• 0 Posts
  • 98 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 14th, 2023
  • hedgehog@ttrpg.networktoRPGMemes @ttrpg.network•Don't worry the new version of D&D will fix the issue.
    1·
    6 days ago

    The rules text says it creates an area of darkness, and with your interpretation, it doesn’t, which means your interpretation is wrong. Yes, the ability could be written more clearly, but the logic for a reasonable way for it to function follows pretty cleanly. Your interpretation is not RAW or RAI.

    There’s a reply on RPG StackExchange that covers a similar line of logic to what I wrote above.

    Remember that Fifth Edition D&D is intentionally not written with the same exacting precision as games like M:tG. The game doesn’t have an explicit definition of magical darkness, but it’s pretty clear that the intent is for magical to trump mundane (when it comes to sources of light and darkness). Even the Specific Beats General section says that most of the exceptions to general rules are due to magic.

  • hedgehog@ttrpg.networktoRPGMemes @ttrpg.network•Don't worry the new version of D&D will fix the issue.
    11·
    16 days ago

    If you have normal darkness everywhere, there isn’t a reason to use it, but you don’t always have darkness everywhere. In fact, you generally don’t.

    Not all monsters with darkvision have access to light sources. Even if they do, they may need an action to use it or may be out of range. A torch or the light cantrip only has a 40’ range. If you collaborate on positioning with the caster, you can basically set yourself up to have advantage every turn thanks to the darkness, since as a ranged attacker you don’t have to stay within 40’ of your enemies.

    Also, Gloom Stalkers can’t see through Darkness like Warlocks can, so this effect is useful to them in a way that the Darkness spell isn’t.

    That all said, Tricksy wouldn’t do anything if it didn’t block nonmagical illumination, so it’s reasonable to run it as though it does. Sure, it still wouldn’t block even a cantrip, but it would block torches, lanterns, the sun, etc…

    And running it as though it doesn’t block nonmagical darkness results in nonsensical behavior. You’re in a torchlit chamber and use the ability - now there’s a cube of darkness, blocking the light of all four nonmagical torches. If you move one of those torches away and back, why would it suddenly pierce the magical darkness? If it wouldn’t, why would a new nonmagical light source?

  • hedgehog@ttrpg.networktoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•On prison abolition
    5·
    19 days ago

    I gather you’re from the US.

    Yes, but also the prison abolition movement is US specific. I’m not affiliated with it, to be clear - not that I oppose it or anything, but I certainly don’t speak for any of its activists.

    If we “only” reduce the prison population to 5% or 1% of its current count in the process

    Then why call it abolish prisons?

    Have you ever heard the quote “Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you’ll land among the stars?” “Abolition” is a goal, an ideal - and even if it isn’t accomplished fully, working toward that end goal and considering everything necessary to get there along the way is the point.

    Along those lines, I posit that if 90% of prisons are torn down or repurposed and the remaining 10% are drastically changed - holding fewer prisoners; not being privately owned and operated; focusing on rehabilitation, like learning new job skills, when possible, and otherwise simply being more humane, then the prison abolition movement would have succeeded.

    But if you disagree with the name, what would you call it? “Prison Reform” is already taken and means something drastically different.

    And to be clear, for some the goal is to eliminate prisons entirely. The movement isn’t monolithic. Abolishing the “prison institution” as it exists today is a pretty common goal, though, and using “prison” to mean “the prison institution” is a pretty common literary technique called “Synecdoche,” which you likely use every day.

    I see now that you’re trying trying to trigger an additional emotional response. Working on association, rather than logic.

    It’s a logical association, though. If the name evokes feelings of slavery, that’s a good thing, as the situation is similar enough to slavery to warrant that.

    Slavery in the US is still legal (so long as the person is in prison). Black Americans are 5 times as likely to be in prison as white Americans. A black man born in 2001 has a 20% chance of being in prison at some point in his life.

