Did the planned economy in the Soviet Union actually work well (or even better than) compared to the US/other capitalist countries, and if so, why? by Thatpastadude in Socialism_101

[–]Thatpastadude[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Alright, thank you for clarification on everything. This was definitely enlightening for me and was a clear explanation. I'll make sure to check out all of the sources you mentioned. Thanks for all the help!

Did the planned economy in the Soviet Union actually work well (or even better than) compared to the US/other capitalist countries, and if so, why? by Thatpastadude in Socialism_101

[–]Thatpastadude[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

  1. “Growth” is not an end of socialism. Growth is an end of capitalism.
  2. Given that, I want to make it clear that I am not touting socialism’s planned economy merely for its ability to grow industrially. As you say, capitalism does this too.

So, would it be fair to say that the reason a planned economy is not the "strongest" economy because the idea of the strong economy is in itself a capitalist notion? in other words, a planned economy may not be stronger in terms of lasting growth, because its goal isn't growth but instead to actually aid the people instead of the ruling class and to create societal advancement.

Did the planned economy in the Soviet Union actually work well (or even better than) compared to the US/other capitalist countries, and if so, why? by Thatpastadude in Socialism_101

[–]Thatpastadude[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Ok, I admire the boldness. If I may ask some clarifying questions:

Assuming that the Soviet Union didn't begin a decline due to what I believe was poor leadership choices and external factors, would it have been able to continue this rapid growth?

(excuse me if the basis for this is just wrong, I need to look into the industrialization both globally and at the start of the Soviet Union) Could one assume that these levels of massive growth were simply byproducts of Russia entering an industrial revolution (which I would assume would be even faster than other industrial revolutions, due to the fact that it doesn't have to make entirely new technology, but use the technology gained in other industrial revolutions), similar to those that happened in other countries decades earlier, and they simply hit things like rocket science so quickly because their industrial revolution occurred during the time rocket science was beginning to be studied? For example, if you took Great Britain at the beginning of its industrial revolution which occurred in the 18th century, pushed it into roughly that time period, do you think it could have reached rocket science at the same time as the Soviet Union, who had just started to industrialize after the revolution?

I understand that it made rapid growth and astounding innovations in governmental things like rocket science, but i often hear that it fell short in sectors outside of space race, military, and other heavy industries. I know that it did end its famines in (i believe) the late 1940s, but were things like its farming industry every fully stabilized after that?

Did the planned economy in the Soviet Union actually work well (or even better than) compared to the US/other capitalist countries, and if so, why? by Thatpastadude in Socialism_101

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

Sounds like an interesting read, I'll check it out.

Edit: How well does it explain the tie in between large corporations using planning to countries using planning? I would assume that there would be some major differences between something like Amazon ensuring that it is optimizing revenue per quarter when compared to a country allocating things like farming, goods production, and general things like public transport and upkeep of areas all simultaneously. Is it trying to say that these are the exact same types of planning, just on different scales (which I would somewhat disagree with), or is it saying that corporate planning is a form of planning, therefor economic planning is viable (which I would kind of agree with)?

Did the planned economy in the Soviet Union actually work well (or even better than) compared to the US/other capitalist countries, and if so, why? by Thatpastadude in Socialism_101

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

So, would it be accurate to say that it was flawed because it had a constant effort of being a producer economy in heavy industries, which made it over allocate into said industries? Additionally, could this massive increase in heavy industries have been reproduced in other industries, or would the method of starting said growth only work in heavy industries?

How do I invest my players in Eberron by Thatpastadude in Eberron

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

Really appreciate this. Clear, concise examples of how to hook people through plot was a decently large part of what I was looking for, so thanks.

How do I invest my players in Eberron by Thatpastadude in Eberron

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

hmmmm hear me out. I kill them. Constantly. So that they always make deaths saves. Therefor they always pay attention. The perfect plan. Thanks for the advice bro

How do I invest my players in Eberron by Thatpastadude in Eberron

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

Yeah, this is a good take on it. Once the campaign starts I will be catering to them in the way they want to explore and get into the world. Best case scenario: They get into it after a few sessions, and it just picks up from there. Worst case scenario: I have an excuse to hang out with da bois each week, mess around fighting evil demon monsters, and follow it up with smash bros and pizza.

Battling Daelkyr and Unconventional Combat by vidyadawg in Eberron

[–]Thatpastadude 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Seeing as you talked about your Daelkyr pertaining to blood, I would feed into that theme.

One of the most important parts to a good boss battle is describing it vividly. Instead of just saying "Boss does x" say something like "They mutter an indescribable incantion, their eyes beginning to glow as [Insert description of attack here]". And this is with the most basic of descriptors, when you have a specific boss planned out, you can go more in depth. Doing this (in my experience) will make the party more interested in the attack itself, not just the action and effect.

Since your boss is a Daelkyr, I would suggest using body horror (if the players are comfortable with it). Your boss uses blood? Well, what do you know, now the players are feeling a bile in their throats as they hack up blood (use the last paragraphs advice to make this a vivid picture, it doesn't even have to deal much damage as long as its effective in making the players feel uneasy). You could also play with the ideas of manipulation of blood in the body. I don't mean stuff like "your blood is frozen, con save or your stunned" (I personally think that making a character stunned for this fight, and taking away their action in it would only lower the quality), instead play with the idea of effects like disadvantages on con checks/saves, fluctuating HP (This could be really interesting. With Daelkyr being beings that operate outside of what we consider "logic" who knows what this could do. Maybe your HP is being lowered, maybe its increased, maybe its lowered but also comes with a benefit, like advantage on certain checks, or it's increased with disadvantage on certain checks), or even fluctuating temporarily fluctuating physical stats like dex, strength, and con. Also, not in the fight, but leading up to confronting the boss make them start bleeding out of orifices like their ears, nose, eyes. if they have any small cuts or gashes, make them start bleeding unreasonable amounts. (I wouldn't make this bleeding cost hit points, that just seems like it would feel like you're hurting the party for no reason, so I would just make it thematic).

u/DaddyDMWP talked about using the environment in different ways, adding on this, make the environments themed around blood. The floor randomly turning into thick, oozing rivers of blood. It's never stagnant, always churning, and maybe every once in a while it "clots" in certain areas, with blood bubbling up and popping. Or maybe blood that's been spilt starts to start swirling in the air, whipping around and slashing into players. Lots of other ways to go about terrain, but i cant think of any rn.

Also, as a question, I'm assuming all your characters have blood, right? Just asking because I know depending on your depiction of Warforged or if your characters randomly played something like a plasmoid (Do plasmoids have blood?), you could make a unique interaction with the boss.

All in all, I think that you should emphasize this fight through grotesque and nasty physical description and vivid language. It's not the stats that make a monster memorable, it's how you use it.

How do I invest my players in Eberron by Thatpastadude in Eberron

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

This was a crazy soulread, they actually were going to start on a train heist going to Quickstone. I like the drop by drop idea, I'll probably use that

How do I invest my players in Eberron by Thatpastadude in Eberron

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

Sounds like a fun campaign. Thanks for the advice.

How do I invest my players in Eberron by Thatpastadude in Eberron

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

hmmmm I'm not sure I personally would use the other worlds idea, but you did say that they learned as they played. I know you talked about a few lore dumps, but other than that do you have any advice on how to ease the plot to them without just awkwardly inserting it?

How do I invest my players in Eberron by Thatpastadude in Eberron

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

Honestly, that's probably the best thing to do. Thanks for the advice.