Yeah, I'm not big on fudging rolls, but that's one thing I will do. In my last campaign, I had statted up the first real villain for my players to fight, and they knocked him out in one punch. I would have made him one level higher, but then his own attacks would have been strong enough to one-shot some of the players. Level 1 woes.
I think the difference is being transparent about it. This is saying "I know that shouldn't hit, but I'm saying it hits anyways." Traditional fudging is "That... hits, yeah, totally."
Yeah, I learned that too. I had come up with a villain later on who had a very defense/counterattack focused stationary fighting style combined with sundering armor, and I thought I could make him a big threat, but then he ended up completely flopping because there just wasn't support for building that style and making it strong. Now I'm playing looser, and stealing lair actions from D&D (minus the lair part most of the time) to make my loner villains work.
A while ago, I read something about how back in the day, people would spend half of their evenings "thinking about sleep" and not really doing anything, talking about it like wasted time when you could be doing more fulfulling things. So it's weird to me to hear that people are recommending two whole hours of this.
As someone who doesn't have ADHD, here's what works for me*: No heavy metal or intense video gaming right before bed. I usually just take one final scroll through the front page of Lemmy before I go to bed. And I leave my phone at my desk - that part seems more important. Studies have found it's harder to fall asleep while looking at a screen. I learned this a while ago and thought it was a no-brainer, then was surprised over the years to learn how many people are literally scrolling through their phones while they're trying to sleep. If you can give that up*, you'll fall asleep easier, and if your phone is out of arm's reach of your bed, your alarm clock will be much more effective in the morning.
*I can't even guess how easy this would be to pull off with ADHD. Maybe it's about as easy as it is for anyone else (which may not be all that easy tbf,) maybe it's borderline impossible. If it's the latter, sorry, I don't have any ADHD-specific advice.
Yeah, I know it's not necessarily going to be applicable. That's why I gave two asterisks pointing to a disclaimer about exactly that.
Anyways, the point of my comment was more to talk about my thoughts and experiences regarding sleep routines, and the fact that the "two hours of nothing stimulating before bed" is incredibly alien even to me, as a person who doesn't have ADHD.
That's talking about being on the phone before bed, not while trying to sleep. I'm not talking about people doing one last scroll before they go to bed, I'm talking about people lying in bed, scrolling through their feeds, expecting to fall asleep with their phone in hand.
And yeah, I thought it was a no-brainer that actively reading social media makes it harder to fall asleep while doing so, but these days I'm not so sure how common this "common sense" is.
Sorry, mixed up n^2^ and 2^n^. But what I meant was that there's eventually going to be a point where the limiting factor is the number of people willing to upvote it, which is asymptotically constant (after crossing the threshold of making it onto the front page.)
Both the number of posts and the width of the posts are limited by a constant in this way, though the latter is a much larger constant. I suppose I was talking about the width of the posts, but it would have been more accurate to say it's bound above by 2^(the number of users on Lemmy.)
In short, I do not think these posts are going to reach a 2048-wide en passant, but I don't think image size is going to be the reason why.
Yeah, you're right, I'm not being rigorous here. I'm just co-opting big O notation somewhat inaccurately to express that this isn't going to get as big as it seems because the number of upvotes isn't going to increase all that much.
Oof, yeah, please try to avoid doomscrolling, even if you work a point-of-sales job. The human mind wasn't built to handle all the world's bad news in one sitting.
I would much rather have the NSFW tag be for what it says instead of a general "some people might not want to see this." I don't want to click something thinking it's the latter and get the former. A spoiler tag may be more appropriate if we have those.
Also, this is literally just a meme about bug bites and a vampire bite. The vampire in question being Count von Count from Sesame Street.
In Pathfinder at least, they do have rules for spell research, and it's easier if it's pretty similar to a spell you already know, so "fireball but it's 10 ft wider and does d4s" is something you could get.
Or you could use metamagic feats. Widen Spell for AoE, Elemental Spell for damage type, and other properties. Though that can get expensive.
Even better if the foe was already almost dead. When you slap something for huge numbers it's also fun having the DM describe the wreckage that's left of your opponents....
I do a thing where if someone lands a critical hit that takes a character from alive to dead*, they get a more descriptive kill based on the type of attack. A slashing attack might behead them. A cold attack could freeze them solid.
