I'm going to hope that, like the fears of gun-grabbing and the like, Trump doesn't do all the horrible things people claim he will do. The downside being he was the one making some of those claims.
Oh come on. When was the last time a President, Democrat or Republican, actually followed through on a substantial number of their campaign promises? :P
That's BS. The Democrats chose to nominate one of the few candidates that could have lost to Trump, and they had to cheat to ensure she got that nomination. And then they bought into the hype generated by the media that have been in their back pocket, and thought she was invincible. And yet they still decided to cheat, blatantly enough that even that same media had to admit to to leaking debate questions to her.
Donald Trump didn't beat Hilary. Democrats defeated her, largely by turning the media into their own personal propaganda machine. They just forgot to stay anchored enough in reality.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
You may feel vindicated that your vision of America is winning.
Its not my vision of America. I think Trump is a pretty crappy candidate. I think Clinton is a slightly crappier candidate. I'd have much rather it have been some of the other candidates from both parties here in the general election.
My honest thought on how Trump achieve this victory is a combination of several factors:
1. The Democrats/liberals marginalizing the rural vote for the past couple of decades. This was ALWAYS going to eventually backfire on them in a major way. I'm actually surprised it took this long.
2. The liberal condescension towards anyone who isn't 100% in lockstep with their groupthink. You can see that in at least half of the posts in this very thread.
3. Hilary's unlikability combined with her emails; the revelation that Cllnton News Network leaked debate questions to her; and the fact that a desperate Democratic party had a sitting president make statements that were nebulous enough to be interpreted as encouraging illegals to vote. I know that people on this very left-leaning forum tend to try pretend that these things are minor (if they acknowledge them at all), but to some people, they begin to paint a rather ugly picture of Clinton and her support system.
A highly regarded expert wrote:
Yes, the death of democracy is the candidate that looks to be winning both the electoral collage and the popular vote being elected.
How's that being overly dramatic going for you?
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
I wish more people felt like that.
Quark Blast wrote:
I'll not take those lumps. Sean is the blogger and his name is linked via the hyperlink in the comment poster's name. See Sean for his profile description. Looks like SKR to me.
I'm sorry, but I don't really see anything in that profile to suggest SKR. Is it possible? Sure. But other than the fact that he likes D&D and is named Sean, I don't see anything to suggest it. My name is Benjamin Franklin, but I didn't "discover" electricity.
Quark Blast wrote:
I'd also like to point out a couple of errors about this quote. There is absolutely nothing to confirm that the Sean involved in that conversation is SKR. Secondly, the quoted post was not even made by Sean, it was made by an anonymous poster.
I think one of the subsystems of 3.X/PFRPG that slows down combat the most is the damnable attack of opportunity. It seems like almost any action that anyone would want to take in combat triggers a chain reaction of AoOs. Like feats, it was a good idea that was taken way too far in the initial rules, and then further mutated by the bloat that followed.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Huh. Tomb of Horrors as a movie. Not sure how THAT will work but...OKAY!
RETURN to the tomb of horrors would be a good basis for a film, or maybe even two. I think trying to compress the whole thing into one film would hurt it.
Anyhow, I think he meant the upcoming movie for Ready Player One. Which is probably unlikely to contain specific references to any D&D product.
I must admit, I do find it annoying that they are so g#&!%&n Realms-focused that they are plucking the ToH out of Greyhawk and plopping it down in the Forgettable Realms.
As for 5E Tomb of Horrors, there was already a D&D Next version of the Tomb in Dungeon, IIRC.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Or in the age where we are living these adventures through virtual reality, this hobby becomes as dead as the hula hoop.
Even when VR becomes a LOT better, I think there will always remain a place for tabletop games. For one thing, VR skill level in many ways is going to be linked to your skill level as a person, regardless of your character. You can put yourself into a VR rendition of the Three Musketeers all you want, if your swordfighting skills consist of wild flailing, then you're still going to be wildly flailing in the VR world.
That's one thing I wish they had addressed in one of Star Trek's holodeck episodes. Kinda coincidence that ever time they were in the Wild West, everyone was a quick draw and a good shot; every time they were in a sword-fighting setting, everyone was a good sword-fighter, etc. Would've been fun to have en episode where someone loved the Wild West, but was slow as hell on the draw and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.
In otherwords, while they had a form of balance in the Old School games, it wasn't like how they make "balanced" games today. It was more focused on the game itself and people as a team, rather than characters having the exact same power levels at the same levels as everyone else.
Of course, this just becomes ironic when you ACTUALLY compare the different power levels. Somehow, the "new school" editions of D&D (to include Pathfinder, which is probably the worst example) have managed to WIDEN the gulf between spellcasters and martial characters. Mostly due to the fact that v3.0 got rid of many of the limiting factors on spellcasters when it was published, and subsequent editions have further eliminated almost all of the rest. Paizo is much more likely to nerf a semi-effective option that manages to slip through for martial characters than they are to even remotely address some of the more ridiculously overpowered elements allowed to spellcasters.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Personally, I also find it irritating when people discount my thoughts on AD&D on the grounds they are based on "nostalgia".