    The systemic oppression of black Americans is obviously because of racism, and the parallels between slavery and the prison institution aren’t accidental. For example, here’s a quote from Slavery and the U.S. Prison System:

    Gary Webb’s famous investigation revealed that the CIA was operating a gun-running and drug-smuggling operation that brought guns to the Nicaraguan contras that the U.S. was using to destabilize the popular government in that country, while bringing cocaine into the U.S. and funneling it to street-level dealers with access to black inner-city neighborhoods.  The history of black street gangs is part of the afterlife of COINTELPRO, the FBI’s counter-intelligence program that actively sabotaged black social movement throughout the long civil rights era.  Bobby Lavender, one of the founders of the Bloods in Los Angeles, explained that the COINTELPRO assassinations of black leaders, and the terrorizing of rank-and-file civil rights activists, left an organizational vacuum in many communities that youth like him filled with their “own brand of leadership.”  COINTELPRO established a pattern of law enforcement interference and sabotage of black self-determination, including gang truces, from the 1970s through to the present.

    Such manipulation, especially, is something I would not want to be a part of. It’s vile.

    Personally, I think the systemic sabotage of black people’s livelihood, communities, and families is vile, but you’re welcome to your opinion.

  • hedgehog@ttrpg.networktoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•On prison abolition
    31·
    19 days ago

    The name is important because of the parallels between slavery and modern day prisons.

    At minimum, the movement is about completely rethinking our approach to dealing with crime. If we “only” reduce the prison population to 5% or 1% of its current count in the process, we won’t have abolished all prisons, but we will have succeeded in abolishing many parts of the current criminal justice system.

  • hedgehog@ttrpg.networktoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•How would a credibility system work…
    4·
    22 days ago

    Are you thinking of something like Stack Overflow’s reputation system? See https://stackoverflow.com/help/whats-reputation for a basic overview. See https://stackoverflow.com/help/privileges for some examples of privileges unlocked by hitting a particular reputation level.

    That system is better optimized for reputation than the threaded discussions that we participate in here, but it has its own problems. However, we could at minimum learn from the things that it does right:

    • You need site (or community) staff, who are not constrained by reputation limits, to police the system
    • Upvoting is disabled until you have at least a little reputation
    • Downvoting is disabled until you have a decent amount of reputation and costs you reputation
    • Upvotes grant more reputation than downvotes take away
    • Voting fraud is a bannable offense and there are methods in place to detect it
    • The system is designed to discourage reuse of content
    • Not all activities can be upvoted or downvoted. For example, commenting on SO requires a minimum amount of reputation, but unless they’re reported as spam, offensive, fraudulent, etc. (which also requires a minimum reputation), they don’t impact your reputation, even if upvoted.

    If you wanted to have upvoted and downvoted discourse, you could also allow people to comment on a given piece of discourse without their comment itself being part of the discourse. For example, someone might just want to say “I’m lost, can someone explain this to me?” “Nice hat,” “Where did you get that?” or something entirely off topic that they thought about in response to a topic.

    You could also limit the total amount of reputation a person can bestow upon another person, and maybe increase that limit as their reputation increases. Alternatively or additionally, you could enable high rep users to grant more reputation with their upvotes (either every time or occasionally) or to transfer a portion of their rep to a user who made a comment they really liked. It makes sense that Joe Schmo endorsing me doesn’t mean much, but King Joe’s endorsement is a much bigger deal.

    Reputation also makes sense to be topic specific. I could be an expert on software development but be completely misinformed about hedgehogs, but think that I’m an expert. If I have a high reputation from software development discussions, it would be misleading when I start telling someone about hedgehogs diets.

    Yet another thing to consider, especially if you’re federating, is server-specific reputations with overlapping topics. Assuming you allow users to say “Don’t show this / any of my content to <other server> at all,” (e.g., if you know something is against the rules over there or is likely to be downvoted, but in your community it’s generally upvoted) there isn’t much reason to not allow a discussion to appear in two or more servers. Then users could accrue reputation on that topic from users of both servers. The staff, and later, high reputation users of one server could handle moderation of topics differently than the moderators of another, by design. This could solve disagreements about moderation style, voting etiquette, etc., by giving users alternatives to choose from.

