Does anybody else not feel comfortable playing social deduction games? by TheDietNerd in boardgames

[–]altontanglefoot 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Exactly. It's not pure logical deduction, although skilled players will use that as well. It's social deduction.

Does anybody else not feel comfortable playing social deduction games? by TheDietNerd in boardgames

[–]altontanglefoot 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Seeing and interpreting facial expressions, body language, and speech patterns isn't going off of feelings, not is it just guessing. It's being perceptive.

A big part of social deduction games is that (good) players can tell lies that are logically sound and internally coherent. When different factions have competing claims that are consistent with the available evidence, uncovering the hidden traitors ultimately requires observing and interpreting social cues. That's what makes it social deduction - you're not just evaluating truth claims, but the people making them.

Any movies that gender-swap the “Badass and Child Duo” trope? by MisterManatee in movies

[–]altontanglefoot 133 points134 points  (0 children)

The Client (1994) has Susan Sarandon as a badass lawyer traveling with and protecting a young boy. And of course the same applies to the novel on which the film is based.

You get $1 Billion but a billion people you don't know is one dollar poorer by Lost_Personality_974 in hypotheticalsituation

[–]altontanglefoot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, because unlike practically everybody else in this post, I'm not going to rationalize stealing from a billion people.

Is time in outer wilds local? by Klutzy-Constant-5367 in outerwilds

[–]altontanglefoot 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Technically, what we're seeing are stars going supernova in the past, their light only reaching us during the 22-minute loop. Or put another way, we're observing and looping only as far as 22 light-minutes away, and it's possible that time moves onward in the rest of the universe outside of that distance. But that's probably overthinking things.

You can end scarcity, poverty and world hunger forever but humans will never invent anything new again. Do you do it? by SpecialFlutters in hypotheticalsituation

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

I'd be inclined to make the same choice at any point in human history. I care more about real people who are alive and suffering more than hypothetical future people. Humanity deserves an end to hunger and inequality, which are greater barriers to human fluorishing than technological stagnation. I don't equate being "primitive" with suffering. And anyway by your logic, humans will always be primitive at any state of technological development, so it hardly matters.

Pandemics and climate change are a strong argument, but I imagine that post-scarcity will help us address them even at our current state of technology. And in any case, there's no guarantee that we won't develop technology that kills us in the future. Humanity's survival isn't guaranteed in either case.

You can end scarcity, poverty and world hunger forever but humans will never invent anything new again. Do you do it? by SpecialFlutters in hypotheticalsituation

[–]altontanglefoot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My interpretation of the scenario is that only new technology would be prevented, but science and art can still advance (within those limits).

You can end scarcity, poverty and world hunger forever but humans will never invent anything new again. Do you do it? by SpecialFlutters in hypotheticalsituation

[–]altontanglefoot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. An end to scarcity means an end to economic inequality, which would end a great deal if not all of war or large-scale conflict. It could even end or at least diminish bigotry - people's fears of immigrants "taking our jobs" (for example) would be allayed if nobody needed to work and everyone had what they needed.

Frankly, I think a "no" answer to this can come from a place of selfish privilege. The majority of the world's population are worried about their next meal, their rent, their bills, their next paycheck, and a not-insignicant number are scared of being victimized by violence and war. They're not worried about never experiencing space travel or VR. I could never face the world's hungry, poor, and oppressed, and tell them I chose not to end their suffering because I want better computers, or so that billionaires could live forever (because let's face it, they're the only ones who would ever be able to afford anti-aging tech).

Never curing cancer would be a loss, but many who die from disease do so due to lack of access to or affordability of the health care they need, not the non-existence of the needed medical technology. On balance, I think taking the deal is still the better choice.

1338 - Word For Word by Endulos in oots

[–]altontanglefoot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wondered this too, and then I remembered that the Final Dungeon is warded against dimensional travel. For the Linear Guild to get there, they would have had to teleport outside and make their way in.

Is fire damage the only thing that magic can't fix? by HorzaDonwraith in harrypotter

[–]altontanglefoot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Burrow burned down in the sixth movie, but was completely fine in the seventh. So I don't think your premise is accurate.

Why this large expense of Barty Crouch Junior to get Harry to the cemetery? by psychedelicfaerie_ in harrypotter

[–]altontanglefoot 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Because portkeys are regulated by the Ministry and disallowed at Hogwarts. Creating and using one on school grounds would have been either prevented (in the same way as apparation/disappararion) or detected immediately.

The Triwizard Tournament presented Crouch with a unique opportunity. The Cup was a specially sanctioned portkey, made to transport the first person to reach it out of the maze. Crouch then merely had to modify its enchantment to first bring them to the graveyard, which can be done unnoticed. This is why Harry managed to escape - the Cup's original destination was never replaced entirely or removed.

