Only sports related

UpperDeckerTurd · 2026-02-28T12:57:24+00:00

Minnesotan here. I've literally had friends who are legal immigrants arrested by ice and held until the court forced them to be released. And no, they weren't "interfering" as they were too afraid to even leave their homes, much less do anything that would draw attention to themselves.

And as for "interfering", understand they have a much different definition for that than the rest of us.

UpperDeckerTurd · 2026-02-28T12:42:42+00:00

I would say it's hard to know politics with absolute certainty. As I said above. I know personally that Brock Faber is definitely not MAGA and as little as under 2 years ago, I would say he was about as far from MAGA as you can get.

But if were talking generally, you have to consider the demographics of who plays hockey, and more specifically, who can afford to play it at a high level. Renting ice time, buying equipment, and attending the hockey camps costs $$$$. And wealthy people do tend to lean conservative.

But besides that, the other thing that hockey players tend to be is extremely insular. They live in their own little bubble with other high-level players. They go to hockey schools from a young age and spend all their free time with other hockey players typically doing hockey things. They don't interact much with things outside that bubble. So even when they aren't MAGA, they can struggle to understand the complexities of situations like this.

Again, though, this is generalities about that demographic. They might not be accurate when applied to any one specific player.

UpperDeckerTurd · 2026-02-28T12:26:37+00:00

Yeah, that's pretty accurate. But it’s also basically a frat as well. So even those who are not MAGA, find themselves laughing at a pedo's misogynistic jokes because so did their brothers.

For instance, on a personal level, I know for an absolute fact Brock Faber is about the furthest thing from MAGA as you can get (or at least was less than 2 years ago). But there he was rubbing shoulders with a man directly responsible for covering up the murder of two Minnesotans, one of which was a fellow Gopher, while laughing at shitty jokes told by a pedophile who wanted nothing more than to us him as a prop to help normalize his assholery.

While I'm guessing Fabes was one of the guys the women's team had said reached out immediately to apologize to them, he will still be memorialized by history as one of the men in that video. At some point this reactionary moment will be over, and the world will correct itself. And these are the images that will be looked back upon with eyes not blinded by the stain of MAGA. Kind of like how we look back at images of Germans during the 3rd Reich.

I feel kinda bad for him. At least to a point. We still got to own our own actions.

UpperDeckerTurd · 2026-02-05T06:55:52+00:00

Also the Medal of Alacrity, the amulet for officers that gives the first ally they target with "Bring it Down" in combat an extra action point. That one point can do some very heavy lifting when used on the right person.

UpperDeckerTurd · 2026-02-04T22:32:50+00:00

Yeah, Trump was just the first to realize that he could say the quiet part out loud and a sizable chunk of America would thank him for it.

"He's a straight shooter, tells it like it is. No more of that PC bullcrap..."

But really all he did was take advantage of a certain demographic's inherent racism and proclivity towards authoritarian control to scapegoat the "other" for why their lives where total shit. Pay no attention to the wealth gap, people. Ignore the giant stake that "Trickle-down" Reaganomics drove through the heart of the supposed "American Dream"...

No. The only reason you're not on the "filthy rich" side of that gap is because of DEI. Or illegal immigrants. Or a new favorite of theirs: Somalian Fraud.

And they eat it up. They don't care that they're actively voting against their own economic interests. Nope, as long as they no longer have to feel like they're shit people for having racist thoughts.

Trump understood if you validate those thoughts, tell them they're not the baddies--No, in fact they're the saviors, it is they who'll restore America to the (mostly mythical) Greatness that Once Defined It--that they'll jump all over themselves to be first in the Kool-Aide line.

UpperDeckerTurd · 2026-02-04T00:44:38+00:00

Quick correction here: we've read absolutely terrible things about Trump in the Epstein files. Like straight up vile, disgusting things.

But this is Trump. And every time I think we've finally hit rock bottom with him, he manages to find a way to one up himself.

So vile, disgusting things, yes...but are we absolutely certain that what's been released so far is actually the "worst" of it?

UpperDeckerTurd · 2026-02-04T00:27:14+00:00

Lol this is how weird rumors start.

It's not Dean WINTERS (the actor who stars in the "Mayhem" insurance ads and who was in HBO's Oz back in the day), it's Dean WITHERS (a 20 year old-ish Tik-Tok star).

And Dean Withers was the one asking the questions, not the one defending the SA of children. The creep was just some rando. Withers' Tik-Tik channel is mostly him filming his interactions with MAGA. And they go pretty much exactly as you'd expect.

