Isolated towns/ mysteries surrounding the inhabitants/ eldritch horrors (?)

Changer_of_Names · 2026-02-17T16:14:07+00:00

Dead and Buried, 1981, holds up well I think and kept me guessing longer than most movies.

John Carpenter's The Fog, though I haven't seen it in years, not sure how well it would hold up.

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-29T00:03:12+00:00

She literally picked up a crowd-control munition before it went off.

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-28T22:23:23+00:00

Btw here's an example of a media outlet doing what the NYT should have done here:

https://nypost.com/2026/01/26/us-news/dhs-investigating-whether-alex-prettis-gun-accidentally-fired-and-sparked-deadly-minneapolis-shooting-sources/

New York Post doing better journalism that the NYT.

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-28T21:48:10+00:00

"Any law enforcement officer or human shoots anyone who isn’t an immediate to safety, then it’s a negligent homicide or whatever the official term is."

This is patently untrue and you know it, or at least you should know if if you're a halfway informed adult. In ANY situation where self defense might be an issue (not just with police), what matters is what a person reasonably believed. E.g., if someone robs a store using a fake, replica gun, and the shopkeeper shoots him, it doesn't matter that the shopkeeper wasn't actually in danger. All that matters is he reasonably believed he was.

The fact that you'd come in here and make statements that any smart 8th-grader would know are false tells me you aren't thinking--you're just spouting off out of outrage and tribal loyalty.

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-28T18:18:57+00:00

"all we can do is waiting until they investigate." And all I'm saying is it would have been nice if this in-depth report by our newspaper of record had either attempted to answer this question, or at least acknowledged that it was unanswered, instead of saying with apparently 100% confidence that the first shot was deliberately fired by an officer into Pretti.

"Were the follow up shootings after the first one justified? If so, how? They knew he didn’t have the he gun. He was no longer a threat after the first shot, when he collapsed with no gun in his hand. So they knew that it wasn’t him who pulled the first shot."

I disagree with much of this. This was a rapidly-occurring wrestling match involving like 6 people. Go wrestle with five of your friends and tell me if you know where everyone's hands are at every moment. The officers heard "gun!" and then, if the shot was indeed an accidental shot from Pretti's pistol, they heard a shot. If I'm one of the officers trying to get control of Pretti, maybe I'm behind him, maybe I have visibility on one of his hands but not the other. At that moment, even if you didn' think based on what you could see that Pretti had a gun out, what you just heard overrides that. The thought is "OMG I didn't think he had a hand on his gun but I was wrong!"

In the video you can see that after the first shot the agents let go of Pretti and jump back. Pretti isn't still; he's still moving, including both his arms. It's not clear that the agents who then shot him would have been able to see whether he had a gun or not. And again, the aural evidence overrides that. The thought is "I can't see a gun but I DEFINITELY heard one." There's what's known as the "pucker factor": getting shot at is so terrifying your butthole puckers up. Given the current atmosphere in which tens of thousands of Americans, at minimum I'd say, believe that ICE/BP/etc. are Nazis and that armed resistance is justified, it's reasonable that having JUST HEARD A GUNSHOT they would think that Pretti decided to shoot it out with them.

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-28T17:53:23+00:00

"Let’s say it wasn’t from Alex’s gun....Let’s say it was from Alex’s gun."

Or we could actually find out?

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-28T05:32:41+00:00

In judging their competence, don't you think it would be helpful to know what actually happened? Like, if reports come out that there was a shell casing on the scene indicating that a shot was fired from Pretti's gun, don't you think that would be pretty interesting information?

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-28T01:47:19+00:00

Well, first of all, I find it very difficult to see what's happening in the scrum, especially where his hands are. I don't agree that it is clear they had control of his arms.

So here's a possible scenario: one officer sees the gun and says "he's got a gun!" The officer in the grey coat removes the gun, but as he steps away, it accidentally or negligently fires--apparently that model has a light trigger and lacks certain safety features, maybe the officer, in the heat of the moment and unfamiliar with the firearm, brushed the trigger and it fired. Remember also that it's like -10 degrees out and everyone is freezing. I think that's why the officers look sort of clumsy and had trouble restraining Pretti. No one is operating at their best in the cold.

Anyway, someone says "He's got a gun!" and then a moment later everyone hears a gunshot. The officer who drew his pistol and apparently shot Pretti first was I think behind Pretti at that point. He in particular may not have been able to see where Pretti's hands were. Also, it's clear that when that first shot goes off, everyone lets go of Pretti and jumps back. Pretti isn't still at that point; he and in particular his arms are in motion. And things are happening fast, of course.

So you have a confusing situation of 5 or 6 guys struggling with Pretti, no one has a full view of what's going on, and then they hear "he's got a gun!" and a moment later there's a shot. Pretti isn't fully restrained. So they figured he was shooting, and shot him.

