does that mean desert bus for hope never ends either
that would be awful
for others: desert bus is a mind-numbingly terrible game wherein you are driving a bus along a straight road through the desert and must periodically adjust the steering. the game takes several days to "win". it has almost no redeeming features, and in fact almost no features at all. once a year, desert bus for hope plays the game through to completion and streams it as a charity drive.
the desert bus for hope folks take turns and hang out in a room together and sit around on a big couch while one person controls the game (by pressing the right directional button every few seconds).
Ah man.... last night (twelve hours ago!) I had a discussion/argument/thing with a friend that was a good discussion to have had but went really badly (and I'm partly responsible for that and should've known better than to approach it the way I did), and I am finally just now beginning to feel OK again and less on edge.
Feels better~
user15026
Well, glad you are feeling better about things at least
They're fun decks, but one of our players shut down two of us harder than he needed to, made the game kinda un-fun, and left nobody able to keep the fourth player in check who went on to win. The way I approached talking to him about it, and the way he responded to our concerns, both made the discussion go way worse than it could've gone.
Anyway, he'd done that based on some enormous assumptions about our decks' capabilities.
He understands now what he did wasn't fun at least, and said that he won't do it again.
yar, there are, this is just a pattern that's showed up in several multiplayer things we've done recently (specifically it also kept happening between him and me, with me being the one getting shut down)
there are a lot of people who play MTG just to make the most ridiculous decks and meta game all to hell
because there are thousands of cards that can just work way too brokenly with each other and such
like, if you just want to make a creature theme deck, you are probably not going to win because everyone else is focusing on a deck that combos to do massively horrible things
yeah. my friends and I currently mainly only play multiplayer, and we're just using the official commander decks because they're made in sets that are designed for battling each other and they're not ridiculous and OP.
you can only use him once per turn, (unless you have some kind of untap cheese) and he needs snow permanents, but I like that he can keep bouncing stuff into people's hands, and he isn't broken by himself
@Pixie same, I was previously just answering a lot of D&D 4e rules questions (which are really fun to puzzle out) and my fate experience is not yet solid enough i feel confident answering questions, usually.
@Nyoze I really enjoy most of the cards from the C14 commander deck, like that one. Next time we're playing I'm using that one for the first time. (It hasn't been used at all yet. It is mine! All mine! Muahahaha!)
I've only recently reached the point where my fate-core posts outnumber my dnd-3.5e posts, and I'd stopped playing 3.5 months before I joined this site.
@doppelgreener I can answer Pathfinder questions on some really specific topics and most Maid RPG questions (but not the one @Sandwich asked :P). I'm confident answering a lot of things on freeform and etiquette, but the former doesn't have a big audience here. The latter, when it does get asked, is frequently answered very well by others. I don't feel the need to answer if I think the best answer is already there, so. :P
Yeah, that's just a risk taken when you place a bounty. I wouldn't have wanted to write just any answer. I can speculate about it a little, but I wouldn't be satisfied with that.
There are some things I've used extensively in Pathfinder that I feel comfortable answering on. Not a ton of things, though.
@Nyoze Not really. It's just a matter of scope, style, and specific situation. Etiquette as a whole could be characterized as entirely opinion-based, too, but we can narrow that down sufficiently.
But it's not what people generally come to the site for, and that's perfectly fine.
It is, however, the bulk of my experience by far. :P
@doppelgreener Well, there are some questions that can pertain to both freeform and tabletop that wouldn't actually be tagged freeform (like some etiquette questions, planning questions, etc.), and otherwise, there just tends to be a strong focus on tabletop rules resolution here. I'm also not going to suggest that it's not easier to answer tabletop question in our format, because you at least have rules to reference.
Well, a focus on things pertaining to tabletop in general, not just the rules (tabletop tools, history, and specific etiquette are all things).
There's another thing that might be a factor: freeform games are often focused around a forum or community of some kind, where you can talk things out right within the community.