  • hedgehog@ttrpg.networktoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•What is your opinion on bans issued for things that happen to someone due to things that take place outside their jurisdiction, and what's the last or most memorable time it has happened to you?
    11·
    1 month ago

    So, to be clear, my opinion was about what’s reasonable to do and was informed by our culture and laws. Your objection seems to be related to what should be legal, which is different and is more complicated, as the laws have to balance restricting and potentially damaging businesses with protecting people from discrimination.

    From a legal perspective, IMO larger businesses should be held to much tighter standards than small businesses. I think it would be reasonable to legally require Google or Meta to have a reason to ban someone, to have to share that explanation, and to have to allow an appeal to be unbanned to be arbitrated by a third party, without “we can ban anyone for any reason” allowed as a defense.

    We also see it being abused with the allowance of a few “good ones” from said protected class to avoid discrimination claims while still discriminating against the rest of said class.

    Obviously this isn’t a reasonable thing for them to do.

    If a business is discriminating against a protected class and only letting in a few “good ones,” then statistically it should be able to be shown that they ban far more people in that class than outside it.

    I believe there should be reasons required to ban someone.

    How do you manage that, practically speaking, in a capitalist society? If a business owner thinks someone is acting suspicious and is likely to steal or break something, but they can’t ban them until they have a “valid” reason, if that person then breaks or steals something, that business owner has been damaged by the government’s policy. Is the government going to make them whole? No, of course not.

    Does the reason need to be disclosed to the person being banned, or just recorded for future reference? A lot of the time people get defensive and angry when told the truth about what they did that made other people not want to deal with them. If someone’s been leering at customers, smells terrible, is loud and disruptive, or is just plain acting weird, telling them as much when you tell them they have to leave probably isn’t going to help them feel better.

    Not just because you own the place and don’t want them in your place as they make you/other customers uncomfortable.

    Why do you think it’s okay for a business owner and their employees to be legally forced to deal with someone that makes them uncomfortable?

    Do business owners just need to be able to articulate why someone discomforts them? Is someone judging whether a reason is good enough, or do you just need any reason, or is there a list of acceptable reasons? In the last case, what sorts of reasons are acceptable?

    If a business can point to measurements they’ve taken showing that when Joe shows up, they lose money - either because their clients leave, don’t come back, or stop spending money - is that a good enough reason to ban Joe? What if this is just because their clients are all racist and Joe is black?

    If a business bans Joe because of a particular reason and then Jim does the same thing, is the business forced to ban Jim?

    But it’s still relevant as it’s the reason homeless people

    The easy solution for this is to make being homeless a protected class. Homeless people need specific protections at a federal level, because they’re discriminated against by local and even state governments. That’s not the only class that needs this, either, to be clear.

    That said, all of the times I’ve seen a homeless person banned from an establishment wasn’t because they were homeless, but because of some other reason. The one I remember clearest was a woman who had started talking to me and my girlfriend (at the time) while we were sitting at a table in a coffee shop. She asked us for money or food after just a couple minutes, then went to go and talk to someone else and after a few minutes was noticed by the staff and told to leave. When I asked about it, I gathered that she’d been banned because of multiple complaints from customers about her doing just that.

  • hedgehog@ttrpg.networktoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•What is your opinion on bans issued for things that happen to someone due to things that take place outside their jurisdiction, and what's the last or most memorable time it has happened to you?
    121·
    1 month ago

    “Jurisdiction” is a legal concept and the way you’re using it makes no sense unless you’re referring to restraining orders or trespassing warnings being issued by courts/police from different towns or states.

    I’m assuming you’re talking about private establishments that have the legal right to refuse service to anyone for almost any reason (exceptions being if doing so is discrimination against a protected class).