This is definitely a big problem in these types of threads. Making snide disparaging comments about the "other side" doesn't convince anyone to "switch sides", and is much more likely to get people to do the same about YOUR "side".
To me that sounds like players were more empowered in the old school, because the rules didn't preclude them from doing actions, thus giving them a wider array of choices of what to do during the game.
With the explosion in the number of feats, I think this is ABSOLUTELY true. Every feat added to the game is another thing you can no longer do (or at least viably) unless you take the feat.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
I tend to agree, with the caveat that the real difference is in the new school, players feel entitled to have the exact character build they want; whereas in old school, because a much wider range of character stats remains viable (even with very little mechanical difference), the character build is much less important.
For gaming, if someone described their session with no references to game mechanics, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between Pathfinder and AD&D, unless there was an obvious tell (like a Catfolk wielding dual pistols... but even then, you couldn't be 100% sure).
If you spend 2 hours resolving combat for every 20 minutes of everything else, it's more likely 3.X or later.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
So what's everyone's verdict of this episode?
It managed to send a bit of a mixed message with Snapper Carr. Apparently we're supposed to hate the guy because he wants there to be an actual story before writing the headline, and because he wants reporters to report the facts instead of clubbing the reader over the head with opinions.
Really, the only Nintendo franchises I care about are Zelda and Metroid. Breath of the Wild is apparently going to be in the WiiU, so I'll just go with that version. And Metroid is apparently best left to fan-games these days (AM2R is amazing). So, it will be a long time before I get this, assuming I EVER get it.
Firestorm SHOULD be the team's powerhouse. Instead, most of the time, the team splits in two, with Jefferson and Stein being on different teams. And like Bjorn said, e,ven when they're together, he mostly just flies around without actually doing anything. I know it's because of the cost of CGI, but at least give a better excuse for it in-show than just utter stupidity.
They've done it before. TOS Klingons vs TNG Klingons.
-I thought Hammer tech was supposed to be junk, this Hammer tech is lethal.
I think they made a bit of a mistake in IM2 by selling the "Hammer Tech is crap!" line so hard. Why should the battle between the Hammer Tech drones and Iron Man have any tension when the entire rest of the movie has pushed the line that Hammer Tech never works? And if Hammer Tech was as completely unreliable as the film presented it as, then it never would have been a viable competitor for Stark Tech...much less the government's second choice.
I liked it. It harkened back to the original in that it was presented as more of a disaster movie than a (now) traditional giant monster movie. There was also a lot of parody on the inefficiency of bureaucracy and some political commentary on the amount of post-WWII restrictions that still are in place in Japan.
Godzilla's initial form looked rather goofy, like a crappy B-rate monster you would expect to see in the worst of the Showa era. However, his first mutation made him look a lot more Godzilla-like and more intimidating.
This Godzilla has new powers! His breath weapon is now much more concentrated, more of a ray than a cone. But even more notable is that he can also project this ray from his tail, and even smaller more concentrated versions from his dorsal spines. And the rays themselves seem to be more powerful, they slice right through buildings.
However, the tradeoff for this increased power seems to be that he falls into a semi-hibernation pretty damn frequently. While this was ok for this Godzilla vs Tokyo scenario, I'm not sure it will work well when they invariably have the major conflict be between Godzilla and other monsters in future sequels.
Ironically the "new school" or "modern" gaming style exemplified by Pathfinder is something of a relic of the last decade. A large number of RPGs released within the past few years have rather definitively leaned towards the rules-light side of the spectrum. (I'm sure there are exceptions, but overall the industry seems to be leaning that way.)
Dragonchess Player wrote:
"Old school" and "new school" have very little to do with the game system. Mechanics do not mandate playstyle.
They don't necessarily mandate it, but they can strongly suggest or imply a certain playstyle. And let's be honest, if a player came to this board to complain about a DM that had his action fail because the player didn't do much more than state a skill to use and roll a d20, the vast majority of replies would be of the "crucify him" variety. Because the d20 system puts way more of an emphasis on the character builds and mechanical bonuses than it does on creativity and thinking outside the box.
Raven Moon wrote:
New mechanics and much more matured approach to not only solving the problems but actually giving life to a personality while playing it.
Disagree. And strongly disagree with the rather antagonistic way in which you present that opinion.
Wouldn't that make Luke the slut?
I don't find any 3rd party stuff to be more broken or unbalanced than stuff that exists within 1st party books. And there are several publisher that manage to on average provide much less broken and more balanced products. Not that that sets the bar all that high...the core rulebooks contains some of the most broken and unbalanced option not only in Pathfinder, but in the d20 system as a whole.