Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

76

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV

« on: January 31, 2019, 09:33:50 am »

It threw me off when I saw someone talking about a biannual review of a process that's been in place for only a year, and then I realized that she probably means a review twice a year.

And that's why the word is dead now. Same with bimonthly.

77

General Discussion / Re: TV shows

« on: January 29, 2019, 01:30:56 pm »

What? Serenity was a great movie. Philistines!

Well, I guess it can't be the best movie ever. I rather enjoyed it.

Firefly was indeed a very witty show. Obviously the network didn't think it paid off, which is a shame. It probably wasn't that expensive to film, but it was still fancier than many other shows. Just not enough people watched it while it was on to justify Fox pumping money into it, though I'm sure they're aware of the missed opportunity.

I was one of those that helped Firefly to fail. I never watched it when it was on. I watched the episodes after it was canceled. It just did not interest me enough to give it a view. When I finally did, I had a great appreciation for the writing and borrowed someone's DVDs to watch the rest.

78

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV

« on: January 24, 2019, 08:26:51 am »

That's going to the correct thread. I don't know who the TC was, he's a user I've not seen before.

Is TC a synonym for OP?

Maybe Topic Creator?

79

General Discussion / Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?

« on: January 16, 2019, 11:50:31 am »

Unbreakable is also really boring for certain crowds, but it was also a really good movie.

I'm intrigued by Burning. I like going into good movies blind, though even those movies tend to have a bit more information than this. But I can't ask for more information without spoiling something presumably.

The weird scenes mentioned are probably more like content warning. If awkward scenes do bother you, then maybe that movie won't bother you. But I've also seen Irreversible and Spanking the Monkey, so I can usually handle uncomfortable scenes. Maybe I won't enjoy it, but I won't avoid it.

80

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV

« on: January 14, 2019, 08:40:22 am »

If you recall my quote:

Not sure I'd want something with that degree of granularity

Nobody wants FATAL. I don't care how many zeroes they put after the d.

81

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV

« on: January 11, 2019, 11:25:37 am »

Of course, you can also just get an actual d100.

I'm generally not fond of the d100, but that's because I'm impatient. I'm happier with rolling two dice without waiting for dice to stop.

But I cannot argue its fairness. It is technically the simplest way to roll 1-100. It's just not my favorite.

Someone asked me if rolling d10000 would blow my theory out of the water. After evaluating the dice, it looks like it still works—provided the smallest die goes from 1 to 10 while the others go rom 0* to 9*. So you get 10k by adding 9000+900+90+10.

But I don't play any games that require a d10000. Not sure I'd want something with that degree of granularity, but I could be persuaded.

82

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV

« on: January 10, 2019, 01:15:20 pm »

What would make most sense to me is one die that has 00, 10, 20, ...,90 and another that has 1,2, ..., 10, then just add them. This gives a range of 1-100 without any "Aces high or low" confusion on the 0 or 10.

That's exactly what I was saying. Gendo's right that I overexplain things. I just wanted to give people who didn't know what a d10 was an idea of what I'm getting at. I probably should've assumed everyone knew it and just explain when someone asks for it.

Just get rid of 0-9 altogether. I've only seen one RPG that requires a roll of 0-9. I've heard that there may be some war games that use 0-9, but I don't know them.

And 00-99 is a perfectly cromulent use of percentile. When you roll for a 27% chance, say, then only rolls 00-26 succeed. In essence, roll under the number and not under or equal that number. But it runs into the same issue of stating your intent so people don't call bullshit on you. But it is also consistent, and that is pleasing.

83

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV

« on: January 10, 2019, 08:45:43 am »

I find this confusing, but perhaps you over-explained.

Possible. I tend to do that.

One issue is that the die says "0" on it, so you do have to mentally change that "0" to a "10" if you roll it, don't you?