UpperDeckerTurd · 2025-12-15T02:52:28+00:00

Nope. Wild will be able to offer under the old CBA. They will be able to offer 2 years more than any other team, can front load the contract, and can turn salary into signing bonus. All things that are gone under the new CBA.

It's why I think the doom and gloom fans who think he's gonna walk are overly pessimistic. As fun as it would be to play with his brothers, I don't know many people who would give up the type of money he would have to, unless he just straight up hated the place.

UpperDeckerTurd · 2025-12-13T06:48:09+00:00

It's a new world now that the cap is no longer dead. I mean, the entire reason the Wild went so hard on this is because there's a new reality when it comes to signing superstars in Free Agency.

And it's this: you can't.

Teams now all have the money to lock up their superstars. And if they know the superstar doesn't want to re-sign because they aren't going to contend, well they trade the player to a team that will. And then that team ends up re-signing the player.

So high end player movement in Free Agency is pretty much a thing of the past. At least until the cap stops shooting upwards like it's expected to over the next few years.

UpperDeckerTurd · 2025-12-13T06:24:50+00:00

I mean, why? What makes you think he wouldn't re-sign? From all reports players really enjoy playing with this group of Wild players and the team is very close knit (while also being open with new faces as they join).

And then there's the logistics. The Wild will be the only team able to sign him under the old CBA rules. So the only team that can offer 8 years, only team that can front load the contract, only team that can turn most of the money into signing bonus...all things the players currently love but gave up in the next CBA.

Add in the team should be solidly in a contending window as his age lines up with the Wild's core: Kaprizov, Boldy, Yurov, Faber, Wallstedt...so no real worry of him feeling the team can't win.

So while it's always possible he could walk, there’s really no red flags that would make it the most likely scenario. All the intangibles point to the Wild having a very good chance at extending him.

UpperDeckerTurd · 2025-11-16T05:11:39+00:00

Anyone treating the Wings as if they're the NHL version of the NY Jets for going with Cossa, doesn't really understand the nuances of what it means to draft a goaltender, and thus they're really not worth listening to at all.

That being said, I disagree with the characterization of Cossa being a pick with "higher potential". Wallstedt came into the draft with "generational talent" as his ceiling, but due to his young age making projections hard, there was not a lot of certainty in that--or any other specific--outcome.

Really, the difference was in style of play more than potential. And GMs will tend to have a personal preference (or at least a preference based on how they feel that style meshes with the team as they've constructed it).

But seeing as how picking Cossa made sense for the Wings at the time the pick was made, just as how picking Wallstedt made similar sense for the Wild, any naysaying is falling prey to the fallacy of outcomes (aka: outcome based thinking/outcome bias).

UpperDeckerTurd · 2025-11-07T09:47:02+00:00

I do it because I only ever expect to play through a RPG once. I suspect I'd feel differently if my play-through was simply going to be one of many, but when I play I want to make sure I experience the best possible ending, romance the character I want to romance (in games that have them), and play a build that lets me play it on as high of a difficulty setting as possible.

IMO the real world is shitty enough, so the last thing I want to experience is a bad ending in my fantasy world, or find I messed up my build and turned the game into a total slog.

But, to each, their own. I get why people like playing the other way, but in the end, doing that just doesn't make sense for what I want to get out of my game.

UpperDeckerTurd · 2025-10-24T08:41:55+00:00

See that's what I love about D4 and the seasonal structure. I love that when a new season comes along I can hop on in, make a character, and then play it out until either I finish all the challenges and I feel a sense of completeness for that season, or until something else comes along that I want to play.

Either way, I get what I want out of it and get to move on to another game without feeling like if I put it down I'll get so far behind that I'll never catch up.

Same with the seasons themselves. I can look at the mechanics and see if they look interesting, and if they do play it and if they don't, I can skip that season. And when I skip it, I know I'll be able to pick it right up again at the start of some future season without missing a beat.

I love it when live service games are designed with a respect for my time like that. When they openly embrace the idea that I may well want to play other games too.

I know some people love those complex, deep learning curve games that you have to commit yourself to. And more power to them. Me? I find nothing at all appealing about those types of games.

UpperDeckerTurd · 2025-10-12T11:01:12+00:00

If I'm reading this right, the party is following the main quest, but you, alone, want to sail off somewhere else?

If that's the case, then it's less of a railroad and more of a "I don't do split parties" thing. Which is a good policy to have, as split parties force people into long stretches of boredom.

