Maybe an unpopular opinion, but DND doesn’t do Star Wars well. There’s no adventuring day in the source fiction, really. Jedi are hard to model- they either shine too bright or don’t live up to the fiction. Force powers don’t really map to existing DND systems. Class+Level is very coarse, which makes it hard to model some concepts. DND is almost entirely a combat game, but I guess Star wars is mostly fighting so you won’t feel the absence of other systems that much.

I’m sure it’ll be make some people happy. The previous d20 Star wars games had their fans. I just don’t think it’s something I’d enjoy, and it’s a shame this is going to suck the air out of star wars tabletop game options.

A good post.

I personally find DND unsatisfying for many reasons (little to no degree of success, static magic system that encourages hoarding, the primary defense is all or nothing avoidance, very coarse progression, some character concepts are simply not representable, etc)

But what is even more annoying than that is when players respond with “but you can just change the rules!”. I know! That’s true of any pen and paper game! It’s not some unique property of DND. But sometimes I don’t want to do the work of designing a system, and I almost never want to play some stranger’s pre-alpha homebrew.

This supports my hypothesis that most players “playing” DND could easily swap to some other rule system and not even know. Many of them would probably be happier in other systems.

There’s something off about a video about books.

What I was getting at is why is the signal like that if most people don’t have the hardware to utilize it, and it’s a really bad experience with the more common hardware. Unless people with basic stereo is actually the minority

Do most people have that kind of setup? Almost everyone I know is watching from a basic tv, a shitty laptop, or with midrange headphones

Kind of reminds me of when people are like “If you don’t believe in hell why aren’t you raping and murdering people?”. It says a lot about the speaker

I read they’re using react, the JavaScript library, for the start menu. If true that strikes me as insane

Not sure if you’re being entirely serious, but I do find it funny when people (often women in this context) self sabotage like this. By half assing 20 conversations, some number of good matches will bounce because you look like a boring person who can’t converse. You’re more likely to end up with someone who doesn’t care about your words, and then will probably treat you badly.

Well, there’s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_literacy but that’s not written for children

I don’t think, of your examples, trackers and surveillance are a big part of it. Understanding subtext and credibility are more relevant. Like, recognizing when a newspaper always uses passive voice when cops do bad (eg: “man killed after violent police encounter” vs “police fatally shoot man waiting at bus stop”), but active voice for other people (eg: “Looters destroy small business shops” vs “Downtown shops damaged during anti-corruption protests”)

Also in fiction, being able to take away more than just the plot. Like you can read Dracula as just a book about a guy that bites people, but there are way more ways to read it. When someone makes a movie out of the story, notice what parts they keep, emphasize, and drop.

Easier and harder are not the goal posts being discussed.

Back when game design was an actual artform, having a boss who’s easy with one build but terrible against another up-to-then valid build indicates BAD GAME DESIGN

“easy”

easy

EASY

Are you kidding me right now? Is this a bit?

Your post was nonsense. “You can’t have a boss that is strong against something else that used to work” is a stupid design “rule” you made up. Like every game that has meaningfully different builds is going to have parts that are easier or harder for a build.

Who the fuck is still eating at McDonald’s? I mean, obviously a lot of people, but why? It’s not good and it’s not cheap. Maybe food deserts? I can get a better burger and fries and drink from a local place cheaper and faster (if I still bought meat, anyway)

People get comfort and refreshment from all sorts of unhealthy things. People do all sorts of unhealthy things.

Yes, for example, famously pokemon with the elemental gyms was bad design. You should totally be able to use your fire pokemon to fight the fire gym. /s

And certainly no other game has something like a fire elemental boss that you can’t use fire on.

There’s just such a contingent of people who get off on hating from soft. It’s tedious as heck

No! Why are so many so bad at metaphors and comparisons!

Watching a movie and having an emotional reaction is not the same as believing a fancy auto complete is a real meaningful interactive relationship on par with a boyfriend!

Too many people do not want violence of any form ever, so they’ll just let maga do what they want.

If the rules prohibit something, and they do it anyway, you need to stop them. Much like the paradox of tolerance, the rules are a treaty not a suicide pact.

Except for some optional bosses I found it pretty chill. Most of the optional bosses that are hard have easier ways of dealing with them, too.

Using a tower shield and poke weapon was the easiest playthrough of the game I’ve done. Easiest of all the from soft games I’ve played, even. The final boss went down in 4 minutes and I barely had to heal.

I think a problem some people get with these games is they have a sort of tunnel vision. They’ll have a scimitar and lose to the boss lose to the boss lose to the boss, and they don’t really consider trying something else.

Click bait should not be encouraged.