u/Professional-Ad9485

Why? It's just kind of helpful giving you pointers on ways you can eliminate more words per guess based on its algorithms? I always thought it sounded nice and cheerful. Why would you hate it? I'm fairly certain I've learnt a few tips and tricks from it.

Haven't played a Wolfenstein game since the classics. So I'm not up to date on all the lore. But I really get the vibe that he's a retuning character from one of the previous games.

I really feel like either someone on staff new about science, or they had scientific correspondence especially considering they couldn't just google things. But they use particle names correctly, they define scientific concepts correctly, even hypothetical ones like the graviton.

They EVEN use the correct scientific term "damping" not the incorrect term "dampening"

It's not until Voyager where Star Trek gets the reputation for technobabble, and it really has never been so accurate since.

I currently have the base game and Riverfolk.

I was going to get Underworld next. But then I recently found out about Adset, and now I'm wondering if I should get Marauders.

Or maybe I should get one of the other decks or packs? Seeing as me and my friends still aren't super familiar with all the factions we have yet, but we're pretty familiar with the deck, maybe a new deck would spice things up without adding too much new things

So, when I first watched the movie, as I'm sure many people have, I found it kind of convenient that Rinzler flips on CLU at the climax for seemingly no reason.

But after having rewatched it... many many times. I feel like it becomes more obvious that at no point does Rinzler bring himself to harm the users. When he's fighting Sam, he immediately stops the moment blood is drawn and they realise Sam is a user. Never again do we see him fight the main characters (It's a bit hard to tell cos some of the goons kind of look like him) But he's not in the light cycle challenge, and he's not at the End of the Line fight (Though I think a lot of people mistakenly think he's the one who steals Kevin's Disk)

It's only at the end when CLU is forcing him to kill the users, does his primary programming of fighting for the users win, it never went away. It was always there but it was in the attempts to try to force himself to harm a user does his original programming kick back in.

I let them convince Addabra Gwynn to go stay in Phandalin, because she was just attacked by a freakin' manticore and would've died if they hadn't shown up.

But no one else they've visited have wanted to leave. And with characters like Alphonse Kalazorn who've just been attacked and had all their workers slaughtered and still doesn't want to leave...

The module seems to be written this way. Characters don't tend to leave the places they're at.

What would you guys do? I'm thinking of maybe making a little side adventure within the adventure where Harbin Wester (who in my version is actually a competent, if in-over-his-head, town master who's just trying to do his best.) has the party try to unite everyone they've visited to go on a big assault on Icespire Peak

I originally posted this in the Writers group, but I thought I'd post it here because I do find this kind of thing common among fantasy writing.

I think we have all seen it, and I see it also when it comes to media analysis on youtube, which I've kinda stopped watching because I've been finding out quite shallow, and often they talk about subjective opinions and act like it's objective. I'm sure there's probably at least one youtuber out there who says that Half Life is objectively a horrible way to start a game because you spend the first few minutes just on a train unable to do anything.

But I do find these kinds of things extend to stories with more complex theme. Often they'll simplify things and make an interpretation of that simplification and act like that interpretation is the most obvious and correct one.

I guess what's worrying me specifically about my story, is that it's an epic fantasy story with a huge and long history. In this world there's a few sentient species. While humans proliferated the surface of the world, having being taught fire and basic agriculture thousands of years ago by the dragons before they left. Kobolds were discovered underground and while originally thought of animals that could be trained, they were as sentient as people, except basically still hunter gatherers who communicated with a super basic proto-language.

So, there was a slave trade that started, gathering kobolds and using them as slaves. I don't want to get too detailed about the history because this post is already a bit long. But when it was discovered that they basically had human level intelligence and sentience, the slave trade was eventually broken up and a few nations made a pact, basically giving the kobolds reservations of lands to dump them on and basically leave them to their own devices.

There was a long growing animosity that grew between kobolds and humans that culminated into the War of the Dragon where the disparate kobold tribes, united under a single leader named Dracaenas, waged a war of genocide against humanity that was almost successful. The war ended with barely a few million humans surviving with almost 99% wiped out from the continent, and the kobold war machine itself, costing most of the kobolds populations too with their war of attrition.

So, the main story is set 200 years after this war, the single remaining nation of humanity has been rebuilding, paranoidly preparing for the day the kobolds come to finish them off. So the first book is set entirely from the human perspective, and only in later books will we meet kobold characters and see their history from their perspective.

So I guess, One of the things I'm worried about would be people thinking that "kobolds are an obvious allegory for black people" And honestly, I would hate that. Sure you could make the connection with the slave trade thing. But they're not intended to represent any single group or culture, in fact I would say they take more inspiration from the Japanese if anything, and they way they fought during world war 2.

There are black people in this world, and many dark skinned characters as the nation that was reborn from the war was basically anyone who still survived from the genocide of humanity.

I dunno why I'm so afraid of people misinterpreting my work like this, especially if it becomes a popular interpretation of kobolds. But also I feel like such an interpretation would also make implications about me, and that I would do something like make a specific race of "monstrous" creatures as a stand in for a specific ethnicity, and present my themes in such a half assed way.

Do you have a preference one way or the other? Or do you find it mostly situational?

I'm a fairly newish player myself so I don't know some of the deeper meta.

I'm thinking of getting the digital version to play with my housemates, although I love the board game and want to play it more, my housemates find it a bit complicated. So I feel like the digital version would be a great way to play it with them as it knows the games rules for you.

So, it does say that the Switch version allows up to 4 players locally (as in, on the one console). But I wonder how that works as you have a hand of cards and everyone is able to see your cards on your turn?

So I was reading about the car crash in Thailand where 11 monks were killed when an out of control vehicle plowed into a Buddhist procession. And there was a section in it about a female nurse having broken the Buddhist taboo of not allowing physical contact with a woman.

And I started thinking like... How did it happen that all our major religions are very sex-negative. None of the major religions in the world say, see sex as a holy act. It feels like sexuality is considered taboo in like... All of them.

So. I fully grasp Wolfenstein 3D and it's raycasting technology, and how that works.

But with Doom, there's some things I'm having trouble understanding about it's verticality that I don't really get despite (I think) it's based around not too dissimilar technology.

But it's about line of sight in it's verticality. When a monster shoots at you, and they're on a much higher plane, if they're so high that the floor blocks their line of sight, and the shot hits the ground.

But how does the game work this out if it's not actually a 3D space? My closest guess is that with each shot the game applies some kind of Pythagorean calculation? Like, the height of that plane might not be real, but that height has a number value applied that the game can plug in for each shot.

idk I'm shooting (lol) in the dark, if anyone actually knows some of the secret tricks John Carmack put into the game to make it as groundbreaking as it was.

I've experienced, as both a player and a DM, where you're giving the players some choices. But often times, not only are the players not fully aware of the choice and it's full repurcussions. But sometimes they're not aware of all the choices available, like there might be one choice of which is, obviously the correct choice, but in the player discussions they don't seem to be aware of that particular path?

How do you, as DM, try to guide your players, but also not make them feel like they're being guided or pushed towards a choice.

https://www.chess.com/live/game/169831208510

When I figured there was no way I could win I was like "f it, I'm gonna go for draw by repitition"

Was told this was bad sportsmanship.