But really, I think the only real issue is expectation... the method that will be used for generating the number needs to be clearly established before the die roll. If everyone watching you roll thinks that a roll of 30 and 0 should equal 30, and you roll it and declare that you rolled a 40, then of course people will cry fowl.

Which is why I'm making the switch to d10s that read from 1 to 10. Then if I need to roll percentile dice, then it obviously is not a 0.

The expectation is key here; you're right. If this ever comes up (I am not currently playing any games where percentile is important), then I'll declare that I'm adding the dice as I roll them.

84

General Discussion / Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?

« on: January 02, 2019, 09:51:34 am »

For those of us who don't do Netflix, can someone explain how a "choose your own adventure" thing works? Assuming that each "differing path" is basically the same thing as a different "episode" of a TV show... is it as simple as "pick one of these two episodes to watch next"?
 

All of what Silverspawn said.

The technology is only available on some devices. I launched the movie on Google Fiber, and it played a different "movie." It was a collection of clips from Black Mirror of the various characters saying "sorry." Then the voiceover explains that the current device does not support interactive television. Various suggestions are made.

But I do have a smart TV, which was one of the suggestions. So I logged into Netflix through that. There's an icon to show that the Netflix title has interactive capabilities (I expect to see this a lot in kids' shows in the future). It's pretty smooth, though if you're the type to get sucked into the moment, then these branching trees will suck you right out. Still, it's a neat concept, and this particular episode of Black Mirror works perfectly for it. I wouldn't try this experiment with any other episode.

It's a really long, drawn-out Dragon's Lair. You have your "death scenes" where you have to go back and make different choices. There are multiple endings.

My favorite is how the episode completely mocks you if you don't make any decisions. As a matter of course, I chose the default option (often the first) so I could better identify where I need to branch off in subsequent viewings. Well, if you only choose the default option, then that's functionally the same as letting the episode run with no interaction. And you get roasted for being so boring. It was brilliant.

I went through the episode twice, and I'm done. I'm starting to get tired of seeing some of the same scenes over and over, and if I can't figure out how to get to a path I wanted to try again such as telling Kitty that Colin jumped instead of just turning my back on her then I don't really want to sift through it so fastidiously. It'd be better if I can actually fast-forward through the scenes to the decision point, but I cannot.

So kudos to those people who are obsessed with finding every little path, including the hidden golden eggs. I have no doubt that those require some revisiting to other scenes where you may do the same thing twice or even more. But I'm not interested in following it that closely. From what I read online, I've hit most of the known endings, and I’m pretty good with that. Though I am bemused by the claim that one ending apparently has Jerome F. Davies (I think that's his name) kill you in the past. I mean, how does that ending come about? 

But you know, I may watch it a third time in a few months.

For some reason, I just really dig Colin's voice and speech pattern here.

85

General Discussion / Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?

« on: December 26, 2018, 01:13:05 pm »

I was expecting to be annoyed by Spider-Ham. He was just in small enough doses that I was able to accept him.

86

General Discussion / Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?

« on: December 26, 2018, 08:31:27 am »

The only "problem" I have is that the third act really dragged on. Kingpin and Miles fighting after all the goodbyes felt awkward. The plot in general felt a little thin.

Agreed. That didn't feel nearly as climactic. But it was short-lived, so it was good for me.

I'd say this was the most comic-book movie made. That sounds like a strange adjective to put on there, but there is a nod to the medium that live-action movies like the Avengers and X-Men don't quite capture. And that's a choice obviously. I get making the Avengers more into a mainstream movie with conventional filmmaking methods.

But Into the Spiderverse embraces its heritage and melds comic book with movie. The closest I've seen up until now would be Scott Pilgrim vs the World, but that pales in comparison to Spiderverse.

I was enamored by the animation. It was vibrant and evocative. I wouldn't mind seeing more movies like this.

I want my wife to watch this, but she has severe arachnophobia. While there aren't many spiders on the screen, they enter the scene rather suddenly without warning, and that can cause problems.

