger or artificer in a dog cart or similar. I have an old catalogue from 1930 and theres a section on them for dogs, goats even to pull children around. Still got that off-road problem. But maybe something like a magical sled? Of course the woke cant ever think of more than a fantasy indestructo flying wheelchair.
23
Greetings!

Yes, ForgottenF and I agree very much. In the "Wheelchair" thread, I made precisely the same argument. Yes, I am biased towards harsh, brutal reality, because I have actually done all of what amounts to as "Adventuring" in real life, professionally. While the Army and Navy are not as strict and demanding as the Marine Corps, historically, both of them have embraced and demanded a fairly rigorous uniform standard of physical abilities. Army Infantry demand everyone in the squad are able to perform basic physical challenges, running, climbing, swimming, digging, crawling, combat, running, and so on. The Navy--of course, not now with the fucking Woke Navy--but in the past, they too required regular physical challenges, carrying men and equipment up and down tight flights of stairwells, working with heavy tools, weapons and ammunition, and of course, being skilled in swimming. They also required a standard of athletics, likewise from every member of the crew, regardless of their particular "job".

That gets into my experience with the Marine Corps policy of "Every man a Rifleman." The Marines of course, likewise demand extremely vigorous physical abilities from everyone--again, regardless of their job or specialty. The standards within the Marine Infantry and Force Recon are much higher, and even more demanding. The Navy Seals, as you mentioned, yes, they too demand some of the highest and most brutal standards, again, for every member of the team.

This experience is all very relevant, because for many members of the military, at least much of the time, we do most everything that professional Adventurers in our games do.

The stupid, the fat, the weak, the slow--and certainly the fucking crippled--are not welcome, not acceptable, and not tolerated.

WHY?

Because people will unnecessarily DIE trying to protect the weak fucks, or get killed while coddling them.

Next, the MISSION. The success of the MISSION requires everyone is pulling their weight, and bringing their "A" game in every way. Minimum standards are simply a baseline--out in the field, in the real world, the Mission will always demand FAR MORE.

Your team simply must be able to all perform very well, and be ready and able to exceed expectations, or the Mission fails.

So, yeah, even in 1E D&D, Wizards are always very welcome, and an excellent asset--but they still must be able to do all the basic physical challenges and wilderness survival and movement required of everyone on the team.

There is no room for the weak, the fat, the slow, the stupid, or the crippled.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Shark, do you allow players to re-roll characters if they get lousy stats?  Or are you in the “3d6, straight-down-the-line-and-you’ll-take-what-you-get-and-like-it” camp?

Greetings!

Good question, my friend! The truth is, it depends on the "Campaign Mode" I am running that particular group with. Normal Mode--which is 4D6 for each stat; or Hard Mode, which is 3D6 down the line. Of course, sometimes I will run the campaign one mode or the other, or allow the Players to select what they like. Some, after all, *prefer* the Hard Mode.

In recent campaigns, however, like my more recent group, I have been playing the Shadowdark rules, so, HARD MODE it is!

I can be lenient though. If they roll up a totally lame Character, yeah, reroll and get something decent. I don't let them reroll endlessly, seeking super stats--but simply to get that rough, decent range of stats. The driving point, being, yeah, Adventurers are unusual and somewhat elite. You have to be to even have a chance at surviving the challenges ahead. Being normal is ok, but let's face it--a large chunk of humanity are in fact, just walking corpses in a firefight. They are often mentally and physically entirely unsuited to fighting at the front. So, I am careful to supervise Players to make sure that they have rugged, functional characters. The weak, fat, crippled, and so on, well, again, let's be real. Those people stay back on the farm, or stay in the urban ghetto where they come from, or even a more well-off house. Those people stay near the temples, the schools, and markets, away from danger and real work.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Thanks for the response.  It is always good to know your take on things. 


I myself am kind of a softy when it comes to stats.  I would like a character to have two good stats and to be able to place them so they can pick a class that they want to play.  In the AD&D Player’s Handbook Gary Gygax recommends that a player character have at least a 15 in two stats since they represent heroic adventurers.  Since I use the  B/X rules and the plusses start at 13, I would be okay with two stats of at least 13 or better.  My reasoning is that I can always bump up the challenge if the players are really “heroic” and cutting their way through hordes of enemies Conan style. 

Regarding Magic-Users, I have no problem with a mage swinging a sword in a fight.  They are still going to have crappy to-hit rolls in most systems.  Not sure how I feel about them wearing heavy armor, or any armor for that matter.  The whole “magic doesn’t work ‘cause metal armor” falls apart when the mage dons a suit of dragon scale armor or magical leather.  I am forced to say “no” for the sake of game balance.  I would rule if the mage wants to wear armor and fight well then they should branch off into fighter.