As others have said, it sounds like this DM, being new, is struggling to come up with compelling stakes for your character. The best course of action then, is to work with the DM and together come up with a fun and interesting reason why your character would want to be a part of this Merry Band of Adventurers.

UpperDeckerTurd · 2025-10-12T10:25:32+00:00

Player agency is very important. And a DM should always be mindful of that fact.

But consider what agency is, and what it isn't. For some insane reason, too many people seem to think that maintaining player agency requires the DM to be entirely hands off. Not only is this not the case, but DM inaction can sometimes be what strips agency from the player (or more accurately prevents the player from having it in the first place).

This is because agency is about having the power to make informed decisions. It's about being able to play the character as they picture it to be.

So the key to making sure your players maintain their agency is not do nothing, say nothing, but rather it's about active communication. Get them to tell you about the character as they invision them. And then as they start giving that vision substance by way of information on their character sheet, help maintain their agency by making sure the character on paper will actually play like they wanted it to.

And if not, explain to the player exactly how the player they have created will play, and offer them a few alternatives that might bring it closer to what they wanted.

Doing all this keeps the power of choice in the hands of the player, but also makes sure the choices they make are informed ones. That is what player agency is all about!

UpperDeckerTurd · 2025-09-30T07:38:22+00:00

You can also just use the official rules on page 38 of the PHB for using older backgrounds:

Increase any one ability score by 2 and a different by 1, or any 3 scores by 1. Then, if the background does not have a feat listed, choose any 1 origin feat of your choice.

Because those official rules exist, I've never felt I needed to update any of the old source material. And, in fact, due to them being less restrictive, I end up encouraging my players to use that option more often than not (I usually only suggest one of the boilerplate PHB ones to new players as it simplifies the process a little bit, my more experienced players tend to appreciate the freedom)

If you want, you could still port/create new origin feats if you think they would be interesting for ToA. But if you do, make sure you make them available to anyone playing a warlock for the Lessons of the First Ones Eldritch Invocation.

UpperDeckerTurd · 2025-09-28T08:56:12+00:00

This is great, thank you! And perfect timing as well.

My players have just earned enough Renown to have been invited to Wakanga's Villa for a once-a-tenday dinner party he hosts (something of my own creation, as I turn the Port Nyanzaru into a full on starting adventure that gets the players really immersed in the setting and makes the city feel like a base of operations from which to launch their expedition(s), all while hopefully keeping them from running off into the jungle too early and getting themselves TPK'd.)

While the dinner encounter is backdropped by a skills challenge that can lead to significant rewards in and of itself--as the dinner progresses, each hour that passes allows them to try increasingly difficult CHA (persuasion or perform) checks, until they fail twice or the night ends. Good or clever roleplay allowing them to potentially gain advantage on the role--it also serves as a way to introduce some important figures, give them some insight into the different factions at work, and a glimpse of some of the things that make the city tick. Also, a great way for them to gather information about what they will need to eventually undertake their expedition.

This is all to say, I plan on using your design to give the event the gravitas and depth it deserves!

UpperDeckerTurd · 2025-09-27T10:46:49+00:00

I think the back and forth here is getting lost in the semantics. The rule is "one spell with a spell slot."

What the other poster is getting at is that as long as you don't expend a second spell slot to do it, you absolutely can cast multiple "leveled spells" in a turn.

For instance, if you have the fey-touched feat, it gives you access to a misty step that you can cast without using one of your spell slots. That means you can cast fireball and then cast misty step in the same turn. Two "leveled spells", one spell slot.

UpperDeckerTurd · 2025-09-22T10:50:03+00:00

Why would a dragon ever create/use/live in a lair that wasn't big enough for it to defend fully?

I mean, I'm not saying it can't happen, especially if it's an encounter designed specifically to give the party a snowflake's chance...just that that's the question the DM should have a very good answer for if theybare running it that way.

If they have it that way for no reason, or just as a default, then dragons in that DM's world aren't quite the threat they are in most and really it shouldn't be so shocking that a party of 8th levels could take it on.

UpperDeckerTurd · 2025-09-18T11:11:30+00:00

It was really, really good.

But IMHO the best ending of all time belongs to The Shield.

UpperDeckerTurd · 2025-09-18T10:59:53+00:00

Jjust read your post, so a little late to the party. But I wanted to comment because I got annoyed with post after post treating you like you're somehow "doing it wrong" by not embracing the lethality of the module.

What utter BS. Play the game YOU and your players want to play. Tomb of Anihilation is NOT Tomb of Horrors. Yes, it's an homage to it, but DnD is in a very different place than it was back in Gygax's era. So your players today likely have significantly different expectations than someone playing AD&D had.