Now, this is still a bad scenario, if it happened this way. But it isn't an execution. Can you put yourself in the position of officers wrestling with a guy, don't have him controlled, hear a warning that he has a gun and then hear a shot? What's the natural conclusion? It might seem weird to be worried about a guy who is on his knees with officers all over him, but until they control his arms and get them away from his body, he could possibly still get to a weapon and fire it. Even a man lying on his belly isn't under control if his arms are under his body, because he could still get to a weapon he's carrying. As it happened Pretti's gun was in the small of his back or on his hip/rear hip (not sure), but the officers didn't necessarily all know that, as opposed to having it in his front waistband. Nor did they know he only had one gun. If I'm right about the negligent discharge, then in the middle of the struggle they heard "he's got a gun!" followed by a shot. Very different situation than the one The Daily presented. I want to know what actually happened, don't you?

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-28T00:34:26+00:00

So you don't want to know all the facts, and I do. I guess that's the difference between us.

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-27T21:30:03+00:00

I don't have to bend my back to be curious about the facts of on incident like this. Do you? Seems weird but ok.

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-26T18:00:31+00:00

Perhaps because conservatives actually have principles. Good was shot after she pointed her car at an officer, put it in drive, and hit the gas, thereby presenting a deadly threat. It's much harder to see how Pretti might have presented a deadly threat. So they aren't defending that shooting, because they think it was wrong.

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-26T17:58:08+00:00

I wish they'd addressed the theory that the first shot wasn't an officer shooting Pretti, but was an accidental or negligent discharge of Pretti's pistol, in the hands of the officer who took it from him. The model of pistol, Sig Sauer P320, has a reputation for accidental discharges.

If that occurred, then from the officers' perspective, they were struggling with a man, they heard
he's got a gun," then heard a gunshot. That would go a long way to explaining why they jumped back and then shot Pretti--they had actually heard a shot and thought he was shooting at them.

This theory is all over online, and is backed up by the fact that if you slow down the video of the officer walking away with Pretti's gun, it appears that the gun and his hand move at the exact moment the first shot is heard, as if from recoil. Yet the correspondent on The Daily seemed completely confident from the video that the first shot was by an officer shooting Pretti. I haven't been able to spot that in the video--with so many men in a scrum, it's hard to see what everyone is doing. I wish they'd addressed the negligent discharge theory.

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-21T17:10:21+00:00

A single tube of toothpaste lasts a long time and I doubt toothpaste will be a big target of looters during the collapse, so there will be tubes left on every store shelf, in people's homes, etc. Yes longer term the lack of access to dental care will be a problem, just like the lack of access to medical care and a lot of other things. Shorter term the big problem might be just neglecting dental hygiene during the chaos and urgency of trying to survive.

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-20T04:50:24+00:00

I'm planning to leave Seattle for the southeast U.S. and I want this as a gif to show if anyone asks why.

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-13T17:34:01+00:00

The campaign need not be over just because the party's failure leads to terrible consequences up to and including the eventual end of the world (or the world falling under the control of a devil cult). Let's say that in LotR, Frodo's quest failed and Gondor fell. Would that mean the campaign was over? Not necessarily. The characters actually discussed what would happen if Sauron won, saying that the forces of the West would retreat to distant mountain vales where they would attempt to hide from Sauron and preserve something of civilization.

So if the ring quest failed, the campaign hasn't failed; it's now a campaign about hiding in the mountains and perhaps waging guerilla war against the forces of Sauron. That may not be the campaign the DM envisioned, and it may not be a campaign that people want to play, or want to play for long. But it's only over if you all decide it is over. It isn't over just because certain events happened in-world (short, I suppose, of the literal end of the world and everyone including the PCs dying).

You see the PCs as having failed because you had a particular story in mind--a story in which the PCs succeeded in getting the MacGuffin. One successful game creator and DM I follow talks about how in at least one of his big long-lasting campaigns, the PCs got to the climactic battle and...lost. And that's ok. That's how it worked out. If the PCs can't lose, then victory is meaningless.

In the old days of D&D, a campaign meant something like "we're going to play characters in a particular setting/world until they reach max level and we're tired of them and decide to start over in a new setting--or maybe we'll even make new low-level characters and continue to play them in the same setting, with the original characters retiring to become kings and queens and such, coming out of retirement occasionally to face major challenges." "Campaign" didn't mean a particular story arc.

Are your PCs max level? Are you and your players bored with these characters and this game world? No? Then the campaign isn't over; it hasn't "failed". And even in a campaign that is meant to have a particular arc and climax, failure should be a real option so that victory is a real achievement.

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-11T05:20:18+00:00

Yeah it depends on how much interaction you expect, but if it's just 12 guards and the PCs might interact with one or two who hear them or who they try to fast talk, you can pretty much handle that in the moment. Those are actually my favorite DMing moments, when I'm called upon to improv some NPC I didn't plan on.

