Yea, I responded how I choose to do. I don’t owe you a discussion. You’re not worth discussing with, and it’s been readily apparent from the moment you first replied with that bs, bad faith question.

You’re utterly ignorant if you think that the structure of politics doesn’t alter the implementation of economic systems. You really are stupid.

How fucking stupid are you that you do not understand politics and economics are intrinsically linked? You cannot have an economy without the overarching government that dictates its structure.

You have no education that matters for these purposes if you don’t even know this most fundamental basic.

I don’t owe you a conversation, fyi. I have no interest in a discussion with a simp for the owning-class

Nice try framing the question with arbitrary qualifications to what you, personally, would consider a valid answer. Too bad I don’t respect your authority to determine what is or isn’t valid.

Ooooh, you have a degree in “business”? Please just announce for the whole class that you’re biased as fuck to any answer I would give. (B/BS/M)BA’s are such bullshit, nothing more than capitalist brainwashing, teaching people how to best maximize the profits of the owning class and uphold the interests of this exploitative system of economics.

You forget that societal systems don’t exist until they are created. Capitalism used to never exist and, during its infancy, was argued extensively by the ruling class of the time that it didn’t “work”, yet now we live in a world where it feels inescapable. So, to your logic, I guess people back then never should have tried to create a new system in which to better their lives because that system wasn’t one that “exists in the world that works”.

Please, miss me with your simple minded bullshit.

Wow, you completely missed the point.

Nothing is set in stone. Everything that exists today are imaginary social structures, including but not limited to the entire concept of economics and finances, that 100% can be altered or removed in their entirety.

Go read political theory and educate yourself to find the alternatives. There are many.

What an utterly myopic argument that is devoid of critical analysis of our societal systems that dictate what those roles in society are to begin with.

Bet you think communism is “inherently authoritarian” don’t you?

Yup, this right here is exactly what broke me out of the nostalgia haze.

Just the utter nickle-n-diming for the most basic things really rubbed me wrong.

Game was fun for a week until the nostalgia high wore off and you just became more aware of how much shittier playing is now compared to the old days.

I remember customizing my armor and stuff for multiplayer back in the old days. Tried to do it after a week of playing Infinite, thinking I surely had some pieces unlocked to make a custom armor, to find EVERYTHING locked off and isolated, no free color palettes to use, no mix-n-matching sets. So, sure, I had a bunch of pieces unlocked, but they were all one or two for different sets.

This broke the rose color glasses for me. My next few games I started noticing the flaws in the gameplay, and just found myself wanting to play Halo 2 instead.

No surprise. You’re in .world

Unfortunately, that instance is crawling with neoliberalists.

Based

“language is descriptive, not prescriptive”

Gods, what an utterly myopic defense. You do know there is a difference between colloquial language for the purpose of simple communication and theoretical language for the purpose of in-depth systemic analysis, right?

Don’t make excuses for being willfully ignorant of political theory.

This is naivety in thinking capitalism gives people food and shelter. That is done through human hands laboring to create and then distribute those things.

Capitalism only restricts access based on the private property system of ownership then makes us of the working class compete against each other for the privilege of buying it back with imaginary tokens of value from those who have claimed private ownership over it and the means of producing it.

Other systems exist. You have the ability to educate yourself on them.

People said the same thing of the divine right of kings and look how that turned out.

Any power that is created by human hands can be dismantled by them.

Congratulations, you have rediscovered that people make mistakes and thus their actions do not always perfectly align with their convictions.

That doesn’t make them a hypocrite, it makes them human.

It isn’t as if these individuals are purposely endorsing AI imagery, more that they have simply failed to spot it as such. With how these algorithms are advancing, it is becoming more difficult for the casual user.

Your little strawman is creating a character where you get to assign the intent behind its actions as you wish to have it support your argument and then claiming it is representative of all users. No one is falling for it.

My issue is a lot of people explain their reason before they get to the point, but their reasoning is based on incorrect assumptions or misinformation they have taken as truth.

So you have to sit there and try to remember their argument and why it’s wrong while they are continuing on with faulty logic that you already know is misinformed. It should be entirely acceptable to break someone’s chain of thought to correct someone on something they are misunderstanding.

