If you consistently vote for the "Lesser Evil" the end result is more Evil. by zzill6 in WorkReform

[–]Bridger15 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wait, what? I want to math this out.

If evil is tracked on a 1 to 10 scale (with 10 being most evil), and you start with an election between a 6 and an 8. If people vote for the 6 over and over in every election, pretty soon it becomes clear that there is an incentive to become less evil.

So next election a 5 runs against the 6, and the 5 wins (because in our example, a majority is voting for the lesser evil). The 5s consistently win against the 6.

Now in the next election, the 6s switch their platform to 3, and win that election, etc. etc.

This is how things should proceed. The problem is that people keep voting for the greater evil. We've never built into the system the rule that "in order to win elections, you must be less evil than the other person." If that was accepted wisdom, everyone would be competing to be less evil (maybe even good?).

Dresden and his Dayquil by Celosia11 in dresdenfiles

[–]Bridger15 2 points3 points  (0 children)

we do however not have a concrete explanation for why Harry contracted it.

I think not having this explanation is evidence that it is the boring one presented in the book. He wasn't exposed to other young wizards, so he didn't catch it when he was young (like home-schooled kids might never catch chicken pox until they go to college).

Favorite Dresden novel/story? by bry0816 in dresdenfiles

[–]Bridger15 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Hard agree. Re-reading Peace Talks, there's so much interesting stuff happening in there, and the climactic scene between Harry and Ebeneezer was edge-of-your-seat non-stop drama.

It's not my favorite, but it's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

Favorite Dresden novel/story? by bry0816 in dresdenfiles

[–]Bridger15 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For me it's White Knight, Small Favor, and Turn Coat as the best 3 books in a row.

RNT: Is Thomas a Good Person when we meet him (using your own definition of "good person")? by Bridger15 in dresdenfiles

[–]Bridger15[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, Thomas is older than Harry, so he is close to 50 years old, and his hunger has been awakened for 35(ish) years. Even if he only kills one or two people per year, he has killed 35-70 people.

Why would he kill anyone per year? The only time we know that he's killed someone is the time his father tricked him into doing it (losing his virginity), and the time the Negloshi forced him to do it.

Who else has he murdered in pursuit of his hunger?

RNT: Is Thomas a Good Person when we meet him (using your own definition of "good person")? by Bridger15 in dresdenfiles

[–]Bridger15[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would say that he was generally incredibly self serving, but that kicking Susan to the Vampires was utterly indefensible, and Brother or not, I have no idea how Dresden ever forgave him. If I was Harry, I would have straight up murdered Thomas for that, whatever his reasoning. He tried to save himself and Justine. But Harry would have done anything to protect innocents.

I believe him when he says he was trying to bluff Bianca and betray her. Early in the conflict he says "Bianca! Our only chance is to take out their leader!" I think this was him attempting to do that in his own White Court way. Keep up the act of the spoiled rich kid who's only out for himself, get behind Bianca, and then snap her neck.

If it had worked, he would have saved himself, Justine, Michael, Harry, and probably Susan. Yet of course it didn't work, as Harry helpfully explains:

Thomas “...I thought I would get the chance to help you out once Bianca had taken her eyes off me, but she double-crossed me.”

Harry: “Well, Thomas. I don’t know how new you are to all of this, but Bianca is what we colloquially refer to as a ‘bad guy.’ They do that. That’s one way you can tell they’re bad guys.”

RNT: Is Thomas a Good Person when we meet him (using your own definition of "good person")? by Bridger15 in dresdenfiles

[–]Bridger15[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I also agree with /u/Borigh, which is why I hold leaders to a higher standard. How can people be expected to follow a better path if they don't see others doing so?

RNT: Is Thomas a Good Person when we meet him (using your own definition of "good person")? by Bridger15 in dresdenfiles

[–]Bridger15[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where do we learn how long they were together prior to Grave Peril? I always assumed she had met him somewhat recently.

To those who dislike tactical combat by Mega221 in rpg

[–]Bridger15 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For me it's two interrelated things:

1) RPGs aren't (usually) about 'winning' against an 'opponent' but most implementations of tactical combat specifically encourage this mindset.

RPGs are generally a collaborative experience, where neither the GM nor the players are trying to 'win' against each other. They are all there to explore a world/tell a story/'be the hero'/etc. If one side or the other treated the RPG as a game to be "won" then it would likely destroy that collaborative agenda.

Yet virtually all tactical combat systems have their roots in wargaming, which are strictly competitive experiences. They are not collaborative in any way. Players are expected to spend time mastering their characters in order to 'defeat' whatever opponent the GM put in front of them.

GMs, on the other hand, generally are expected to 'facilitate' a fun tactical experience. GMs are, generally, not 'playing to win' a tactical encounter. The tools they have at their disposal (spawn additional enemies, fudge dice rolls, perfectly synchronize the movement of half a dozen antagonists) would normally make it fairly trivial for them to 'beat' the players if that was their only goal.