@Nyoze ... if it's any consolation, I sabotaged myself too. I'm now stuck listening to Gasai Yuno (yandere face girl, if you haven't seen Mirai Nikki) saying YUKKI~ over and over again.
I guess you could call that mostly worksafe, but I still wouldn't be listening to it at work. :P And there's a bikini in there somewhere. No blood or anything, though (the same is not true of the series it's from).
@doppelgreener Yes, and it is in context, too. xD The implication of the face is that the character obsessed to the point that "Don't worry, I'll protect you." is... a horrifying thing to hear for the object of their affection. But to the yandere, it's great! It's wonderful! They're just so in love! They'll go to any length and act upon any perceived threat.
That is a good question! Each dere type tends to show affection in a codified way. If we follow the pattern of tsundere or dandere, for example, they go from being cold or shy to actually affectionate as they open up, though it may not last long before they return to their outside personality. Perhaps, then, you'd have a brief moment of open affection from your spydere, at least until they slip out of your grasp again.
(I have dissected anime tropes entirely too much. I apologize.)
Tsundere, yandere, and yangire are by far the most known/common. (A yangire is a character who suddenly becomes dangerous and unhinged, but not because of love.)
Well, maybe Moffat should let someone else run Doctor Who, then ... ?
http://www.denofgeek.com/tv/doctor-who/36452/doctor-who-new-report-says-no-full-series-in-2016
Dear Auntie Beeb: Moffat is not a magical fairy who sprinkles success-dust on your projects. Somebody else can run Doctor Who and the show will not vanish in a puff of PR failure.
user15026
@BESW I'd be okay with someone else spearheading it, I've kinda lost interest in the last couple of series, maybe some fresh blood would help.
I'm well documented in this and other chats that I think Moffat ran out of steam a couple seasons back.
Give me Capaldi with someone else at the helm, please.
Preferably someone who can resist explaining what doesn't need to be explained, and who has a plot other than "Why is this woman weird?" because seriously you can only re-do that so many times.
I mean, I've seen a lot of Old Who. It gets into a rut sometimes--there are those who argue it's not all bad that most of the episodes still missing are from The Season Of Bases Interminably Under Siege.
user15026
@BESW I watched some of what's on Netflix, and I liked it quite a lot.
@Magician Though -dere terms relate to how a character changes in expressing affection. -kko terms can stem from just about any character trait that people fixate on, as -kko here simply means "girl." (Most of these tropes exist with male characters too. Terminology just centers around girls because so does otaku culture.)
@AshleyNunn I'm a big fan of Doctor Who in most all its iterations. And Whovians love to gripe, but it's almost always a good-natured "Our passion is so silly" sort of thing.
I'm just finally tired of New Who's repetitions. I want new, different silly things.
user15026
@BESW See to me it's kinda lost that silly aspect, which is why I am not enjoying it as much ,it feels too dramatic now
I'm too turned off by all that is Moffat to really start current Who. I may at some point go back and give previous Whos a chance. I just do not know if I can do the Moffat.
It's not like Turner was a brilliant producer either, but Moffat's also the script editor AND a major writer AND he directs. It's the Lucas Effect: he's done good stuff when he's working with people who can run with the good ideas and squash the bad ones, but that success put him in a position where nobody's going to tell him "no" anymore.
Oh, yes, I'm sure Moffat has strengths, and surely no one before him has been perfect, either. But everything I have encountered of Moffat gives me the impression that I would probably not stick with it for particularly long.
@Miniman No, that's Shada, and it starred the ordinary old Fourth Doctor (and was later re-made for Eight).
@Pixie [sigh] Torchwood wanted to be "Doctor Who for grown-ups," which totally missed the point of Doctor Who as a true family show that already dealt with grown-up themes and ideas. All Torchwood had left was "We swear and have sex!"
@Miniman The Scream of the Shalka was an animated webisode story commissioned by the BBC in the early 2000s as a potential low-budget way to continue the Doctor Who franchise. It wasn't quite completed when the New Who series became a reality, so they let the team finish Shalka but it's entirely non-canonical.
