(NB: Replies are open for replies to my answer, not to the question below. I have not asked how you feel about firearms in DND5E. On Twitter, your reply is supposed to be attached to the thing you are actually replying to.)
And these days as a game runner, I am for the most part of the mindset that the world can include somewhere any reasonable, approximately game-legal and approximately balanced thing a player wants for their character, because it's their fantasy, too.
Depending on my relationships with the players, I may take a firm stance on third party and homebrew options; specifically, if I have very differing levels of familiarity with them. "If it's in a WOTC 5E book, you can use it." is objective and treats everybody the same.
Whereas if two different people are bringing me their favorite third-party sub-class and I have to decide if I think either of them is too broken for the table, and one of them lives with me and the other is an internet pick-up... I don't want to do that.
But if you want your character to be an airship mechanic or a vampire slayer from a secret order of monster-hunting nuns... then airships and/or said secret order of monster-hunting nuns exist in the game's setting, as your character proves them to.
"So I can get bonuses against vampires by making up a backstory?"
No, you can get bonuses against vampires by taking appropriate mechanical options from those that are freely available to you. And if you want help making your character's mechanics fit their lore, I can do that.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I don't know who needs to hear this but if someone doesn't want to watch a movie with a ton of over-the-top ordinance-based violence in it, "But it's satirical!" would only be relevant if their objection was about what is moral to put in a movie and not what is palatable to them.
And I would swear that there's already been enough "Movies that show one good hero cop fighting against the corrupt copacracy is still copaganda." discourse.
Like, Robocop had a lot of things to say about bad cops, but it didn't actually posit the cops themselves as the problem?
My recollection is that he ended the movie by defeating the main evil corporate guy who was responsible for bad stuff then went back to being a cop with superpowers for a sequel or two and maybe a couple of TV spin-offs. Is that not copaganda?
We're watching the hitchcom (Hitchcockian sitcom) The Woman In The House Across The Street From The Girl In The Window and I highly recommend checking a content warning site if you have triggers or similar concerns, but we're enjoying the first episode.
We were having a little conversation in-house about how TV shows with long titles seem to have fallen out of fashion, and now that I've tweeted about this one I suspect that social media may have played a part there.
Twenty minutes in, my early impression is that it might work better as a psychological thriller than it does as a comedy, which is the other way around from how I expected, but either way it's working for me.
The fact that it would take bravery reminds me of a thing I observed the other day: the same people who swear that Christianity is on the brink of being outlawed also believe that President Obama is a Muslim and/or atheist who had to pretend to be Christian to get elected.
Literally the same people saying "OF COURSE the Satanic Democrats all pretend to be Christian, they'd never get elected in a Christian country otherwise." are the ones saying "Christianity is oppressed in this country, it will be illegal to be Christian soon."
And I mean, it's not a novel observation that fascism simultaneously poses as the underdog and the ubermensch, both victor and victim, beset by enemies who are likewise simultaneously powerless insignificant minorities and globe-straddling superpowers.
The really sad thing about Michael Tracey is no one is paying him to be a propagandist for the worst people, the worst causes, and the worst ills of the world. He is just what happens when stubborn contrarianism meets wounded egotism. He champions lies because the truth hurts.
Take a guy whose impulse is to go, "What? No, that can't be." when someone he doesn't respect says something he hasn't heard before.
*Coincidentally*, the guy respects people more the more they are exactly like himself. A white guy of his approximate background? Knows his stuff.
Lots of people have this kind of kneejerk reaction, but for most of them it's passing... five minutes later they might have incorporated it into their worldview. Their dismissal was based on nothing, so it is easily dismissed.
I love the way that Vampire Survivors gameplay evolves over a 30 minute run. Like the Axe, which moves in an obvious homage to Castlevania's classic axe, but on a top down screen. It does a TON of damage early on if you come at the enemies from the right direction...
...which is useful in the early game when combat still feels like individual engagements, but its fully evolved form loses that element by becoming omnidirectional, as the late game is more about keeping an encroaching horde from reaching you.
Oh, I may be talking about this game a lot. Before someone pops in with, "So you recommend this game?" I do not. My usual recommendation of "You might like this thing, if it's the sort of thing you like." applies times infinity here.
Friendship ended with Wordle, now Vampire Survivors is my best friend
I will probably keep playing Wordle. It just wasn't something I thought of today the way I did the other days since I started playing.
Vampire Survivors is not anything like Wordle but I feel like they both exist within a similar space of games that have figured out ways to sort of gently caress the addiction buttons.