24
Greetings!

Yes, ForgottenF and I agree very much. In the "Wheelchair" thread, I made precisely the same argument. Yes, I am biased towards harsh, brutal reality, because I have actually done all of what amounts to as "Adventuring" in real life, professionally. While the Army and Navy are not as strict and demanding as the Marine Corps, historically, both of them have embraced and demanded a fairly rigorous uniform standard of physical abilities. Army Infantry demand everyone in the squad are able to perform basic physical challenges, running, climbing, swimming, digging, crawling, combat, running, and so on. The Navy--of course, not now with the fucking Woke Navy--but in the past, they too required regular physical challenges, carrying men and equipment up and down tight flights of stairwells, working with heavy tools, weapons and ammunition, and of course, being skilled in swimming. They also required a standard of athletics, likewise from every member of the crew, regardless of their particular "job".

That gets into my experience with the Marine Corps policy of "Every man a Rifleman." The Marines of course, likewise demand extremely vigorous physical abilities from everyone--again, regardless of their job or specialty. The standards within the Marine Infantry and Force Recon are much higher, and even more demanding. The Navy Seals, as you mentioned, yes, they too demand some of the highest and most brutal standards, again, for every member of the team.

This experience is all very relevant, because for many members of the military, at least much of the time, we do most everything that professional Adventurers in our games do.

The stupid, the fat, the weak, the slow--and certainly the fucking crippled--are not welcome, not acceptable, and not tolerated.

WHY?

Because people will unnecessarily DIE trying to protect the weak fucks, or get killed while coddling them.

Next, the MISSION. The success of the MISSION requires everyone is pulling their weight, and bringing their "A" game in every way. Minimum standards are simply a baseline--out in the field, in the real world, the Mission will always demand FAR MORE.

Your team simply must be able to all perform very well, and be ready and able to exceed expectations, or the Mission fails.

So, yeah, even in 1E D&D, Wizards are always very welcome, and an excellent asset--but they still must be able to do all the basic physical challenges and wilderness survival and movement required of everyone on the team.

There is no room for the weak, the fat, the slow, the stupid, or the crippled.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Shark, do you allow players to re-roll characters if they get lousy stats?  Or are you in the “3d6, straight-down-the-line-and-you’ll-take-what-you-get-and-like-it” camp?

Greetings!

Good question, my friend! The truth is, it depends on the "Campaign Mode" I am running that particular group with. Normal Mode--which is 4D6 for each stat; or Hard Mode, which is 3D6 down the line. Of course, sometimes I will run the campaign one mode or the other, or allow the Players to select what they like. Some, after all, *prefer* the Hard Mode.

In recent campaigns, however, like my more recent group, I have been playing the Shadowdark rules, so, HARD MODE it is!

I can be lenient though. If they roll up a totally lame Character, yeah, reroll and get something decent. I don't let them reroll endlessly, seeking super stats--but simply to get that rough, decent range of stats. The driving point, being, yeah, Adventurers are unusual and somewhat elite. You have to be to even have a chance at surviving the challenges ahead. Being normal is ok, but let's face it--a large chunk of humanity are in fact, just walking corpses in a firefight. They are often mentally and physically entirely unsuited to fighting at the front. So, I am careful to supervise Players to make sure that they have rugged, functional characters. The weak, fat, crippled, and so on, well, again, let's be real. Those people stay back on the farm, or stay in the urban ghetto where they come from, or even a more well-off house. Those people stay near the temples, the schools, and markets, away from danger and real work.

As I recall, isn't the average for 3D6 like, 10? The average for 4D6 (drop lowest) is...12, I think? Depending on what scores the Players have in what, yeah, I try and hope they never get anything below a -1 modifier. Or at least, not having more than two (-1) attributes. Having two or more (-1) or (-2) attributes, well, yeah, you are getting very close to failure state there, you know? Again, depending on the attributes and the class, some things can slide better than others, more so in the mental, social areas than the physical, for example. Being socially clumsy, or mentally a bit on the slow side can be fine--but if you cannot run, climb, jump, swim, carry shit, dig, and fight to a basic standard, that seems like a huge no to me, right from the beginning.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
25
I would say they probably are very weak to the point playing a multi-class Mage is an upgrade (like Mage/Thief). I would agree that they probably should be able to wield swords, much like Gandalf.
26
Start out with only 1 spell per day; and you don't get to choose that spell from the spell list yourself, either.
27
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Biden's Cascade of Failure!
« Last post by Ratman_tf on Today at 06:51:17 PM »
Why would people be invested in Harris specifically? She's not popular among the democratic base (for doing horrible things like fighting against the release of a man who had already been proven to be wrongfully convicted: www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/daniel-larsen-murder-conviction-overturned-innocence-project/2058098) and there's a hundred other establishment politicians who could fill the same role as her.