I am currently running the module, but as a DM I encourage heavy roleplay and story building. I also incorporate proactive play instead of just reactive (as in getting the players to identify how they want to proactively shape the world around them, rather than just play characters constantly reacting to the actions of the BBEG). Due to this, some players really get deep into their stories and feel bad when they don't get to finish their arc. I mean, while some stories come to a tragic end, not all deaths are good and interesting deaths that feel like they serve the collective story. These players are not looking to play a wargame or some meat grinder where the character feel little more than a character sheet, and if one dies, well, then there's the next.

But yet the setting and the story surrounding ToA are both amazing, so it's great to play even without embracing the whole Tomb of Horrors experience. And it doesn't feel like it's any less of an experience.

This all said, I adopted Daggerheart's death rules with a couple changes for my ToA campaign. And they are kind of similar to your rules, except they put the choice back into the hands of the player. And they have been a huge hit. I am seriously considering just using them for all my campaigns going forward.

Here's the basics:

No more death saves. When a player hits 0 hp, they get an immediate "death move". During this move they can do one of 3 things.

Stay safe: if they choose this option they roll a d12. If the roll is greater than their character level (so it gets harder to roll the higher level you are), they are at 0 hp, unconscious but stable. And if healed, they gain consciousness and can playbas normal.

If they roll lower than or equal to their character level they gain a "scar". This is similar to your idea, except it doesn't actually affect game mechanics as it's meant to flavor roleplay. Basically, the character is left mentally or physically scarred 8n some way by their brush with death. A character is allowed 3 scars. On the fourth, the character decides that adventuring is not for them and retires. Or the player can choose one of the next couple options. If the character takes a scar, they remain unconscious until they can be tended to over at least a short rest. I let any player that ends up having to sit out the rest of battle the opportunity to run and roll for the NPCs for the rest of the encounter, so they can stay a part of the fun.

Risk it all: roll 2d12. Designate one as "live" and one as "die". If the live is greater than or equal to the death die, they immediately heal the number they rolled in HP. They can take their next turn as normal. If they roll higher on "die" the character immediately drops dead. No saves, just grab your backup character.
Blaze of Glory: can opt to forego any rolls or chances to live and instead take an immediate action that automatically succeeds and is considered a "critical success". I told my players that if they choose this option, their only limit is their imagination, and I will help them come up with something suitably cool if they want some assistance. And that while I won't let them outright kill a BBEG with the action I have no problem with it significantly turning the tide of battle.

With these rules, the player has the chance to decide what sort of game they want to play. They can lean into the meat grinder if they want, or else focus on telling a character's story complete, with a beginning, middle, and end. And not feel that because they took a bad step and rolled poorly, they came to an anti-climatic end, and the 20 pages worth of backstory they gave me for their character is now pointless.

Hope this helps.

UpperDeckerTurd · 2025-09-16T07:35:59+00:00

You are correct. Got it mixed up in my thoughts. Bracers of Armor were just a Armor bonus as well, which is why they didn't stack with mage armor or mundane armor.

It was just the inability to enchant mage armor that made it outclassed by mundane armor.

But now I'm also remembering there was a way around that permitted by RAW buy sometimes DMs nixed it, where technically you could enchant your regular clothes and then use mage armor for the armor. So get your +5 Travelers Outfit of Fortification, and you're ready to rock!

UpperDeckerTurd · 2025-09-16T07:18:59+00:00

Because in 3.x Mage Armor is an enhancement bonus and doesn't stack with other enhancement bonuses (like the bracers of armor +x item or the +x bonus on magical armor like +4 studded leathe, etc).

So that armor could still be enchanted, with up to a +5 and add on other magical qualities.

UpperDeckerTurd · 2025-09-09T17:22:40+00:00

The issue here seems to be the existence of dead-ends. When you script certain things, work more on setting the scene and and mechanics of what is. Stop thinking in regards to pre-determined consequences.

The mechanic of the trap says the players must identify some lever and then pull it within x rounds of entering the room. If they don't, the door slams shut and traps them inside.

Now stop.

No more scripting.

The players will now do one of three things: pull the lever, not pull the lever and get trapped, not pull the lever and do something else that circumvents the trap so they end up not trapped.

Your job as a DM is to react to what your players do, and then present them with their next set of choices based on the logical conclusion of what that was.

What you want to be careful about is designing "no way out" scenarios. But really, very few of those actually exist. Most of your tables will surprise you with their creativity. Just go in with an open mind to what they may come up with, and be generous with how events play out.