It's Pathfinder 1e, so death is when negative HP >= constitution score (not bonus.) I don't do it if they have room for bleedout and stabilization.
Well, LLMs are, at least. But also, autocomplete is already AI, so really LLMs are just glorified AI. And that checks out, they are the ones that get all the glory*. Everything else is just spooky algorithms.
I googled it, there is an option to sync it to your Microsoft account, but I can't say whether that's on by default when you turn on clipboard history because I skipped adding a Microsoft account. But if it is, you can turn it off in Settings -> System -> Clipboard.
After success with my senior project, developing a real game with a team of 15 that we're releasing on Steam, which I feel really good about, I crave the experience of working in a team to develop a game. But of course, my hobby project is a nonprofit endeavor so I can only expect volunteers, and even though I feel I can get the coding down mostly on my own, I feel like I might be asking too much by hoping for an artist or few to join with me... maybe I just need to change up my approach, and offer equal shares of creative control, that way it's not "help me make my game" so much as "join me and we'll make our game."
Yeah, I agree Pascal's wager isn't a good way to frame your life. I was just using it as a counterpoint to your explanation on why the standards for proof are so high. If it is because you're trying to avoid the risks of a bad afterlife, you're already doing Pascal's wager, just with the wrong approach. The only way I can see that being the best approach is if you're actively evaluating all the known religions to weigh the odds of each against how bad their hells are. But then there also better be reason to suspect that the ideal religion might gatekeep you for having once been part of a different religion, yet not gatekeep you for having been an atheist or for going in with the motivation of Pascal's wager. Otherwise you might as well sign up with the best you know of right now and keep looking. But don't do that because the wager is not a good : )
When I mentioned life on Earth, I was referring to having high standards because it's going to affect your mortal life, rather than because of the risks of a bad afterlife. I think that's a more sensible approach because it doesn't require you to start from the assumption that an afterlife is possible, and the costs can be empirically measured instead of going off whatever the holy texts claim (outside of miracles, of course.) If the cost is 10% of your money and a day a week, then yeah, you probably want to be pretty sure before you commit, but if there are clear benefits, it might be worth it even without a rock-solid proof of a deity. Does that make sense?
Yes, I see what you mean about using the Bible to prove itself. I hadn't noticed that the earliest manuscripts of Mark's gospel didn't have the account of Jesus appearing to the disciples, so that raises the possibility that when Mark (or whomever wrote that) was collecting notes of the stories around Jesus to spin a narrative, he decided to fabricate the idea of Christ appearing to all 11 at once in order to make it seem more credible.
The gospel of Mark is believed by scholars to have been written around 65-73 AD^[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament], predating the other gospels, but it's not the first book of the New Testament to have been written. 1 Corinthians, which scholars are sure was written by Paul, is believed to have been written around 53-57 AD, and it explicitly says that Christ appeared to the twelve disciples^[https://www.bible.com/bible/111/1CO.15.5.NIV].
Now it's not exactly clear how many of the disciples were still alive by then, and at least one of them had died, but there were still some of them around. Seeing as they were still kicking, it wouldn't make sense for Paul to make up an eyewitness testimony on their behalf, and if he did, they would have heard about it. His letters weren't exactly kept secret. So even though we don't have a direct claim from the (probably illiterate) disciples that they saw Jesus resurrected, it's safe to conclude that they did make that claim.
EDIT: Though I suppose this brings up a fourth possibility (or fifth if you count aliens) that Paul was a chessmaster who made up the appearance to the twelve, and arranged to have any disciples who disagreed with his plan executed before he wrote about it... I think that's pretty far-fetched.
Yeah, I understand where you're coming from, which is why I'm citing historical analysis of the Bible. Most scholars don't think King Arthur was real, and if he was, the stories weren't written when he was alive, so you can't put any stock in the story because no witnesses were around to verify nor dispute it. On the other hand, even if you believe the Bible is a book of myths, there are still historical facts that have been independently verified, like:
There was a guy named Jesus who got crucified^[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus]
The disciples were real people^[https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1qn6r4/are_there_any_historical_proof_that_all_12/]
Paul's letters (or at least most of them) were written by Paul while he and at least some of the disciples were still around^[As previously cited]
The early church was significant and persecuted^[Tacitus again]
Because the early church was significant and the disciples were real people, I conclude that they were famous.
