aluminiumtrioxid

True enough. It was about mouthy fools complaining that parents taking seriously the responsibility of raising their children, a positive trait from an evolutionary standpoint, were giving their children an "unfair advantage" over those whose parents chose not to so invest themselves in child rearing. Indifferent parenting begets indifferent results, SJWs--deal with it! Sheesh... ...No, that's also a serious misreading. What's with people's reading comprehension suddenly shutting down the moment SJWs enter the picture?

In all fairness though, the article wasn't really about that.

I have consulted with the others; session will be held at the regular time.

Managed screwing up copy/pasting the link. Should work normally now.

Poe's Law strikes again!

...Let's leave the SJW-bashing to the illiterate rage-addicts, shall we?

...Is now clickbait journalism also the fault of the SJW conspiracy?

Something something outrage culture, projecting, etc. I mean, it's a remarkable feat of illiteracy to take a piece of text and launch into a tirade about how it illustrates everything wrong with the SJWs, when "everything wrong", in this context, would be the exact opposite of what the text actually endorsed. Well, I suppose reading bedtime stories to one's children could help improve the parent's reading comprehension, so the enthusiasm about the activity suddenly makes sense.

...Caaaan we play on Sunday instead of our regular spot?

So, quick question: are you planning on exploring the rest of the dungeon (ie. should I expand it into something more gameable than a series of branches off the main path with something punitive tucked away at the end of every such branch), or is my time better spent working on the other locations?

lel

...And suddenly I realize I'm an idiot. here ya go: https://app.roll20.net/join/785766/5WDW1g

If nobody objects, yes.

Okay, wereshark is actually quite easy. Race as half-orc, barbarian rage = shifting, regeneration is modelled by the Relentless Endurance racial trait (reskinned to represent a last-minute "overcharge" of your regenerative capabilities) and the resist all damage except psychic of the Bear Totem (reskinned to represent healing injuries as fast as you gain them). You get water breathing as long as you rage are in wereshark form, but in exchange, you can only use the rituals from Spirit Seeker on sharks (you can talk to them and borrow their senses).

I'd peg it as easier to learn than 2E or 3E. 2E had lots of fiddly little rules/subsystems that had to be learned on their own, while 5E is much more streamlined and logical. On the other hand, 3E had glaring balance issues giving rise to the need to get really good at optimization. In 5E, most of the chargen complexity is optional. As for your concepts, I think we need to tinker with the system a bit to realize either. The wereshark I can probably hack together using Totem Barbarian and the guidelines for shifters on various Eberron blogs. The pirate-parrot is an altogether different beast; I'd probably look up the rules on familiars for the parrot and do the golem as a straight fighter (Champion specialization) with the caveat that he loses all capacity to use higher cognitive functions when the parrot falls unconscious. How about I stat up both and we'll see how you like 'em?

Well we actually have two casters (a cleric and a bard), so it's not unreasonable to think a non-caster would help rounding out the party a bit. As for balance... well. Fighties definitely don't get as many cool toys as their wizardly counterparts (especially on higher levels), but the 3E plague of wizard >>> everything else seems to be less pronounced now. Classes all get interesting mechanical tidbits to play with, and I think none of them ever become hopelessly overshadowed (maybe except the ranger).

Well on one hand, you were headed into an underground prison effectively ran by the inmates, in search of a mysterious Key, based on the ramblings you've read in a tattered journal, bound in strange leathers, that was written by a madman with a giant lobster claw for a hand. So I'm all kinds of curious what you'll make of the situation at hand. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to inflict the chargen taking upwards an hour (okay, it's probably a lot shorter with a non-caster) on Marky if he's otherwise not that interested.

So, what's the plan for this week? If Marky'd like to join and there's interest, I'd gladly continue the nautical campaign. Or we can play one of the other, like, five games we have lined up (assuming Serj's up to GMing, otherwise you're likely stuck with my game ). Group vote?

Nothing on this? Jenner likely caused a wreck due to negligence, so is Jenner going to face any consequences? It's funny how hard you try to avoid using pronouns... I'm confused at the status, as Jenner was still a man when the wreck happened. Are pronouns retroactive or is Bruce dead and a (female name) Jenner is there instead? Generally the post-transition pronoun is preferred as far as I'm aware.

10/10, would get trolled again.

What else would you call a lie that got repeated so many times it's now treated as the truth? Despite the fact that its veracity can be checked by literally 10 minutes of googling? "Culminating" is a weird word for the article that arguably started the whole thing. And no, "gamers are dead" wasn't used even once in the articles. "The death of gamers" got used once in an article's title, and "Gamers are over" in another's. That's, like, two times a half, out of 12? You might not be the best-informed authority on the subject is what I'm hinting at. "Again"? ...Moving on. The "gamer culture" link goes back to the article itself. "Wished dead" links to... Jacobin, a magazine self-identifying as "a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture." An onslaught of gaming sites indeed! "Declared dead" links to the Ars Technica article that makes... no statement at all about "gamers" as a whole? And even has "death" in quotation marks in the title, necessitating quite a few intellectual leaps to see it as "an onslaught" either? How surprising. The rest of the article is seemingly aimed at marketing people, noting that if gamers become perceived by the wider public as "socially stunted, possibly mentally ill, misogynists", that will lead to sales plummeting. Which is... surely very tragic for marketing people, although I have no idea why it should concern me in the slightest? It's not like I played any new game that wasn't crowdfunded in the last two years or so. You mean the bolding of - gasp! - a single word? Nitpicking much? Which would, presumably, be... very bad... because... erm... why exactly?

More accurately: there was a description of a certain subset of gamers, there was an (arguably weird) assumption that people outside gaming equate gamers with that subset of gamers, and some readers made the (arguably weird) assumption that the description was meant to characterize all gamers/all hardcore gamers/whathaveyou.

Except for the fact that the original "gamers are over" articles were published on a personal blog and on a developer-facing site, and the ones published by gaming journalism were mainly quoting those two while noting the backlash, making the analogy quite apt. (ie. no wider audience was harmed in either case, so to speak.) Not like we haven't been over and over and over this easily verifiable fact multiple times, but then again, repeat a lie enough times etc etc. Lol, and the armenian genocide never happened. Give me a single link to any article published in those 12 hours on a gaming journalist site that was proclaiming gamers dead without noting where the idea was originating from. Notice how you changed the subject back to the articles when your original claim about Harrison didn't work? I'm not biting. What original claim? I called Ellison "insulting" his "audience" "the same thing that allegedly sparked gamergate" (direct quote) right in the first post. I made the parallel obvious right from the beginning. Also, really classy, first you equate not agreeing with gamergate's false narrative with denying an actual genocide, then when asked to provide proof of said narrative actually holding water (which it blatantly and verifiably doesn't), you suddenly start talking about something else. Perspective! Integrity! Ethics!

Except the articles didn't even use the word "dead". But yes, you're pretty much correct. This, of course, didn't stop people to interpret it as "they're saying gamers are white and therefore bad!" or whatever inane bull**** they were spewing last time.

So than you don't think we are "entitled man-children"? I take issue with the usage of "man-children" as an insult on a general principle, so no.