    If so, then here’s my opinion: If you own or manage a shop, bar, club, gym, etc., it’s reasonable to ban someone because they aren’t the sort of person you want in your establishment. Maybe they make you or your other customers uncomfortable. Maybe they don’t want their place to get a reputation for being where Bad Egg Craig, whose antics sent some folks to the ER, hangs out. Maybe they share ban lists with the owners of other establishments, either because they’re friends or for purely business reasons (if your actions have cost the owner of one establishment money, it’s more likely you’ll do the same elsewhere), the same way insurance companies protect their interests by raising premiums.

    What does the Hague Convention have to do with anything? Unless it’s being enforced by the same people it’s completely irrelevant.

  • hedgehog@ttrpg.networktoShowerthoughts@lemmy.world•I wonder if there exists people who aggressively believe mushrooms are plants, similar to people who defend Pluto as a planet.
    82·
    2 months ago

    If you’re talking about tomatoes, the difference is the context, and it isn’t a choice between colloquial vs scientific taxonomy, but between culinary/nutritional vs botany/taxonomy (and). You can talk about either in a colloquial context or a formal context, though generally there isn’t much reason to talk about botany in a colloquial setting.

    From a nutritional perspective, mushrooms are generally considered vegetables, too.

    afaik vegetable is a purely colloquial term anyway.

    I thought you were wrong but I looked it up and I appear to have been mistaken. It makes “tomatoes are fruits, not vegetables” sound nonsensical, as it implies that “vegetable” is a different taxonomical option, when really it’s just a word for objects with a particular collection of traits that are relevant in a different context. What we should he saying is “While tomatoes are not fruit in the food pyramid, taxonomically, they are.” Doesn’t really roll off the tongue, though. Maybe “Tomatoes are vegetables AND fruits!” would solve that?

  • hedgehog@ttrpg.networktoGaming@beehaw.org•Horizon Zero Dawn Dev Addresses Criticism Over Aloy’s Remastered Look
    1·
    2 months ago

    Paired with allowing people who own the original to upgrade for $10 (and I’m assuming something similar in the UK) when they’re charging $50 for the remaster if you don’t have the original, that makes sense. They’re just closing a loophole.

    I’d much rather they double the existing game’s price than for them to charge $25-$30 for the upgrade or to even just not have one outright.

    It sucks for anyone who’d been planning to play the original and who just hadn’t bought it yet, but used prices for discs should still be low, so only the subset of those people who have disc-less machines are really impacted.

  • hedgehog@ttrpg.networktoShowerthoughts@lemmy.world•If simulation is possible, we could upgrade reality to 4D
    1·
    2 months ago

    There’s nothing about our neural architecture that has “3D” built into the information it can process.

    I think we are very much hardwired to innately understand 3d space in an intuitive level.

    Is that just based off of something more concrete than what feels right to you? If a neural network on a computer can interact with four dimensional data, why wouldn’t we be able to?

    It isn’t as automatic in three dimensions as you make it sound. Based off of the amount of learning and experimentation we do as infants, it seems reasonable to theorize that if a human were to be born in a fourth dimensional realm and to be implanted with some sort of sensory organ(s) that function in the fourth dimension, they would be able to gain an intuitive understanding of that world in the same way that they gain intuitive understandings of this one.

  • hedgehog@ttrpg.networktoRPGMemes @ttrpg.network•Add this to your next human's repertoire
    1·
    3 months ago

    In AD&D, you still had access to the abilities of your retired classes, but if you used them you had experience penalties (if you use them in an encounter, you gain no experience for that encounter and your experience for the entire adventure is halved) . The reason was that you were supposed to be learning to do things a new way, and if you fell back to the old way, you weren’t pushing yourself anymore. From the AD&D PHB, under “Dual-Class Benefits and Restrictions”:

    This is not to imply that a dual-class human forgets every-thing he knew before; he still has, at his fingertips, all the know-ledge, abilities, and proficiencies of his old class. But if he uses any of his previous class’s abilities during an encounter, he earns no experience for that encounter and only half experi-ence for the adventure.

    The paragraph goes on to explain what’s restricted (everything but HD and hit points), then ends with:

    (The character is trying to learn new ways to do things; by slipping back to his old meth-ods, he has set back his learning in his new character class.)