Because they were famous, I conclude that if they said anything surprising, word would have gotten around.
Because Paul's letters were written while the disciples were around, and the disciples were famous, I conclude that if he said anything surprising about the disciples, they would have heard about it.
If the disciples heard a story about them that never happened, they would have confirmed it, denied it, or evaded the question.
If they confirmed a story, that doesn't necessarily mean it's true, but it does mean they wanted people to believe it's true.
If they denied a story, that would have been surprising, and word would have gotten around, so there would have been some mention somewhere.
If they evaded commenting on a story, that means they wanted people to believe it's true (and hints that it was untrue, but that part doesn't really matter for my purposes here.)
Thus, if Paul wrote something about the disciples while they were around, and there's no mention anywhere of them denying it, that indicates that the disciples wanted people to believe it's true.
Paul wrote about Jesus appearing to the disciples after resurrection, and there's no mention of them denying it. This doesn't necessarily mean that the resurrection was true, but it does mean that the disciples were at least complicit and refused to deny it even in the face of persecution. As for conclusions from there, see my earlier comment.
Is that line of thinking solid enough, depending on historically verified facts instead of taking the Bible as an accurate account at face value?
Also, something that bugged me about your earlier comment: You say you make no claim as to whether a god exists, you just aren't convinced. And you say there's no proof for a lack of a god. Yet you also said that you think aliens causing the resurrection (or appearance thereof) is more plausible than a god existing.
Aliens having the technology, knowledge, and motivation to cosplay as God is already highly unlikely, whether in a world with a real god or not. Jesus being the real deal is fairly likely if in a world with God, but impossible if in a world with no god.
So if you're telling me that Jesus being the real deal is less likely than aliens cosplaying God, that tells me you think there being no god is significantly more likely than God existing. In the absence of evidence in either direction, they should be treated as equally plausible (though not equally valid, as burden of proof is still a thing.) The fact that you don't tells me you actually do lean towards the lack of a god.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm definitely biased towards God existing. I'd just like you to introspect and examine your bias so you're aware of it. Though I'd also appreciate it if you adjusted your parameters and leaned a little more this way ; )
Makes sense. I guess I'm not so much demonstrating that the resurrection is true as that, if it's not true, the accounts surrounding it are still very extraordinary and probably worth looking into.
Fudging rolls is the path to the dark side... ( startrek.website )
if this post gets 1024 upvotes, i will post again with twice as wide en passant ( lemmy.world )
if this post gets 512 upvotes, i will post again with twice as wide en passant ( lemmy.world )
if this post gets 256 upvotes, i will post again with twice as wide en passant ( lemmy.world )
if this post gets 128 upvotes, i will post again with twice as wide en passant ( lemmy.world )
If I don't overshoot my planned sleeping time by 1 hour doomscrolling, I'm usually sick. ( lemmy.dbzer0.com )
if this post gets 32 upvotes, i will post again with twice as wide en passant ( lemmy.world )
if this post gets 8 upvotes, i will post again with twice as wide en passant ( lemmy.world )
When the DM tries to make it as obvious as possible ( lemmy.world )
Everything means everything ( lemmy.world )
new preference war just dropped ( i.redd.it )
geteilt von: https://lemmit.online/post/3018791...
Total Recall ( lemmy.world )
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/15748792...
It's going to be one of -those- sessions, isn't it? ( lemmy.world )
let it rain ( lemmy.world )
That has to be fake ( sh.itjust.works )
Felt the original infograph left out an important detail, especially if you play WoD. ( lemmy.world )
I just turned into a puddle of goo. Thanks for asking. ( lemmy.dbzer0.com )
"Do you know how many spells are just recycled incantations?" ( media.kbin.social )
Addiction is a scary thing. ( lemmy.world )
The special kind of fun that is a full minute or two spent rolling legendary damage. ( lemmy.world )
Even better if the foe was already almost dead. When you slap something for huge numbers it's also fun having the DM describe the wreckage that's left of your opponents....
AI Suggestions ( programming.dev )
I still don't get buffers ( programming.dev )
StackGPT ( jlai.lu )
Should we tell him? ( sh.itjust.works )
Any Volunteers ( programming.dev )
What did you get told as a child that you realised was a lie as you got older?