87

General Discussion / Re: TV shows

« on: December 20, 2018, 03:43:02 pm »

Holy shit, you guys. Hulu is releasing a Catch-22 miniseries. The 2-hour movie only got a smattering of the novel, so it'll be interesting to see how the miniseries handles it.

At the very least, I am intrigued enough to subscribe to Hulu for a month.

88

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV

« on: December 20, 2018, 11:19:14 am »

Gamers can be an oddly conservative bunch. They get into a specific routine, and any change to that is met with hostility. Many gamers are pretty adaptable, but the ones who aren't will often make their displeasure known.

My recent observation on this is how gamers generate a number from 1 to 100. If you don't already know this, it's been established since at least the '70s that you can generate this number with two ten-sided dice (d10). You declare a die as the tens digit and the other as the ones digit. Whatever you roll in the tens digit, you multiply by 10. Then you add the other die. But there are a couple of tricks that we use.

First, when rolling 1-100, the 10 on the die actually counts as a 0. Most d10s on the market are printed this way. It is actually a source of bemusement among new players when they roll the d10 and proclaim they got a 0 and not a 10. So, for example, a roll of 8 and 4 becomes 84. A roll of 0 and 6 becomes 06. And a roll of 2 and 0 becomes 20. This gives a range of 00 to 99, so any roll of 00 is counted as 100.

It's a bit convoluted, but it works. You have an even distribution of 1through 100.

Fast forward to around 1992 (the earliest I've heard someone claim he had one) and the introduction of the percentile dice. This is a pair of d10s, but one of them is numbered differently. Instead of 0, 1, 2, it is numbered with 00, 10, 20. The idea being that you no longer declare the tens digit. It's already established by this die. You roll a 20 and an 8, and it's 28. But the rule of 0 still applies, so 30 and 0 gave you 30, while 00 and 0 gave you 100. New players could especially be confused if they roll 10 and 0 and are told that is not indeed 100.

It occurred to me that you don't need to use that method with the percentile dice. Instead, you could take the dice at face value. First off, you have to acknowledge that the 0 on a d10 represents 10. In most games, that counts as a 10, but for 1-100, people tend to automatically think of it as 0. Of course, if the die is printed with a 0, that makes the shift easier. For a d10 that is printed with a 10, then adding the dice works pretty well.

And this is where the clash with traditional gamers happens. Because now I no longer view the dice as 40 and 0. Now I view them as 40 and 10, which is actually 50 and not 40. I don't have to mentally switch from 10 to 0 or from 00 to 100. I can roll as low as 00 and 1 (for 1) and as high as 90 and 10 (for 100). The vitriol is alarming, even by internet standards. It produces a range of 1 through 100 evenly distributed, but because it wasn't in a way that people first learned (and I have 30+ years of that habit in me), some people have taken offense.

89

General Discussion / Re: TV shows

« on: December 19, 2018, 10:53:07 am »

I've been sitting on the Gifted since it first aired. Finally watched the pilot this week. That's a pretty strong pilot actually. Hoping the rest of the series follows suit. It has pretty decent ratings, so I'm hopeful.

90

General Discussion / Re: TV shows

« on: December 10, 2018, 10:17:40 am »

I finished up Jessica Jones Season 2 this weekend.

It's pretty decent. The appeal of JJ is that she's super, but she so very human. I've known people that perpetually depressed, and they are certainly exhausting. It's understandable how her friends could get exhausted dealing with her. And then there's the added burden of people near her possibly getting in the line of fire.

As usual, the entire season is a giant downer. Even the victories are tainted or short-lived. For example, Jeri's revenge against Inez and Shane was satisfying to watch, but it's a guilty joy at cheering on someone who is pretty much a rotten person anyway turning to a darkness that ultimately ends two people.

I was a little bit incredulous at the reveal that Jessica's mother not only lived but was also a super, but I found the explanation episode to be sufficient. By the end of that episode, I was accepting of the incredible reveal.