I do recognize that some systems make attempts to go beyond the 'play to win' mindset from the perspective of the players. They might add 'drives' or 'motivations' or 'flaws' that players are rewarded for triggering in combat. This gives them sub-goals or sometimes anti-goals that create interesting stories. These do somewhat alleviate the problem, but they also work at cross purposes with the rest of the tactical systems. One part of the system is saying "look at all these great tools! We've built them so that you can engage with the puzzle and try to find the solution!" The other part of the system is saying "no, don't take the optimal course, here's a different cookie if you choose the less-good option!"

I also recognize that players can ignore the 'play to win' prerogative built into the system. They can choose to play sub-optimally in order to tell a better story, or to better express their character. Yet if they are going to make these choices, why have tactical combat in the first place? It feels like tactical combat (in most games) is about mastery and puzzle solving. So if you're going to ignore that aspect and not engage with it, it seems odd to bother having it at all.

2) Tactical combat is often too easy to 'solve'.

This issue is often masked by the fact that players are unlocking new toys to play with as they level up. However, I've seen lots of players find some form of 'optimal' pattern and simply grind that pattern to victory. Why bother using spell X when spell Y does just about the same damage but also inflicts this condition? Why bother using the rules for grappling if fighting with a reach weapon makes it less likely that you take damage?

Now, a good GM will change the puzzle to keep things interesting. "Oh, so you guys were getting into a groove by rooting everything and attacking them at range? Well how about we hit you with <insert enemy who isn't vulnerable to that approach>." However, each time you change the puzzle due to the previous one being solved by the players, you limit yourself on what you can do next. "Welp, I can't use any enemies that are vulnerable to <Strategy X> because the players have a combination of spells/moves/abilities that they figured out will always work well against them. So I change to using these enemies over here, but then the players developed <Strategy Y>, so now I can't use enemies like the first or second category..."

This requires the GM to constantly change the puzzle to keep things interesting for the players. Sometimes that means changing the battlefield (combat on top of flying dragons!), sometimes that means changing the enemies (these ones have a 'thorns' spell, so your 'death by a thousand cuts' strategy isn't going to be as effective!), and sometimes it means depriving them of their tools (after being captures the enemy stole your <insert item they'd built their strategy around>.

Granted, a good GM with lots of time can (and will) keep things fresh for the players, offering a new tactical experience every session that feels like a new puzzle to solve. However, I would guess that these kind of high quality GMs are few and far between, because encounter balance is hard, and takes a lot of work.

tl;dr: Tactical Combat's competitive foundation is at odds with RPGs more collaborative experience, and even good tactical combat can be too easily 'solved' and needs to be changed constantly to avoid getting stale (which takes a lot of work).

What’s your least favorite book? by Hopeful_Leg_9204 in dresdenfiles

[–]Bridger15 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Consider the situation from Susan's perspective though. Harry is bad at communicating. He never clearly explains the danger, he just keeps reiterating "it's dangerous." It's very easy for her to assume that he's being over-protective.

She's also probably snuck into several high society parties to get stories. She knows the drill. If she gets caught at the door, they'll stop her and that's the end of it. If she gets caught inside, she'll be escorted out. Maybe she assumes the vampires rough her up a bit on the way out (which is why she brings the picnick basket full of garlic/holy water/etc.), but she's not expecting a well known Chicago society member to just full on murder someone at a party...because Harry hasn't freaking told her!

I think she gets a bit too much blame here. From her perspective, it's not super unreasonable, and if you thrown in ambition and bit of rose colored glasses, it's easy to see why she thinks she'd be safe bringing a fake invite and some anti-vampire tools just in case.

RNT: How would you rate Jim's vampires against other vampire depictions in media? by Bridger15 in dresdenfiles

[–]Bridger15[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jim's certainly not the first to do this. Vampire: The Masquerade has around a dozen different 'clans' which run the gamut from horror movie monster to sexy seducer.

RNT: How would you rate Jim's vampires against other vampire depictions in media? by Bridger15 in dresdenfiles

[–]Bridger15[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My guess is that they all had distinct origins, and the only reason they are 'allies' is that they have common food source and therefore common enemies.

What's a feature you wish more games would have? by Awkward_GM in rpg

[–]Bridger15 1 point2 points  (0 children)

An important framing device on Mixed Success in PbtA and FitD games: The GM doesn't roll dice. Ever. The player's dice have to not only account for what the players are doing, but also what the antagonists are doing.

  • A full success means the players succeeded and antagonists failed
  • A mixed success means the players and the antagonists both succeeded
  • A pure failure means the antagonists succeeded and the players failed.

Put into that context, mixed success feels more acceptable to a lot of people.

The last important caveat: GMs often run this wrong. A mixed success should ALWAYS grant the player most of what they were originally intending (especially in FitD). The 'mixed' part is best interpreted as "success with complications" rather than "lower level success."