Cool story bro, but I never claimed that it did. I said that as an example of what I was talking about plus the cultural history for why it exists as it does in America, not as a claim that Americans invented it.

Learn to fucking read.

American exceptionalism is the theory that the United States is unique and has a special role in the world due to its history and ideals of democracy, liberty, and self-government. It suggests the U.S. is different from, and often superior to, other nations, and has a unique mission to spread its values globally.

Take your own advice, “hotshot”.

How is it American exceptionalism?

How am I trying to say the US is unique or exceptional? I’m not claiming it is the only country with toxic, cultural workplace traditions nor that our traditions have influenced those of other nations. I’m just giving an answer to a publicly asked question from my perspective, which so happens to be American.

You’re free and welcome to do the same if you so wish. No one is stopping you.

You shouldn’t be rolling for perception first. Players don’t get to roll until they actually do a thing, until then you use passive perception. And even if you are rolling a perception check on their behalf, you do it behind the screen. So they won’t know if they rolled well or not.

Yea, that was kind my whole point. The way you described earlier.

Traps are puzzles. Even if they didn’t roll high enough, you should still describe enough about their environment that they could reasonably deduce that a trap was there.

literally states to roll first then narratively describe after so they can deduce that a trap was there if the roll was low, which is what I was arguing against. That explanation has the order of events all wrong. Also, this goes back to the original point that players dislike when you roll for them behind the screen. Before the rules officially allowed it, many players would throw a fit about not being able to see the rolls.

Plus, I never mentioned passives. Disliked the concept so I don’t use them to begin with. I have only ever been talking about directly making rolls.

.

It seems to me the confusion lies in, what I would say is, an over-reliance on the grid in that you aren’t understanding my method, fundamentally, as you’re assuming the grid is being used when it isn’t. Your rebuttal is focused on having players be allowed to basically play Minesweeper with the grid, tediously wasting everyone’s time, when that would never be allowed as an option for them with how I do things.

For me, the grid only gets used for combat and nothing else. This way I never have to deal with players wasting time trying to cheese the game by asking to check every square because it’s all theater-of-the-mind, there is no grid. I might use visual help to display a room layout, but it’s only there for general reference. Players still get to try and predict where traps are and stuff based on my descriptions; they just tell me what part of my description they are interacting with, or if it’s just a general search of the room itself. Based on their input and how detailed they are, I then determine who needs to roll what, add bonuses and negatives if applicable, then the scene will play out.

Plus, this also allows me to keep track of time by treating each scene as 1 time block. I just jot down how long the entire scene took, then how long it took to travel to the next scene.

You’re not removing the rolls themselves but you’re removing the point of rolling with how you described doing it.

The way you stated to do it, you have them roll for perception first then you are narrating the area and having players say what they want to do afterwards. That’s backwards. This sets up subconscious metagaming because now their actions are going to be influenced by their low perception roll.

Instead, I narrate the scene first, (where during this time, yes, we as DM’s 100% have the obligation of setting the tone and hinting that players might want to try searching for the traps. That I do entirely agree with) then the players all tell their actions. Once I call for checks, that’s it. The scene now plays and there is no taking back action because of a failed roll.

With this as the order of events, it still keeps traps engaging, as it is just as much part of the storytelling as everything else they are doing when exploring an area, but now rolls come after the declaration of actions so they won’t have an influence on the decision making process.

See, traps are supposed to blindside the players if they fail their check. That’s what makes them traps. The thing about BAD traps versus a GOOD trap, though, is ensuring the players have the opportunity to try avoiding it. You don’t have to ensure their success, that’s up to the roll of the dice.

Traps can be part of puzzle design if you want your puzzle to have lethal consequences and not just story related, sure nothing wrong with that, but to say all your traps have to themselves be puzzles is a convoluted solution to a simple problem.

Still hilarious how you purposely are ignoring the rest of the context surrounding the employee sweeping the floor to misrepresent my argument in bad faith.

Go lick boots for the owning class elsewhere, bitch. We have class consciousness here