Hierarchy is simply a reality. Believing in hierarchy is like believing in reality itself (i.e. someone is going to be better than me at weaving baskets voilà you have a hierarchy: simple as).

That’s not exactly what was meant by hierarchy. It’s more like having some people rule over others is good and natural. And that people don’t really change their station in life. You’re a peasant so course the royal family rules over you. They’re good at ruling. Perhaps innately.

There is no obvious limit to what can be considered “charity.” So, if the government takes responsibility for providing charity instead of leaving it to individuals and communities, it can use that as a reason to keep expanding its power and responsibilities.

I don’t find this a compelling argument. “Something bad might happen so we shouldn’t do anything”. I’m sure many of the people suffering from lack of food, shelter, and health care also do not find it compelling. You shouldn’t go outside because bad things can happen there. You shouldn’t lend your phone to your friend because there’s no obvious limit what they can do with it. You can use this argument to avoid anything.

The appeal to the “founding fathers” is not very effective. They lived a very long time ago in a very different world, and were not saints.

this is what Conservatives actually believe

It kind of is! They believe in hierarchy, and that people need to be in their correct place for the world to work. It’s a reason they oppose things like social programs- things that try to bring people up contradict the natural order and lead to bad times!

They’re kind of bad people, fundamentally.

Teachers should be paid more than, say, marketing people at a blockchain AI startup. Teachers add value to the world.

Imagine a context where the reader is looking at the news for the first time that day. They think they missed news in the morning, perhaps the US starting aggressions, and now China has dropped another bomb.

I’m sure you can imagine such a scenario

Because I thought China had literally bombed the US for a very tense moment before I finished reading the headline. Especially because of how the words wrapped. I didn’t need that stress.

Can we please not write headlines like that when we’re on the verge of ww3 and literal bombs might be dropped on the US in the coming months?

100%. I think a lot about one of my friends when trying to think about that kind of user. Smart lady. Advanced degree. Has her life together. Would absolutely not want to try to install an OS. Wouldn’t even know how to start.

But I’m confident if I handed her a Linux laptop, she’d use it just the same as a Mac or Windows machine.

Right. Inertia is the metaphor I used to express that idea.

I don’t think that’s actually very many people. Not for their personal computers. Most people don’t run much more than a web browser, if they don’t play games.

It’s not the PC games keeping people so much. Proton solved a lot of that problem. It’s inertia.

Most people don’t care about things. They just don’t. Their brains just don’t have the juice.

Break up Facebook

People that park in bike lanes should lose their license and car. Selfish and hazardous behavior.

You also said to go fuck yourself over the idea that if you want rules for something, you could play a system that does that out of the box. You also called people massive pieces of garbage. So “all I said” is some bullshit.

You’re so mad over some imaginary scenario and that other tables play differently.

Yes. You are a mess. An embarrassment, even. The only one being a baby here is you.

Furthermore, a house rule is not the same as an ad-hoc on-the-spot ruling that may or may not be repeated later.

You spent days coming up with that reply?

And you take offense at “If you want to do X, maybe look for a system that does it out of the box”? You’re ignoring the “add a house rule” option, too. Did someone hurt you by telling you to play another system, and this is trauma shutting down your brain?

You’re a mess.

Considering how you are behaving here I find it extremely unlikely that you are widely regarded as pleasant. Really. Go read your post again, where you escalated all the way to “go fuck yourself”.

Furthermore, your post is foolish.

First, an ad hoc change of rules to benefit the players is fudging. You should talk about it with your table because groups are different, but many people feel strongly about it.

Second of all, in my post I suggested that if players like being able to interrupt big spells, they could either add a house rule to cover that, or change to a system that does it out of the box. And you’re blowing up over that?

Third of all, not every table is the same. Some tables would enjoy the wreckage of “wow we really shouldn’t have bunched up like that. Well, I think I’m going to roll a rogue next because evasion sounds nice”.

Your post is garbage. You’re mad at some imaginary “evil GM” story in your head.

You’re a presumptuous and unpleasant little person, aren’t you?

I don’t think that kind of fudging makes for good DND. You could maybe remind the players that wizards cast spells earlier in the scene. But if you want something like that play a different system, or add a consistent house rule that’s written down. Some games let you interrupt spell casters.

Huge anti-fan of ad hoc stuff in otherwise rules driven games.

Why not both?

I prefer Fate’s system:

When you don’t like your roll, you can either reroll or take a flat bonus. Because Fate is a dice pool instead of flat-probability-1d20, if you do take the reroll to make up for an atrocious roll, you’re less likely to get another atrocious roll. Usually you just need the little bump to make a difference.