The Democrat establishment is very enamored of the idea of having a woman who isn't white as President.  Harris fits the bill.  There's just one little problem.  She couldn't get any traction even within her own party.  There's no way she could win in the general election.  They really like the image of her in the White House though so there she is.

What's the over/under they'll fortify the elections and then Biden dies/retires?

I would not bet 2 cents against that. Maybe a penny just to be a sport about it.
28
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Biden's Cascade of Failure!
« Last post by GeekyBugle on Today at 06:36:38 PM »
Why would people be invested in Harris specifically? She's not popular among the democratic base (for doing horrible things like fighting against the release of a man who had already been proven to be wrongfully convicted: www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/daniel-larsen-murder-conviction-overturned-innocence-project/2058098) and there's a hundred other establishment politicians who could fill the same role as her.

The Democrat establishment is very enamored of the idea of having a woman who isn't white as President.  Harris fits the bill.  There's just one little problem.  She couldn't get any traction even within her own party.  There's no way she could win in the general election.  They really like the image of her in the White House though so there she is.

What's the over/under they'll fortify the elections and then Biden dies/retires?
29
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Greta is at it..AGAIN
« Last post by GeekyBugle on Today at 06:15:51 PM »
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
30
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Greta is at it..AGAIN
« Last post by GeekyBugle on Today at 06:13:44 PM »
I agree that neither pollution should be discounted -- but they should be evaluated fairly. I'm reading through your recent links, but they don't seem to be doing side-by-side comparison. An EV battery is good for 100k to 200k miles -- which is the equivalent of 4000 to 8000 gallons of gasoline, or about 200 to 400 barrels of crude oil. So the question is:

1) What is the damage from drilling, refining, and then burning the gasoline from 300 barrels of crude oil?
2) What is the damage from mining the materials and manufacturing one EV battery?

I don't have exact answers for these. Battery manufacture produces toxic material, but it's a question of how much is produced and how much of that will get into people's bodies -- compared to breathing in output from car exhaust like carbon monoxide, ground-level ozone, and particulates.

I do know that around 5 million people a year have early deaths from air pollution. How many would you guess have early deaths every year from battery waste? I'm skeptical that it is anywhere close to 5 million. You can say "battery waste is toxic" but that's like saying "nuclear waste is toxic". It's technically true, but nuclear waste is relatively tiny and extremely well-handled -- particularly when compared to dumping toxins directly into the air that people breath.

So the water pollution from mining the lithium doesn't count? https://media.istockphoto.com/id/1399997488/photo/greenbushes-lithium-mine.webp?b=1&s=170667a&w=0&k=20&c=_pJKX6mjys2DVjDsFz7smuxqiYFHDFXykI4LWfJLBWc=

ALL the air pollution from the mining, shipping the Lithium to China doesn't count?
All the air pollution from the manufacturing of the batteries in China doesn't count?
All the air pollution from shipping those batteries to the US?
What about the air pollution from manufacturing and shipping the EVs to the US?
What about the air pollution from producing the electricity to charge the batteries?

You KNOW I live in México City right?

GeekyBugle, how is this disagreeing with anything I said? Yes, everything should be counted, both for EVs and for gasoline cars. So it counts the pollution from mining for material for the gasoline car, shipping the gasoline car, running the refineries, shipping the gasoline to the gas stations, etc. Here's one analysis of both for several different options for lifetime emissions, for example:

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/2228291

Browsing, most other estimates are similar. 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.

Living in México City, I can see that would make you mad about air pollution. From what I read, it does seem to be getting better than in the 1990s, but it's still bad - especially NO2 and particulates. Here's the graph I'm looking at:


Source: https://thecityfix.com/blog/expanding-mexico-citys-air-quality-forecast-to-help-citizens-live-more-healthy-lives/

What do you think should be done to help clean it up further?

Assuming those comparisons aren't manipulated:

What about the OTHER environmental damage done to mine the minerals for the batteries? What about the pollution from the used batteries?

You're too busy focusing on air while it's not the only thing to consider.

Cleaning the City's air? Didn't you see the photo of the Tula Thermoelectric? Guess why they keep expanding the limitations to citizen's cars and they just can't breakthrough to a point where it's no longer needed?

Edited to add:

What page are those savings on green house gas emissions at?
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10