

Wait till you hear about necromancy


Wait till you hear about necromancy
See what you do is, you put the peasants in a circle and have them pass a magnet to eachother. Put a coil of wire in the middle and you’ve got infinite free energy!
Turns out Gamma Ray Bursts are just distant peasant railguns
Somewhat pedantical quibble, really just because I find it interesting: It’s not exactly limited by barrel length. We can make faster burning, higher powered propellants, which you can get the full energy out of with a shorter barrel. The reason we don’t is because that means you have a higher pressure inside the chamber and, even if your gun doesn’t explode, you face more erosion from use. Your metallurgy ends up being the limiting factor, as it’s all about how strong you can make your chamber. I just think it’s cool because guns are a great example of how inter-related technologies are and how everything depends on everything else. Take a design for a machinegun back to the Napoleonic era and it will be worthless because without smokeless powder it will jam and clog after a couple rounds. Take back a formula for smokeless powder and it will be worthless because you don’t know how to make brass cartridges. Try to make brass cartridges and you’ll find you lack the precision tooling, and so on.


Every email client I can think of off the top of my head blocks images by default. And I don’t see how that relates to your criticism of the whole idea of anti-phishing training


Clicking the link hypothetically confirms to the spammer that yours is a valid and monitored email address, and that you’re a sucker suitable for more targeted phishing.
Of course, it seems like every random user will also happily type their password into any text box that asks for it, too.


One time I failed a phishing test because I did a message trace and confirmed that it originated from our own internal servers.
Not necessarily!


It’s also some good foreshadowing for stuff we don’t find out until literally the last episode.
Much more so. Because the people that aren’t shitlords wind up finding and staying in a stable group, while the people who can’t maintain human relationships get perpetually booted back into the rando pool, so it becomes more and more concentrated awfulness all the time.


I started a campaign where, after 20 years of gaming with this group, we were finally going to have a dragon for a big bad. Then my entire country collapsed irl, destroying the game. It’s like the universe abhors actually having dragons in your D&D game.


I still play D&D…3.5.
Polyamory. Polygamy means multiple marriage and is illegal. Also commonly associated with culty non-consensual stuff instead of consenting adults
Herd them ahead of you to clear traps


Google drive for notes, DungeonFog for maps.
Dan Savage at least has repeatedly apologized and cut that shit out a long time ago.


IIRC you spent gold on XP by carousing; basically, blowing all your cash on ale and brothels was how you leveled up.
protip: don’t cross them off, write who they are on the list (eg “Rivermeadow blacksmith”) so you can remember when the players come back to them a million sessions later


Thanks everyone for your feedback. I get that this is a contentious issue, and I appreciate everyone being nice to eachother (and me) while discussing it. (Those of you that didn’t, you know who you are)
Based on the upvoted comments and the arguments that I found most cogent, I will be banning generative AI in the community.
A few related issues were raised, and I’d like to explain how I intend to address them:
https://ttrpg.network/post/26260249/17201676 Rhaedus raised concerns about the difficulty in determining if something is AI generated or not. As with all rule enforcement on this site, I’ll be relying on you all to report suspected violations, and I promise I’ll give you my best-effort attempt to make a fair judgement.
https://ttrpg.network/post/26260249/17206513 Carl and others raised concerns that this might impact posts predominantly about human-created content that have some trivial or incidental amount of AI generated comment. In such a situation, if the use of Gen AI is really that minimal, it would never come to my attention in the first place, and therefore wouldn’t get removed anyway.
Several users advocated for an explicit carve out for discussions about the use of AI, which is a good idea and will be included in the rule.
Thank you again for your input and your civility.
Oh no, you weren’t supposed to take me seriously