That sounds like it would be a completely different game and probably not as fun since you'd have to use some very fiddly controls to manually get into orbit. If you eliminate orbit entirely then it's just a slalom race. "Hitting" each star/planet is the immediate feedback that makes it fun.
Those are diseases of morality, not capitalism. Someone who lights a warehouse on fire because they aren't paid enough is an immoral person. In a communist country they would be called a Wrecker and they'd face a firing squad for their actions.
Gambling, likewise, is a moral problem. It should be illegal or highly restricted and often was. Many other problems we face now could be fixed simply by reinstating laws that used to exist.
You and I probably have very different ideas about what is moral and what is not. For me, the highest moral crime is greed. A lot of people seem fine with it today. So for you to claim that the fire happened because of the poor moral character of the person who lit the fire, I can just as easily say this happened because of the poor moral character of the people who didn't pay him a fair wage, which leaves us nowhere.
That's why I focus on purely systemic arguments. The humans in the system are abstract. It doesn't matter if they are moral or not, they respond to systemic incentives. So if they're acting immorally according to you, why is the system incentivizing degenerate behavior instead of moral behavior?
there a lot of things that may be immoral but it is the system that promotes it or prevents it. our system promotes it (there are ads for kashi and fanduel on nickelodeon) so it is the capitalism
Massively capitalist in what way? They have a long history of price controls and nationalization and their current military junta is trying to nationalize the uranium industry. How could you even imagine a free market operating in a country that has a revolving door government that alternates between military dictatorships and transitional officials?
Calm down, just spreading the word that the extension is adware and having everyone uninstall it is sufficient to demonstrate that this move was a mistake. Trying to ruin someone's life is going completely overboard. Repercussions should be proportionate, you don't shoot people for stealing a candy bar.
To me, the role playing, and the crunchy bits, as well as tactics, combat, and other stuff, are all significant and important part of TTRPG; it should not be only one of those things.
In my experience the roleplay heavy groups are very quick to houserule out any of the crunchy rules they don't like, too. So it really is the worst of both worlds for me, I don't get to engage with the game system the way I want to, and I also am expected to roleplay heavily
It's why I haven't tried to get back into TTRPGs. I suspect that even if I were to join in on an OSR group that the play style would still be closer to the modern improv group aesthetic.
Maybe for resume cover letters and LinkedIn posts but I haven't met anyone with half decent taste who prefers AI writing, even well prompted, to skillful human writing. I'm not a stranger to using AI for writing tasks by any means but it's only ever a starting point that gets heavily rewritten by both myself and the model.
It's not hard to get them to copy a style, you just have to provide examples and they will happily produce similar text including grammatical and spelling mistakes. The trouble is with the composition and novelty. Most of the big models have had all of the interesting parts hidden behind a wall of RLHF. Local models are better since you can use ones that are not indoctrinated as a "helpful assistant" and also control the system prompt, temperature and see the top K alternate tokens which let you steer them in interesting ways.
>Maybe for resume cover letters and LinkedIn posts but I haven't met anyone with half decent taste who prefers AI writing, even well prompted, to skillful human writing.
That attitude is one, maybe two generations away from extinction. Taste is created by the market, which caters to the young. When enough people have been born into a world in which AI generated culture and communication is the norm, that is what will define what good taste is. People like you (and I) will just come off like old people yelling at clouds.
We can already see this happening at the fringes. People have relationships with AI, they prefer AIs to real people, they use AI as a primary source of truth, they consider AI generated art to be superior to human work, they trust AI more than people. People identify as AI. AI is filling an emotional, sociological and creative space that an increasingly alienating and hostile society denies to people, for better or worse. Generative AI has only been a thing in popular culture for four years or so and it has already completely transformed human society and human sociology.
Barring a complete collapse of the AI bubble, which seems existentially impossible at this point given how invested our economies and government are in it, that's just what normal is going to be in a decade or so.
Popular taste is guaranteed to be awful since it is driven by economics and fads. That's the type you point out as created by the market and catering to the young. It's a disposable product of consumption used to sell shoes and overpriced paintings.
I don't disagree that it will permeate everything, it already does. It'll just be written by an AI instead of people being paid to find the next style to cop. I don't think it will extinguish human writing, you'll just have AI writing that you feed to official or public channels and then real writing that goes in private or pseudonymous channels. Using AI writing among friends or an in group will still be a faux pas and cringe because it will have become the norm to be rebelled against.
From my limited experience, many players and DMs seem to get things backwards in exactly the way you're describing. They take the rulebook as the starting point or the "controls" for the game and since combat is the most detailed they tend to focus on that to the exclusion of other parts of the game. I've always viewed the rules as a way of settling disputes or uncertainty instead, so you start from the role playing and only resort to rules when you need fair adjudication or clarification on complicated situations. i.e. don't give me quotes from the rulebook, tell me what your character does and we'll work it out as part of the story.
When most of the games rules are about a thing that thing becomes the focal point. 5e also assumes pretty high amount of combat encounters per day to keep all classes in balance, if you are having less then it will make some classes just bad picks which can feel bad
Personally I don’t like it when people don’t play by the rules of the game we have decided to play together, so definitely things should work as the rules say and then ambiguous things are sorted with GMs world’s logic as “rulings”.
If you start by ignoring the rules and only consulting them when there is a dispute then I want to play another game with less rules to begin with
I guess it depends if you want the game to be a grind for the next level or if you want real interactive fiction. Different people like different things.
It really just depends on do you play D&D or something else. It is perfect fine if you don’t want to play by the rules, but then you aren’t playing the game and we might as well just stop pretending and pick a better system
Can you explain what "Chinese fascism" is? Not citizen of any super-power, but how can you be sure you're not fallen under some propaganda where you see "them" as being evil and not just some other-way-of-living?
I didn't say I see China as evil. You're conflating the word fascism with the word evil. They have distinct definitions, at least when you're not spreading propaganda.
China may be authoritarian (I would agree that they are), but they're not fascist. They're also a much smaller threat to anyone living in the US. I'm more worried about the jackbooted thugs on my own streets than the ones halfway around the world.
reply