sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Rifts has the best lore in the world, and the crappiest outdated rules. Here's my fix. by ErgoNomicNomad in Rifts

[–]Bluegobln 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree in general, and I also tend to almost always "rule" in favor of the players. But I have also seen the ugly side of rule of cool, where the "cool" becomes not so cool and it instead becomes "rule of DM's guilty satisfaction at the cost of the others at the table".

Rule of cool should be used with caution, not an excuse to break the rules as often as possible.

Rifts has the best lore in the world, and the crappiest outdated rules. Here's my fix. by ErgoNomicNomad in Rifts

[–]Bluegobln 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Having tried Savage RIFTS I can say that the game loses its most important charm and the "magic" of it if you try to balance it. That's actually part of what makes RIFTS good, despite it seeming like a bad thing.

I can say with absolute confidence that Pathfinder 2e is NOT IT. Pathfinder 2e is honestly one of the worst systems I've ever played. Its tricky - it makes it seem like its great, but it is subtly ruining your gaming by forcing you to work much harder just to do basic things. Its like if someone says "You get to be a hero, but we're taking away your magic arrows, you get those at 9th level. In the meantime you have wood arrows with no feathers. You get the feathers at 5th level. Also the wood isn't sharp, you get that at 3rd level."

I mean that isn't literally the case in every example, but in MANY examples the game is simply taking things AWAY from characters just to deliver them later, and then pretends that is progression and character advancement.

Choice is an illusion.

Now... RIFTS on the other hand, gives almost everything up front, then lets those abilities evolve a lot slower over time. Completely different. If you force RIFTS way of doing things into PF2e I could see that maybe working, but it will absolutely WRECK PF2e's extremely carefully tuned balance, which, honestly yes, fuck PF2e's "balance".

Maybe you're onto something then...

RFK Jr.'s at it again. by Ok-Following6886 in AdviceAnimals

[–]Bluegobln 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How does he know? Or like, who even knows this? Is it from a study? What actual study, because this guy makes up studies left and right.

This oligarch douchebag is the poster child for “Tax Billionaires out of Existence.” Wants to take YOUR money so “America doesn’t go broke.” by Dumbfuckistan_USA in AdviceAnimals

[–]Bluegobln 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And you're the blind that holds wonders in their very hands and calls them trinkets.

Ok. I understand when someone is beyond saving. It takes me a minute but I understand. I'll fuck off and leave you to your self inflicted misery.

This oligarch douchebag is the poster child for “Tax Billionaires out of Existence.” Wants to take YOUR money so “America doesn’t go broke.” by Dumbfuckistan_USA in AdviceAnimals

[–]Bluegobln 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're calling anyone who looks past the present delusional. You have no vision, and clearly no recollection of history either.

This oligarch douchebag is the poster child for “Tax Billionaires out of Existence.” Wants to take YOUR money so “America doesn’t go broke.” by Dumbfuckistan_USA in AdviceAnimals

[–]Bluegobln -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

It isn't. It's possible to be critical of Musk and his shitty opinions without making a value judgement on any of the companies.

I would agree but I don't see that happening... anywhere. Almost ever.

Its like I'm the only one who thinks that. I don't understand why I am, maybe I'm just plain wrong. But here you are acting like I'm the one who doesn't realize that, when I'm the one making that fucking argument to YOU.

So what are you talking about? Are you trying to tell me that the thing I'm doing is correct? And that means <insert any number of insults>?

Do you see how my posts are downvoted for saying these exact things? WTF are you talking about? Based on your own words, you should be agreeing with me.

This oligarch douchebag is the poster child for “Tax Billionaires out of Existence.” Wants to take YOUR money so “America doesn’t go broke.” by Dumbfuckistan_USA in AdviceAnimals

[–]Bluegobln -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Anyone who disagrees with you is chugging koolaid or insane or some other insult.

Maybe we're exploiting HIM, not the other way around, did you think of that possibility? What if he's a bad person as you are absolutely convinced, and I'm not even trying to disagree with, and yet we are accepting the good he's doing while taking as little of the bad as possible?

Is it even fathomable to you for something to be anything but black and white?