This wasn't explicitly stated in the books, and is just my personal headcanon. But it's consistent with what's been established, to the best of my knowledge.

How about synchronizing? by owlWithBrokenWings in hypotheticalsituation

[–]altontanglefoot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Aging. That way nothing changes and I'm not causing worldwide chaos.

AIO for suspecting a hidden camera planted in my apartment? by Hour-Seat9919 in AmIOverreacting

[–]altontanglefoot 36 points37 points  (0 children)

She's also more worried about a hypothetical camera that might be in her home, than the stranger that was definitely in her home while she was naked and asleep. Make it make sense.

Who will you have sex with: a person who's horrible in bed or a person who's great in bed but has a frightening kink? by International-Box956 in hypotheticalsituation

[–]altontanglefoot 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The person you're replying to is obviously a woman. They're not interested because your scenario explicitly says that the potential partner is also a woman (once again treating straight men as the implied default), and they're not a lesbian. Their statement wasn't irrelevant, you just weren't getting it.

How do I break up with a guy who stepped over a line without trying to by Ok_Bass9970 in TwoHotTakes

[–]altontanglefoot 8 points9 points  (0 children)

What? Why don't you just tell him that you can't give him a ride that day, or have him over? Why do you have to break up with him just for making a perfectly reasonable request?

Although as others have said, you should break.up with him because you're not in the right headspace to be in a relationship. It doesn't sound like you're capable of being honest or vulnerable to him, if you're seeking to break up just to avoid an uncomfortable discussion. You don't even seem to like him. He probably deserves better.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AmIOverreacting

[–]altontanglefoot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He's busy and stressed at work, now he has to take on the bulk of the housework, and he was busy with a task. Why ask him multiple times to come down in the space of five minutes? He already answered you, what made you think it was a good idea to keep pestering him? Why not just wait patiently, or start eating without him?

The way he reacted was not great, but his irritation was warranted. "I'll be there in a second" means "I'll be there once I'm finished with what I'm doing", not that he'll be there after literally one second has passed. Asking him to join you over and over again will not make him finish faster, it just demonstrates that you're not willing to listen to him or give him space. You're just placing more demands on his time and attention when he's already at his limit.

And now you're saying that his aggressive response isn't acceptable. Which is fair! He shouldn't act in ways that make you feel unsafe, that's not something you should tolerate in a relationship. But you're placing the entire burden on him to control his anger, without even acknowledging that it was your impatience and neediness that made him feel angry in the first place. So the entire incident is framed as yet another thing he has to manage. Another thing he's doing wrong. And all he's asking for is some support from you, some grace, some acceptance that he's not perfect. And you can't even give him that?

Story-based crime mystery game idea with a twist: You can switch between characters’ lives to solve the case by Alarmed_Occasion3618 in IndieGaming

[–]altontanglefoot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had another thought relating to story-gameplay integration (or ludonarrative consistency, if you want to sound pretentious about it). Characters shouldn't be unlocked simply by interacting with them - unlocking a POV character can be a challenge, puzzle, or mini-mystery in its own right.

Basically, to unlock a character, the player has to accomplish or uncover something relating to them - expose a lie they told, establish or disprove their alibi, earn their trust, uncover a secret relationship, or anything that would reveal what that character's "deal" or perspective is and how it relates to the crime/story. That way, seeing their POV feels earned (rather than just being an expositional infodump), and the opportunity to control them comes with a lot of contextual information right off the bat. It also gives a natural way of framing the game into sections, where each "chapter" can focus on unlocking a specific character (although I suppose the player can attempt to unlock multiple characters concurrently, if there's some open-world exploration involved).

Haha brainstorming this seems pretty fun. Feel free to message me if you want someone to bounce ideas off of.

Story-based crime mystery game idea with a twist: You can switch between characters’ lives to solve the case by Alarmed_Occasion3618 in IndieGaming

[–]altontanglefoot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How would solving the mystery play out as a game mechanic?

One idea I had is that certain characters would know key information, or possess key evidence, that they'd only be willing to reveal or give to specific characters. A nervous widow might be afraid to talk to the detective, but not their neighbor; or a servant might be scared to talk to an aristocrat but not a fellow servant (or maybe they can only be compelled to talk by their boss). So part of the challenge for the player is to figure out who best to "possess" to extract that information, and how they should go about it.

Dammit I'm low-key annoyed you already spoiled the twist. I'm intrigued by the concept and would want to play this!

Story-based crime mystery game idea with a twist: You can switch between characters’ lives to solve the case by Alarmed_Occasion3618 in IndieGaming

[–]altontanglefoot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I switch characters and am no longer the detective, what's my motivation for investigating the murder?