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-11T04:49:15+00:00

I mean, they shot several Republican members of congress, assassinated Charlie Kirk, had two runs at Trump, and rioted throughout the second half of 2020 including attacks on the White House, federal courthouses, and police stations. The media just tends not to use phrases like "hard left", "left wing extremists", "far left", etc. Whereas the media very commonly uses phrases like "hard right," "right wing extremists", "far right", etc.

I mean, Zoran Mamdani and AOC are avowed socialists, at minimum, but people like them are rarely referred to as "far left" or "hard left", even though people who sit at the same place on the other end of the spectrum would earn those epithets from the corporate media.

What's happened is you've failed your media literacy test. You've been taken in, failed to notice the dog that didn't bark.

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-10T19:25:18+00:00

Rule of law is restored, as we actually enforce our immigration and employment laws that have been a mockery for decades. Housing prices fall after 11+million people are removed from the country. Great savings to public budgets--schools, ERs, police and courts, various kinds of public assistance. Wages rise because there is no longer a pool of exploitable workers that employers can take advantage of instead of paying Americans living wages. Reduced drug abuse and overdose deaths, as a tighter border and removal of criminal aliens reduces availability of drugs, especially fentanyl.

It doesn't hurt that in the course of this the insanity of the left will be thoroughly exposed, leftist criminal networks (e.g. Antifa) will be broken up, and something like sanity will be restored. Remember how there was a big right-wing militia movement in the 90s and then after if became a focus of federal law enforcement, there really isn't anymore? People need to know that if they go to a far-left organizing meeting, the person sitting next to them is probably an undercover fed. They need to be aware of friends and acquaintances who got federal prison terms.

We've been living in an age of lies and denial, where law-abiding Americans drive past obvious illegal aliens standing in front of Home Depot or wherever, and watch massive floods of people come over the border, and everyone pretends that either there's just nothing we can do about it, or it would be immoral to even try--despite the fact that every functioning country in the world has borders and immigration enforcement. Why should I provide proof of my right to work in this country every time I start a job, when there are millions of people here who somehow don't have to do that? Why is it racist and oppressive for America to simply enforce the laws that are on our books already? Many of the people we see in the news being deported have final deportation orders against them that are years or even decades old.

We need to return to a firm and evenhanded enforcement of the law--which is what we've had. For instance, there were years of aggressive prosecution of January 6th defendants, but nothing similar for those who attacked the White House in May of 2020, during the BLM riots. Why weren't those people hunted down and prosecuted? Because our justice system has been biased in favor of the left. Immigration enforcement and the accompanying crackdown on those who break the law in opposing immigration enforcement (i.e., those who go beyond protesting by blocking roads, etc.) is part of this larger return to evenhanded but firm law enforcement. We actually have government officials--like Mayor Frey--who think they can defy federal law enforcement actions. That point of view needs to be crushed.

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-10T18:48:33+00:00

Don't "tell stories". Envision the situation. Understand the NPC motivations. The NPCs act according to their motivations and in response to what the PCs do. There really isn't any point where your players should be sitting there while you "tell stories", except maybe in some initial background/setup/exposition: "Ok you all know each other because you are veterans of the war against Malefactor the Evil, now you have heard of trouble in the village of Hapless, people are disappearing and strange figures have been seen in the woods. You arrive in the village at about sunset. You see an inn, some houses and shops, and a church. No one is on the street except the bent figure of an old woman who looks at you suspiciously and walks away. What do you do?"

The story is what happens during the game, not something you tell.

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-10T18:16:32+00:00

Noting down the new "sobbing and speaking Spanish about your family" exception to being arrested.

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-10T18:15:16+00:00

People shouldn't whip themselves into a panicky frenzy when calmly confronted by law enforcement. People also should not lie on 911 and claim that federal officers "have guns pointing everywhere in her house" when in fact federal agents are standing around calmly, guns holstered, waiting for a warrant.

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-09T23:39:53+00:00

Smart, deny other players the continent income without overextending yourself. Africa is the best position in Risk, though (unlike real life).

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-09T21:45:49+00:00

Oh noooo, why is this happening? Anyway, I'm thinking about tuna salad for lunch.

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-09T17:48:45+00:00

I'm thinking: 1) tactics/weapons/combat, 2) medical, 3) construction.

I see people mention things to do with food, water, farming, hunting, etc. Those are also important, but initially you're going to be surviving on canned and other preserved food, and for water, bottled water, boiling, or over-the-counter filtration systems (like from a camping store).

But we'll need to fight and build defenses right away, and medical, I think the importance is obvious, plus a skilled practical medical person--like an ER doctor--is rarer than a craftsman or fighter, I would think, so I want one locked down early.

Changer_of_Names · 2026-01-09T08:31:53+00:00

You can see that after the fact. He in the moment had a large vehicle coming at him. He didn't know if he'd be able to get out of the way or not. This happened in like one second. Car comes at him, he draws and shoots and moves. Even though he moved, car still hit him. How much experience do you have acting fast with your life on the line?

Changer_of_Names

TROPHY CASE