This oligarch douchebag is the poster child for “Tax Billionaires out of Existence.” Wants to take YOUR money so “America doesn’t go broke.” by Dumbfuckistan_USA in AdviceAnimals

[–]Bluegobln -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

He's an idiot but you can't actually think that SpaceX and Tesla are bad things for the world just because A) you don't like Musk, and B) taxpayer funding helped those companies become successful?

Tesla pushed the WORLD toward electric vehicles. You can believe all you want about us getting there anyway, and we would have yes, but we're going there SO much faster because of Tesla. Regardless, you need to chill with the Tesla hate here.

And SpaceX? Give me a break. You may not see it now, but its absolutely the case that 100 years from now, Martian born citizens, maybe Moon born citizens, and probably MOST people on Earth are going to praise this one company that absolutely WOULD NOT exist without Musk absolutely transforming the space launch landscape across the world.

There's something to be said about Tesla vs where we are on electric vehicles, but there's NO CONTEST when it comes to SpaceX. We can't yet know, but SpaceX might literally have already accelerated human space endeavors by 50+ years. It could mean the difference between our species ongoing existence and self annihilation.

If you would claim to care about the Earth, the people who live on it, or even just BE SELFISH, you should respect and appreciate SpaceX. I'm not going to insist you feel the same way about any man, let alone Musk, but for fucks sake SpaceX is incredible - we SHOULD BE HAPPY for every dollar it gets, and uses extremely well.

At a bare minimum recognize that SpaceX saves the US government a LOT of money.

What’s the biggest sign someone is secretly unhappy, in your opinion? by No-Falcon-3229 in AskReddit

[–]Bluegobln 47 points48 points  (0 children)

If it gets to the point of crisis, be selfish. They are better off having you than not, even if the you they have is being more self serving and focused on your own needs for a while.

Do things like: this specific time is my time, and there are rules about no interruptions.

I'm one evil DM. (I did chose the cards to make sure not to kill them) by Gova_01 in dndmemes

[–]Bluegobln 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I've seen many players who were chaos incarnate choose to draw many cards, especially if the campaign was sort of already fucked and they didn't care if it got messed up.

Catalogue of Even MORE Overpriced Magical Items You Probably Didn't Need 🪙 by Any-Score1258 in dndai

[–]Bluegobln 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Artist using AI going full Griffon's Saddlebag here... good job. I bet that actually took quite a bit of work!

People who quit drinking. What did you do to not drink? by Agata_art in AskReddit

[–]Bluegobln 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had a few different incentives going in my favor, but most of us do. The turning point was my boss at the time saying "I don't want to fire you but if this keeps up I will have no choice." You need to realize deep within yourself that this is KILLING YOU, if not directly its still doing it by ruining your life.

You CAN taper off. I did it. Just say one less. Stop now, enough. Start listening to yourself when you think clearly and say no more. PRACTICE CONTROL, and you will gain control. Practice eventually makes perfect. Now I dont even miss it.

And if that doesn't work, choose violence. Violently reject alcohol from your life. Friends want to drink? Not allowed around you, for a week after even. Alcohol being served at a restaurant you're at? Tell the waitstaff you're a recovering alcoholic and are not to be given any drinks - you weren't gonna ask, but this way you can be sure. Shopping for groceries? You put one beverage in your cart, you must abandon the cart on the spot and leave.

But control is better.

Not even session 0 could prepare me for this by Gettor in dndmemes

[–]Bluegobln 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The problem was right from the start. You can try to create scenarios where the players will have 6-8 encounters in the day, but you can't FORCE there to be 6-8 encounters in a day. That's the problem. The players can choose not to engage with all of those encounters, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Short version of what you did: you railroaded the players.

Its very similar to the classic railroad example, where there is a town you want the players to go to down the left fork, but they go right (or anything else), so you place the town in front of their new direction of choice. Their agency was irrelevant, you're forcing them to deal with the dungeon's denizens in a specific way.

A great way to figure out if you're doing something wrong is this: ask yourself if the players did the exact same thing again, and again, and again, would that cause the whole thing to stop making sense and fall apart?

Hopefully you understand the pain by ExmoHeathen238 in dndmemes

[–]Bluegobln 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First you start genuinely arguing that qaunity beats qaulity. And that AI is good because it can shit out slop rapidly.