The saddest moment, I felt, was with the replacement head of security. She was respectful of Alisa's boundaries and even did her a favor by ensuring the television was within sight. And it was that act of kindness that ultimately cost her her life (or possibly crippled her). No good deed goes unpunished in this show.

I found the Trish storyline to be pretty good. She has some demons within her, and I feel they did a decent job of presenting them. She recovered pretty quickly after going into a system collapse and nearly dying in the hospital, but then we see a teaser that the process did enhance her after all, and that is a reasonable explanation

The story of Oscar seemed a little forced, but that's probably because it's hard to tell how much time has passed. Some corners may have seemed to have been turned too quickly due to the show's format. I was accepting of it, but I could see where it seemed chaotic to some people. His inclusion was also a little too convenient for what was needed later on in the season.

The thing that bothers me the most is Cheng. His inclusion as a nemesis really seemed forced. He feels the need to muscle in on another PI's territory. Does he do this to all PIs, so did he just have a hard-on for Jessica? And then there's the fact that he was positioned for a perfect shot to take out Alisa, and he failed. Yet, Trish took her out with a handgun against a moving target. I suppose one could argue that the Ferris wheel provided a predictable pattern vs. her moving around in the apartment. And Cheng was a PI, not a combatant; hell, Trish probably has more time on the firing range than Cheng. So maybe my complaint isn't quite as solid, but it's still there.

And Kilgrave's return felt gratuitous. Like, hey, we know you love David Tenant, so he's back! On the other hand, his scenes put into words Jessica's inner struggles. They say you should show and not tell, but those feelings can be difficult to show, so they copped out and brought in Kilgrave to spell it all out for us. It wasn't a deal-breaker for me, but it's ham-fisted.

Great performances though, and the story actually kept me interested a lot more than Season 1, which had a rubber-banding effect that kept the episodes running long after I stopped caring about the cat-and-mouse game between Jessica and Kilgrave.

91

General Discussion / Re: TV shows

« on: December 04, 2018, 08:54:34 am »

Damn, I just read on wikipedia that

According to Bloomberg L.P., the fifth series [of Black Mirror] is expected to be released in December 2018

I'm super ready for more Black Mirror. It still drawfs all but a hand full of others shows in my book. And I was always wondering why they'd stop after four seasons, given that it's a) successful and b) can obviously be continued with no inherent disadvantage to earlier seasons given the episodic format.

And I don't think there was any quality decline throughout the first fours easons, so season 5 ought to be just as good.

While I would have loved to get more Black Mirror sooner, I am perfectly happy with them working on getting the new season right. How many times do we complain about a show going downhill after so many seasons? Usually that happens because writers are in a hurry. The benefit of the Netflix format is that they aren't trying to pop out weekly episodes to the point where their resources are strained. Basically they're filming a giant movie. But with Black Mirror, it's a bunch of little movies. Looking forward to this.

I also started Jessica Jones Season 2. I had heard good things about Daredevil Season 3, but I thought I would finish up JJ first. Maybe Luke Cage.

92

Other Games / Re: Dungeons and Dragons

« on: November 18, 2018, 09:27:37 pm »

The combat can be quite the grind, and it is worse if that is how players perceive it as necessary to advance.

Back in the D&D3 days, a friend of mine started up a Midnight campaign. I had been playing Pathfinder Society, which gives 1 XP per adventure, win or lose. I suggested to the GM that we don't track XP. Instead, he tells us when he feels we've done enough to justify leveling. Turned out to be a really rewarding system. We didn't have to worry if we would get dinged on XP for doing an encounter wrong. You play out the encounter as it makes sense. If there's violence, then you resolve it. If it involves stealth or diplomacy, then you resolve it that way instead.

And that model is showing up in more D&D games now. Pathfinder's adventure paths provide XP, but they also advise what levels the PCs should be at certain points, so the GM can gauge milestone leveling. It's actually canon in 13th Age.

