Susaga

joined 1 year ago
[–] Susaga 4 points 1 week ago

No matter what the real world laws of physics are, the GM is the final arbiter of the rules. That's not an ego thing. That's just how it works. Everyone's roleplaying game works the same, even if they have different rulings.

Now, let's quickly picture this scene where the GM instead rolls 14. The BBEG is making his speech, then a shadow falls over him, he looks up, and gets crushed by a brontosaurus. He's resiliant, having taken only half the fall damage, but he's knocked prone and at a serious disadvantage as everyone rolls initiative.

Would anyone complain about the optional rule being used? Would anyone argue there should be no shadow because "the sun wouldn't be there" or "I hadn't transformed yet"? And if they decided to make that check to transform right before impact and succeeded, would they complain about the high DC due to the high speed?

I don't think they would. I think they're only complaining because the GM didn't give them what they wanted. They don't care about the game, they just care about getting their own way.

I agree. I am not compatible with that playstyle.

[–] Susaga 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm not American. I don't know what those terms mean. I just have a skybox.

[–] Susaga 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

To continue the quote, physics are what I allow them to be.

Going by the pure rules, you don't have enough time to wildshape. You just splatter. I'm being kind by giving you the opportunity at all.

[–] Susaga 12 points 1 week ago (5 children)

First of all, if I'm the DM, you don't get to tell me not to use a rule.

Second of all, there will not be a situation where I use the 2024 ruleset. The 2014 ruleset is still around, and still usable, and anyone calling it outdated is an idiot.

Third, this is the only official rule given for this situation. If we don't use it, there is no rule for falling on someone and we resolve it however I like. And since you just tried to interrupt my monologue, I'm not inclined to be generous.

[–] Susaga 8 points 1 week ago (4 children)

My TV lets me pause live TV, so I pause, leave the room for a bit, come back and fast forward through the ads.

[–] Susaga 11 points 1 week ago

This isn't a physics sim. This is a roleplaying game. Physics are what I allow them to be and it's funnier for falling creatures to have a drop shadow.

[–] Susaga 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

Nope. The rules for falling on a creature don't factor in size, except for if it knocks the target prone. The check is DC15 to dodge.

[–] Susaga 13 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

At terminal velocity? You're gonna need to make a damn good check to time that right.

[–] Susaga 45 points 2 weeks ago (26 children)

"Okay, so he gets to make a dexterity saving throw... That's a 16, so he manages to sidestep you and you take the full damage. ...No, he doesn't have disadvantage, you made a huge shadow above him, he knew you were coming. Anyway, he continues his monologue, using your actions as an example of the foolishness of humanity."

[–] Susaga 8 points 2 weeks ago

That was definitely the intent, and it annoyed me so much. It should have been "My patreon says I did this joke already" or something like that.

[–] Susaga 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What wrong thing am I repeating? Where did you address the lyrics themselves and not the context the lyrics were written in? Why is my interpretation flawed? Why is your interpretation the only one allowed? How does the first portrayal of a song supporting my interpretation of the song make that a problem?

And as I asked before, yet you ignored, why the fuck are you complaining about someone being bothered by the song?

[–] Susaga -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Jesus fuck, this is some bad faith. I was ignoring nothing. I was asleep. You waited 7 hours to reply to me, and you couldn't let me sleep for 5 without me "ignoring what you don’t want to hear". Waking up and seeing three extremely long comments that amount to re-explaining the historical context of the song while not actually addressing how the song is about pressuring someone into staying over didn't really seem worthy of reply.

Plus, the idea that you copied someone else's comment as spam just makes it worse.

If you're allowed to use "it's an old song" as your argument, then I'm allowed to use the first presentation of the song to the public as mine. And since the presentation of the song has ALWAYS been one person pressuring another into staying over despite their protests, it's always been rapey.

The only real defence in pointing out historical context is to say that a rapey song was not unacceptable for the time period. So what?

The song is a problem for people who don't want to hear someone pressuring someone into illicit relationships. It's not "willfully ignorant", and your idea that someone not liking something is just because they don't understand it is DEEPLY troubling.

If it's okay to be bothered by the song, as you directly state, then why the fuck are you complaining about someone being bothered by the song?

view more: ‹ prev next ›