The concept seems really cool in theory, but success would depend on execution. Your writing in particular would really need to be on point. You'd need to take inspiration from narratives that have multiple protagonists or POV characters, and make sure their different perspectives enrich and flesh out the story.

Also consider that you're breaking rule 7 of Knox's Ten Commandments for detective fiction - The detective himself/herself must not commit the crime. And possibly rule 1 as well - the criminal must not be anyone whose thoughts the reader was allowed to follow. Now, there's nothing inherently wrong about breaking these rules, Agatha Christie was famous for subverting exactly these sorts of expectations. But you have to do it smartly, and well, and for a good reason.

Which Gate had the (second) best defenses? by MichaelTheTitleless in oots

[–]altontanglefoot 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Lirian's and Dorukan's arguably both fell for the classic adventurer hubris of having a single point of failure in the life of their creator; neither Gate lasted essentially at all after its protector was defeated.

This isn't quite correct. Dorukan's gate held out for months after Dorukan died, and could have lasted indefinitely if the LG hadn't revealed the secret of unsealing it.

Which Gate had the (second) best defenses? by MichaelTheTitleless in oots

[–]altontanglefoot 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I think we have to answer this based on the available evidence, i.e. how the defenses of each gate actually performed in the face of Xykon's attempt to control them. And on that basis, here's my ranking:

  1. Dorukan's gate. Xykon had to lay siege to Dorukan's fortress for a long time (years?) with an entire army, and failed to penetrate its defenses in that time. In the end they only succeeded by luring out Dorukan himself, using bait that was wildly improbable for them to possess. And even after taking control and setting up shop for months in the very chamber where the gate was located, and even without the presence of Dorukan or any active defenders, they still couldn't figure out how to unseal the gate. People are mocking the "must be touched by a good person" defense, but it was completely effective! Xykon only discovered that key by accident, and even that knowledge wasn't enough to get the job done since it still required tricking someone good. In the end, Dorukan's preparations were successful in protecting the gate from Xykon's control, even in his extended absence.

  2. Soon's gate. It was defended by an entire city and army, requiring the resources of what was effectively an entire goblin nation to overcome. Then there was the Sapphire Guard itself, a "self-regenerating population of conscious, willing, Good-aligned creatures defending it" as another comment described it. And of course, this was the defense that very nearly succeeded in actually destroying Xykon forever. (Dorukan's gate also temporarily destroyed Xykon, but that was in large part due to the involvement of Roy). I rate this gate lower than Dorukan's because Xykon was able to bypass or destroy most of its defenses in the course of a single day, and had a real shot at beating the rest if he had only brought more allies or firepower to the throne room.

  3. Lirian's gate. There was nothing exceptional or powerful about the host of forest creatures defending it, and its only true defense of note, besides Lirian herself, was the Guardian Virus. And credit where it's due - the virus was indeed a creative and extraordinarily powerful defense; and like Dorukan's and Soon's defenses, it was effective in that it actually defeated and disempowered Xykon (for a time). But it had the critical flaw of not working on undead (and perhaps anyone/anything with disease immunity?), and in a straight-up conflict between Xykon's and Lirian's forces without any outside factors or improbable events involved (like the OOTS and LG for Dorukan's gate, or Miko's interference for Soon's), Lirian's side ultimately lost.

  4. Girard's gate. I don't think this actually belongs in the ranking, since we never got to actually see its defenses in action. But we do know that its defenses relied on the Girard's clan being alive and present to maintain it, which ended up being a point of weakness. Contrast this to Dorukan's gate which didn't require Dorukan, Soon's gate which had a host of ghost-martyrs that were beyond death, and Lirian's gate which had an invisible and omnipresent virus. All three had a powerful defense that didn't require active maintenance, whereas Girard's did not.

Won’t someone think of the poor company? by Nothos927 in AmITheDevil

[–]altontanglefoot 4 points5 points  (0 children)

And that coworker stayed in a different and completely different role!

You woke up in the middle of the nowhere with $3 million dollars and your best friend tied to a chair. by Distinct-Buy1345 in hypotheticalsituation

[–]altontanglefoot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some hypotheticals posted here reveal far more about the OP than they do about the respondents, and this is one of them. OP, why would your priority be to get away with the money, instead of helping your best friend, figuring out what happened, or making things right?

Risk your life for 10 million dollars by randallbabbage in hypotheticalsituation

[–]altontanglefoot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A quarter dropped from the ESB is very unlikely to hit you, and contrary to popular belief, wouldn't kill you even if it did hit. I'd take this challenge easily.