It's a weird feeling because in the old days, the GM would reward or punish the players based on how they reacted to the encounters. Feel that the PCs were being cowardly by sneaking past the guards? Give them zero XP--or only a quarter to half if you're feeling generous. Accidentally kill the hostage? Reduced XP. And so on. With milestone, the group gets the same XP whether they choose to fight in every encounter or if they talk their way to the boss. You reward the play style that the players want.

93

Other Games / Re: Keyforge

« on: November 17, 2018, 10:50:22 pm »

I'm intrigued. I bought 5 packs for my niblings. I introduced them to Magic, but they may dig on this game that doesn't require building a deck. That won't stop my little future engineer from trying to build one though. I'll give them their decks over Thanksgiving. I figure if it looks fun enough for my wife and me, we may buy some decks for ourselves.

94

Other Games / Re: Dungeons and Dragons

« on: November 15, 2018, 10:00:39 am »

Not my RPG of choice, but I'm all for talking about RPGs in general.

As a GM, you're the storyteller. The other players are also storytellers, but they typically have less agency than you do when bending the rules. That depends on the type of game you're running though. Some GMs prefer running things strictly out of the box while others are cool with players suggesting narrative changes and roll with it.

My weekly Torg game is on the heroic, freeform side. I have an idea for stories, but Torg allows players to add drama with subplot cards. There might be a wandering monster, an unrealized trap, a new minion, or an unexpected hostage. Actually, I highly suggest using subplot cards in general. Torg has a very specific deck of cards for this, but you could also look up Whimsy Cards or Storypath Cards. They allow players to add some zest to a game, but the GM has to be very flexible. Maybe you intended for the group to simply invade the orc camp, but thanks to that interloper card that someone played, there's also a group of drow spies sneaking around that may abscond with a mysterious scroll if they aren't stopped.

Don't be afraid to say yes. If a player asks if there's a chandelier hanging nearby, then the player is contemplating doing something cool. Let it happen. Obviously not every suggestion is feasible, so don't be afraid to say no. The rules of improv are in play here. Embrace the "Yes and…" but also provide some outputs with "No but…" No, this tavern is too short for a chandelier, but a stick of dynamite did fall out of someone's pack and is rolling toward one of the floor lamps.

One of my pet peeves in RPGs is needless rolling. Make every die roll count. A not-so-exaggerated example is knocking down a door with no danger looming over it. The GM says to roll Strength. Nope, that 8 isn't going to do it. Roll again. Nope, not on 12 either. Keep on rolling. Oh, good, after 15 rolls, you finally beat the 19 needed to break down the door. The room is empty. Ugh, bad GM!

Instead, if the PC has the means to eventually succeed, hand-wave it if there's not a threat. There's a door, and with some great effort you break it down. Beyond is an empty room. Move on to the next action.

But dice-rolling has its place. If there is a threat on the other side, then they are aware of the PCs trying to break down the door and can prepare for the attack. Each failed roll gives them more time to prepare.

You could also use 13th Age's fail-forward mechanic. You don't roll a bunch of times. You roll once. And you succeed. But if you don't beat a certain number, that success may come at a price. You didn't beat 19 on the Strength test, so you slam into the door several times before it breaks apart but now you're facing some very prepared and buffed enemies. If you had rolled 19+ on that roll, then you kick in the door and descend upon the enemies while they're scrambling to draw their weapons.

I'm a little curious about the recently Kickstarted Over the Edge reprint. From what I read, the player rolls once to determine success or failure. It sounds like it'll be very narrative-based.

95

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV

« on: November 09, 2018, 03:36:08 pm »

Really, that's the other person's fault for using "impossible" incorrectly. What's impossible is buying a Gold in the first two turns of a base game. But when you have a crap-ton of curses and ruins, then it's not impossible to get the 8 coins for the final Province. It's just improbable.