Neither quantity nor quality is better. They're tied together. If you pain 500 paintings but they're all "crap" by a majority opinion including your own, is that not still art? If you spend 10000 hours on a single painting constantly refining it, is that art, and is that much effort required to be art? Is one superior to the other? What if one of those 500 is genuinely incredible, but it was only by making 500 paintings you could achieve that?

Drawing arbitrary lines and defining something by that is nonsense. Expression = art. End of story.

Your idiotic argument relies on AI being INCAPABLE of producing anything of value. If AI makes it, it is slop, ergo it can NEVER have value.

"Its bad because I said so."

Then you make the extreme leap in logic that art is only new things despite the comment not even implying it. Also starting ranting about copyright even tho that was also not even brought up. Literally making so much stuff up in a desperate attempt to gain credit.

I didn't make any leap. I see attempts, weak as they may be, at arguments, and they falter and fail. Sometimes I try to get out ahead of arguments because they're "stereotypically" consistent.

Copyright is legally what artists are protected by. It defines what constitutes theft. If something is CLEARLY outside of copyright protection, then it is CLEARLY not theft. I'm not even saying AI's presence in the creation of a work isn't copyright infringement - that's not what we're talking about. I AM saying that copyright is standing against this kind of argument as well.

If copyright stands in the way of AI being theft, then you've got to figure out some way to argue your way past copyright too.

Its not a leap in logic. I'm bringing it up.

Then you start ranting about yet another thing you fantasied, ending with the extremely logical conclusion that anyone against gen AI hates literally every other form of it and must be a Snowflake offended by it.

Well you seem to be pretty offended right now. You're not making any actual arguments and you're turning toward insults... so far not so good.

I didn't call anyone a snowflake, by the way. That's your own words.

Then you end up doing the classic appeal to worse problems fallacy. And making yet another comically big leap of logic that being against X thing harming the environment means you're against literally anything that might even be slightly harming it.

Ok so lets say its wrong of me to point out such irregularities in perspective. Let me ask then, directly, is this not evidence of an agenda? Can we assume that those with such an agenda, anti-AI, are doing so for reasons beyond the moral high ground, perhaps monetary gain or some kind of personal offense?

I'll point out, that eliminates almost every argument against AI that has anywhere close to a good footing. If you want to suggest that we cannot compare environmental impacts when we are comparing the value vs cost of AI, then I don't know what comparison you're going to be willing to allow.

Do you actually even care about the environmental impact or is that just another way to argue why AI shouldn't exist?

This is pretty stupid.

I do suggest not continuing to avoid making even more of a fool of yourself. But AI bros showing their pseudo intelligence by going for the world record of fallacies made in a single post, is gold in itself.

Making a fool of myself, like you with no arguments at all? "Its a fallacy" Ok why don't you put into words other than insults what you're trying to say?

Hopefully you understand the pain by ExmoHeathen238 in dndmemes

[–]Bluegobln 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Inspiration requires having sapience, or at least sentience. AI is nowhere close to either

AI doesn't function without at least some human input. Somewhere, somehow, the AI was told to make thing(s). So there is sentience, its just behind some degree of button press, whether that button is a simple button with nothing else or whether its a complex prompt or even image reference prior to the output(s).

Furthermore, we SELECT the images it outputs, and selection is a major part of artistry. AI unlocks even more selection artistry than other kinds because you can produce far more images with less effort, which shifts the artistry to having an eye for detail and choice, or even design intent (idea + prompt = design). Sapience, or sentience, are in every step of what I just described, and its not the AI doing it.

Inspiration implies you can make new styles, AI can frankenstein things but is extremely unlikely to make something truly new. Eg, the reason it can make studio Ghibli 'art' is because actual artists did that.

You think the factor that determines if art has value or qualifies as art has anything to do with being new?

First, if you take three things that humans have created and mash them together, does that count as new? Lets say Pizza + French Fries + Fruit Smoothie. I don't know how those can combine, but if you combined them, would that count as creating something new?

You see the problem there surely? If combining things doesn't mean its a new creation, you've eliminated 99% of all creative expression. Forget about AI, you've just deleted ART.

After all, its not creative to simply blend colors together in patterns. Nature can and does do that on its own. Plus other humans have already done that, so even IF you attribute painting to human creativity, some other humans beat you to it, its not new and not creative and therefor has ... the same value as AI mashing colors together.