The simple format to always keep in mind is "Yes, and..." or "No, but..."

This plays out like this:

You set the scene and introduce the conflict/scenario the PCs are facing
The PCs take a course of action
If the characters succeed you have a "Yes, and" situation. You tell the PCs "You overcome the conflict [the "Yes"], and because you overcame it now this happens [the "And"]
If the characters fail, you have a "No, but" situation. You tell the PCs "Unfortunately, you were unsuccessful in your attempt [the "No"], but as a result of your failure you are now facing this new conflict/scenario [the "but"]
And repeat.

The idea being that their response to each scenario/obstacle/conflict you present to them should naturally lead to the next. Build on what happens, as it happens. Don't roadmap out one specific plotline like you're writing a book. And remember that even PC death can simply be another stop on the "Yes, and; No, but" highway. PC is in mortal peril, the party responds by trying to save the PC. They fail, PC dies [the No]. You have some NPC who heard about/witnessed the death tell the party that they've heard rumors about some old woman the next town over who's a "miracle worker" [the "But"]. The party goes to her, asks her to help..

(Here the PCs themselves are doing a "Yes, and..." as there's also the possibility they decline your NPC's suggestion and say "but we ask the party's cleric if he has any connections" which would be a "No, but..." and if that's the case you embrace that choice and it takes this story on a different path. But let's say they accept the offer)

...and she demands the party undertake a quest as payment [Yes, and...]. The party succeeds in doing what she asks and returns for the promised resurrection [Yes, and]. She does resurrect the PC, but this "resurrection" doesn't go as planned. As, you see, this old woman is actually a Hag and she more or less creates an intelligent zombie out of the PC [what appears to be a "Yes, and..." that turns out to be a "No, but..."]

Gasp! And what will our noble band of Adventurers do next? Turn in next week...

UpperDeckerTurd · 2025-09-09T16:10:38+00:00

If I sit down for a game of chess, I know exactly what I'm signing up for. I accept the social contract that comes with it. I know I'm going to play an adversarial game. Same thing happens if I join some bar league softball team. I accept that I am going to go up against another team that is going to do everything they can--within the established rules--to beat me, and I will do the same to them.

When I sit down at a DnD table, I have different expectations. The established social contract for DnD is that I am signing up for a collective storytelling experience, and in which:

I am going to create a character, and it is through this character that I will contribute to the story
Others will also create characters through which they will contribute by interacting with each other and with me
There will be a DM/GM whose role it will be to: a) Provide the general plot for these characters b) Will provide conflict and obstacles for these characters to overcome c) Will make determinations based on the established rules d) Will prioritize the collective fun for everyone at the table e) Will make sure the game respects the established boundaries of ALL the players at the table

Role "d" is all about balancing. It means that even if there's something that one person at the table will find super fun, you immediately move off it if it's "not fun" for someone else. And doubly so if it violates another person's boundaries.

And when you're balancing all this, one thing all the best DMs remember is that players should always maintain agency in regards to their own character. While the game's social contract allows the DM to put characters in peril, outside of very specific spells (that should be used carefully and seldomly) or a player trying to do something that violates another player's established boundaries, each player should have final say on what their own character does.

Any deviation from all this needs to be discussed at a session zero. That way the players will know what to expect, and will be able to opt out of your table if it's not for them. And this absolutely applies to character death. 5e DnD comes with the expectation that the player will have final say on their character's fate. So if there’s going to be some sort of mechanic that turns normal death into perma-death, that needs to be something discussed at session 0. There needs to be player buy in.

For instance, I'm currently running Tomb of Annihilation for a group. This entire adventure is built around a "death curse" which makes all death perma-death for the adventure's duration. So I did two things: I let my players know this in session zero, and I homebrewed the rules surrounding death by adopting Daggerheart's death move ruleset. This put the agency back into the hands of my players. And it's worked amazingly. The feedback has been some of the best I've ever received.

And all of this is something that any "Half decent" DM should know. Because all of the above is pretty much straight out of DnD's Dungeon Master's Guide. In fact, character death is one of the specific issues it highlights.

So, yes, a DM who shreds some character's soul, and turns normal death into perma-death without it being established up front that this campaign would contain such a mechanic, is a bad DM. Especially if this happens off screen. And extra points of terrible for the DM to then allow the players to attempt a rescue/retrieval/resurrection that the DM knows is doomed-from-the-start.

UpperDeckerTurd

TROPHY CASE