That's something I'm okay with in and of itself, but from your comments and others, I am not convinced of the series's ability to navigate that satisfactorily. I like flawed characters, even deeply flawed characters, and I don't mind if things don't end on such a hopeful note if I can see how it developed. That's just not an easy thing to do if you're trying to be adult for the sake of it.
Mhm. There's one miniseries after the TV show itself folded, which is considered by many to be "what Torchwood always wanted to be." You might try that?
I get kind of... completionist about things, though. Jumping into a miniseries like that makes part of me go, "No! You have to start at the beginning! With the first one! And watch all of it! Even if that's not necessary, advisable, or even possible! You'll miss things if you don't!" It is a bit senseless, but it is an instinct I have, making franchises like Dr. Who and spinoffs a bit intimidating. xD
I have kind of the opposite view. I often find that I'll enjoy shows more if I jump in at some arbitrary point in the middle, then only go back to discover the beginning sometime later.
Like, I get very, very frustrated that I can't find all the pre-Barnabus Collins episodes of Dark Shadows. I don't want to start there. I want to start at the beginning! (Also I have seen a few and they were getting good.)
I also tend to find beginnings insufferably boring. It's a lot of slow buildup and scene-setting and drawing out exactly the details of who is what and where and how.
Just throw it down all messy and let the story speak for itself.
But I'm definitely far in the minority on this opinion, by my informal polling.
It's often also that because it's the writers figuring out what they're dealing with.
Adventure Time has a pretty good example of this. The first season is basically just setting out the world itself. In the second one they're beginning to work out the foundations of plot for it and working more on their characters. The third they're developing plots and diving even further into the characters, the fourth and fifth just finally find the rails and everything is awesome.
@Grubermensch I can understand that. I wouldn't say you're totally in the minority, though. What you're describing sounds awfully like you'd prefer stories that start truly in media res, and starting in media res is a pretty common piece of advice given to writers.
@Pixie Yeah, but I hardly ever see it in television. A bit more in film. I think it's partly because you need more sense of the overall timing of the piece to do in media res correctly, and that just doesn't exist in television.
Hey BESW and others who might know I've got a meta question for you. Something I've noticed, maybe I've missed something but is there a reason sometimes questions with obvious answers are voted down to hell and back, the answers get huge upvotes but the question gets nuked without comment. Example: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/65725/… It's a legitimate question, not badly worded or asked.
I understand the frustration. I really, really do. But it's not what votes to close are for and we don't need such an option.
There is already a tool designed for "you didn't RTFM": the downvote arrow. When you hover over the downvote arrow, its tooltip says:
This question does not show any ...
Yea noticed he often gets in there pretty quickly. When you view the queue, does it take just 1 person to clear it or do a few people get to see each post?
@BESW Oh, right. I didn't get those through the review queues themselves though.... but I am definitely an expert at reviewing site material outside those queues. <_<;
A disputed flag is whenever your flag was dismissed as neither helpful or declined, someone reviewed your flag but no conclusive action was taken. It happens in some situations:
An edit on a post in the Low Quality Review Queue, will resolve the flags attached to it as disputed.
When a post, fl...
@BESW Yeah, I've started searching meta.SE whenever I see a new meta.RPG question, I should probably extend that to when I'm wondering about something.
if you're wondering how part of the system works, there is definitely an answer somewhere on meta buried among the twenty or so arguments about how that part of the system works.
@Nyoze Heh, I'm not sure about that. They're a Japanese indie band, which is what makes it so rare to see a Bandcamp in the first place. Doujin music has its own culture and audience, and for multiple reasons, digital distribution isn't that common.
Hmm. It's not quite a THUNK, I don't think. Too much ringing. A BLAT, maybe.
Whatever it may be, it is often considerably louder than other things I am listening to and has scared me out of my skin more than once when I forgot to temporarily mute it. xD
I understand the frustration. I really, really do. But it's not what votes to close are for and we don't need such an option.
There is already a tool designed for "you didn't RTFM": the downvote arrow. When you hover over the downvote arrow, its tooltip says:
This question does not show any ...