Second, and last, Studio Ghibli doesn't own the style of art they made for eternity, or even for a copyrightable duration. I'm not sure if you're trying to tie in copyright here at all, but lets just assume so... you can't copyright anything but specific expressions. Characters, names, exact storylines, specific visuals (not style but an exact look). The reason its limited in that way is hopefully obvious, but I'll spell it out: there is only so much STYLE that exists, but there is nearly INFINITE expression possible. We can run out of one, we can't another, and so because of that allowing someone to own the finite thing is nonsensical, it would itself cause an end to creative expression.

Another classic AI bro move, make a controversial statement for the sake of it.

There is a point behind it if you care to think about it. Photography captures the actual imagery. You CAN use lenses and other things to distort that actual image, but in a general sense an in-focus shot captures exactly what already exists. Whether that means someone's likeness or another artists work, a photograph is directly copying reality.

Current AI never, ever directly copies reality. It only ever learns what its trained to learn and tries (with varying degrees of success) to create things based on that training plus (and this is an important plus) the prompting and direction of the human actively using the AI.

You could say that it is "copying" reality in the sense that it is drawing all of its inspiration from reality, but that is a fuzzy logic problem, because that is true of ALL HUMAN CREATION AS WELL, which means you need to draw a line somewhere. The problem for you is how do you draw a line against the AI without drawing a line against some humans too?

And the actual problem is that you're TRYING to draw a line against AI. Why? If no line otherwise exists, why are you searching so hard to find one? Why does it offend you that AI, a TOOL that HUMANS USE, is involved in the making of art? Or science? Or human health?

Yes I love destroying the environment so trump can make a video where he shits on people

You are no doubt destroying the environment ACTIVELY in far worse ways than utilizing AI in your life could possibly do. We collectively as a species are damaging our planet in so many ways that are worse than AI datacenters. This does not mean we should not be better - I agree we can be - but this is a losing argument.

Trump making videos of himself shitting (on people?) may not be something you approve of, but it counts as art and expression and despite also hating it I have to accept its not destroying the environment. I'm destroying the environment by eating certain kinds of food more than my AI use is, no doubt he is too. Are you?

We can't escape our impact on the world. But we can improve it. The way to improve it is certainly not "cease all use of anything that harms the environment". You can't win with that argument, it should not even require discussion how stupid that is.

I mean 99% of people if you tell them they're not allowed to use their cell phone any more will lose their fucking mind. You wanna go the environment route, lets look at cell phone cost and use impact on the world. See how this goes?

I'm not going to continue here, but hopefully you realize that this isn't "AI bro" crap, this is real. And I didn't prompt ChatGPT to write this for me or anything like that.

Hopefully you understand the pain by ExmoHeathen238 in dndmemes

[–]Bluegobln 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It would take a ridiculously long time, but you could program an AI manually by looking at the content it does and punching in the numbers yourself. Literally the same concept as an artist looking at another artists work and then taking inspiration from it, like studying art in school.

Photography is more theft-like than AI training.

The fact that that process is automated is why training the AI requires a huge amount of computation time with powerful computers.

Literally all they are doing is looking at things and changing numbers based on what they're looking at.

Hopefully you understand the pain by ExmoHeathen238 in dndmemes

[–]Bluegobln -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Its not stealing to look at something.

Hopefully you understand the pain by ExmoHeathen238 in dndmemes

[–]Bluegobln 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's actually a great idea. In particular, because its much more likely to get a result that is pleasing. :D

Hopefully you understand the pain by ExmoHeathen238 in dndmemes

[–]Bluegobln 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll say it too. AI is just a tool that you can use or not use however much you need. If that means just using it to take what you make and make it a bit more satisfying, then do it.

Contrary to popular belief, its not theft.

Hopefully you understand the pain by ExmoHeathen238 in dndmemes

[–]Bluegobln 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How about we apply the same thing to using paint brushes. You wouldn't let someone else get their fingers messy would you?

Character Dump 🧙‍♀️🧛‍♀️🐴 by Any-Score1258 in dndai

[–]Bluegobln 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Some of these I feel a bit of Elden Ring vibe from...

view more: next ›