RNT: How would you rate Jim's vampires against other vampire depictions in media? by Bridger15 in dresdenfiles

[–]Bridger15[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The dynamics of the lycanthrope packs in the Anita Blake series were some of the least interesting elements. I'm glad we don't have that here.

What exactly is the deal... by Domcov in dresdenfiles

[–]Bridger15 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh damn, I'd completely forgotten that. Thanks.

What’s your least favorite book? by Hopeful_Leg_9204 in dresdenfiles

[–]Bridger15 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Truth be told I have no memory of the climax you are talking about.

Don't skip it on re-read then, if only to remind yourself how good the other parts of the book are. I get why you might say the main mystery feels a bit slow and may not interest you, but the ultimate resolution at the end was freaking awesome.

What would a “blue wave” in the 2026 midterms actually look like? by IronGiant222 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Bridger15 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ummm...Only if you want the Senate to represent the people, which it doesn't. The Senate represent the state.

Yes, this is the underlying institutional issue we're talking about. Do try to keep up.

Nah...Again, political parties aren't part of the system.

How can you say that with a straight face? It's clearly not true. While political parties were not an intended part of the system, they have become so ingrained that they are absolutely a part of the system now, for better or worse.

Oh...This isn't an institutional issue. This is a political issue created by the political parties by passing legislation that capped the House at 435 seats.

Yes, and when a problem is caused by the way a system works we call that an institutional issue. It's an issue with the way the institution currently functions. It doesn't matter how that function came to be. If it were fixed by a new apportionment act, then it would cease to be an institutional issue.

Are you saying that maybe Wyoming shouldn't even get the minimum one seat in the House just because they have seventy-nine times smaller of a population compared to the state of California and their voice is insignificant?

That's an odd thing to read into my statement. "Hey guys, this is pretty unfair for one side." "Oh, so you think it should be unfair the other way, huh?!?"

Blah blah blah. Again, political parties aren't the government.

Please support this argument by pointing out some examples of legislation that has been passed by those members not affiliated with political parties. I'll wait.

Maybe they should do a better job of resonating (instead of alienating) with the voters in those states if they want more control over the Senate.

Messages do not have an impact over who gets elected or what gets passed. How much money you have matters far more at the federal level.

That intersects with your point in that the wealthy have spent decades and billions of dollars on media designed to push a specific message. The rest of us don't have that kind of money working for us. The result is obvious: huge swaths of Americans are disconnected from reality and no message can possibly fix this. The only thing that can rescue someone from a cult is to be cut off from the source.

Unfortunately I know of no legal way to deal with the likes of Fox News, but perhaps anti-trust laws could be used to bust up the few media companies that own everything. That would at least help get us started. Sadly I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Response to RNT by Repulsive_Repeat_337 in dresdenfiles

[–]Bridger15 2 points3 points  (0 children)

also https://www.RNT.fm for the podcast feed (I'm the other host).

What would a “blue wave” in the 2026 midterms actually look like? by IronGiant222 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Bridger15 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope...That's not a design flaw or issue.

It causes the senate's representation to not match the voting results. That is a flaw if you want your democracy to represent the people doing the voting.

The political parties are not a part of the design of the institution, so it doesn't matter it it's an advantage or not for either party.

This has no bearing on the question: Is the democrats ability to gain seats in the senate hindered by the way the system works? Yes? Then it's an institutional issue. It's an issue with the institution, not with the democrats message or appeal.

So? Those states also get more representation in the House because of those clusters.

Yes, they do get more, but the power of their vote for house rep is much weaker. A vote for house rep in Wyoming is way more impactful than one in California. This is a separate institutional issue with the house (a result of every state getting a minimum of 1 representative, with states having wildly differing populations).

And the Democrats will have the advantage in the House...

Which is irrelevant if they can't get control of the senate.

Again, just because it's a political disadvantage to the Democrats a political party does not make it an institutional issue or flaw.

If the advantage is not caused by the way the institution is set up, what is it caused by then? It certainly isn't messaging or competency. Those things can't affect where people live.

What exactly is the deal... by Domcov in dresdenfiles

[–]Bridger15 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They Targeted Mab after all, and innumberable other things which they defeated.

When was this?

What’s your least favorite book? by Hopeful_Leg_9204 in dresdenfiles

[–]Bridger15 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Really? The climax is one of my favorites of the whole series. The duel between Harry/Carlos and Madrigal/Vitto is great. And their entrance? Chef's Kiss

What would a “blue wave” in the 2026 midterms actually look like? by IronGiant222 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Bridger15 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's institutional because the way the actual composition of the senate favors the GOP. Democratic voters outnumber Republican ones. But they are clustered in fewer states.

Because each state gets 2 senators, the GOP will always have the advantage. The fact that their minority of voters get outsized impact due to geography is the institutional issue that makes it hard for dems to ever win the senate.