But if you have a crap-ton of Curses and Ruins and you still hit the 8 coins for the final Province while your opponent keeps hitting $7 despite not having any Curses or Ruins, then he is absolutely correct that it's impossible to win against your shuffle luck.

Well, yes, when you impose conditions, then you are able to declare certain scenarios as impossible.

But in general, it's not impossible to win with a bloated, inefficient deck. Just really improbable.

96

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV

« on: November 09, 2018, 01:33:31 pm »

I guess I'm against the term because it's so often used as something that is actively working for or against you. "It's impossible to win against that luck" as my opponent stated.

Really, that's the other person's fault for using "impossible" incorrectly. What's impossible is buying a Gold in the first two turns of a base game. But when you have a crap-ton of curses and ruins, then it's not impossible to get the 8 coins for the final Province. It's just improbable.

But then I think that people use "impossible" hyperbolically to express their frustration. I might see a huge traffic jam and say, "It's going to be impossible to get home," but that is not technically true, and I know better.

97

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV

« on: November 07, 2018, 11:26:45 am »

I get a warm feeling when we discuss random chance in the Random Stuff thread.

98

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV

« on: November 06, 2018, 04:25:38 pm »

Part of the fun is weathering the luck.

99

General Discussion / Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?

« on: October 31, 2018, 12:21:59 pm »

A couple friends of mine were talking about Irreversible. Since he left midway through the movie, one guy was uncertain if he should classify it as a horror movie. I thought I'd share my response, considering how infamous this movie is.

I would not classify Irreversible as a horror movie. It does, however, qualify as a movie to endure. Most of that is due to how it was shot. Some good and some bad.

What makes this movie stand out—aside from its reversed chronology—is that I understand that each scene was filled with a single take. I haven't scrutinized it with a magnifying glass, but that sounds right to me. But that means that the improv scenes really stand out—and not in a good way. You can tell the points where the actors are just filling in gaps while waiting for something to happen. It was more awkward than horrifying.

The film opener is especially uncomfortable because of how they filmed it. They used subsonic pulses in the background that instigate nausea. Combined with shaky-cam in a twisting labyrinth, this scene is discombobulating and uncomfortable. There's also some FX that is sickening as well, even for gore aficionados. It wasn't the grossest thing to see, but combined with the lights and sounds of the movie, it was particularly nauseating. I'll give the director props on making this scene literally gut-wrenching.

The scene of infamy is also really uncomfortable. I mean, it's a terrible topic anyway, but the continuous take makes this even more uncomfortable to watch. But it wasn't just the act itself. There are a couple of things happening in the background which adds to the atrocity. Kudos to the cast and crew for being brave enough to tackle this, but I imagine they felt just as awful as the audience afterwards.

I'm not certain that it's a great movie, but it does take a vile and uncomfortable topic and shoves it in the audience's face. It forces us to look at it, and the fact that it's shown in reverse causes a huge sense of sorrow because it starts off really bad and then progresses to more innocent scenes. It reminds us that even on our best days we're only one tragic confluence of events away from being irreversibly damaged. It does make you think, but it is definitely a movie to endure.

100

Other Games / Re: Pandemic Legacy (probably will have spoilers)

« on: October 29, 2018, 11:00:44 am »

So I finished my game of S2 and posted my thoughts here:
https://boardgamegeek.com/article/30344898

Or if you know you're not going to play and don't mind spoilers. Your call. I'm not the Morality Police.

But I had a blast. Kind of sad that it's gone. I mean, I could buy a new copy and play again. It could be an interesting exercise in trying to win the first time in each month since I know where exactly to beeline. And it would be interesting to revisit the strategy of Box 6, which as a Dominion fan, I simply loved. Playing anew with this information means I would make the route from Utopia to Kolkata much more efficient.

Maybe if I get a copy of S2 for cheap (or a partially started one from someone who gave up), it would be a fun little exercise. Otherwise, I don't really want to buy a game with the intent of playing it as little as possible.