DataNinja's Scintillating Digital Random Banter #231

[Rater202]

Not only that, the same code I quoted also specifies later on that if you lose the case and the judge finds it "frivolous, not meritorious, or without just cause", you have to pay the school/teacher's legal expenses.

Again, if it actually makes it to the point where you're calling a lawyer and drafting peppers the school is probably going to settle once they've been served rather than let it go to court.

[Peelee]

Not only that, the same code I quoted also specifies later on that if you lose the case and the judge finds it "frivolous, not meritorious, or without just cause", you have to pay the school/teacher's legal expenses.

And if you hired a lawyer who was willing to take it on, things don't bode well for them either. Which is why it'd be even more unlikely for a lawyer to take it on.

[Rater202]

Again, the lawyer is the last resort for if the school's absolute refusal to stop enabling one teacher's bull**** escalates to particularly egregious levels after talking to them and taking it to the court of public opinion fail to make it stop.

"The school is mistreating my child to the point of actively damaging their academic career and is costing me money as I keep having to take off work to deal with it, all becuase my child wanted to follow the rules and make it to class on time. We have spoken with school officials about it and made the issue known to the public but the school refuses to be reasonable. We have tried everything else but it's looking like we might have to litigate."

I'm not talking about a Karen walking in with a lawyer the next day after a teacher held up class one time.

[Peelee]

Again, the lawyer is the last resort for if the school's absolute refusal to stop enabling one teacher's bull**** escalates to particularly egregious levels after talking to them and taking it to the court of public opinion fail to make it stop.

"The school is mistreating my child to the point of actively damaging their academic career and is costing me money as I keep having to take off work to deal with it, all becuase my child wanted to follow the rules and make it to class on time. We have spoken with school officials about it and made the issue known to the public but the school refuses to be reasonable. We have tried everything else but it's looking like we might have to litigate."

What construed egregious levels of refusal? You ask the school to stop, they refuse. You ask the school board, they say no. That's.... it. It's hardly egregious, but that's the point where you've hit a brick wall and need to resort to lawsuit. Which, again, will have a wildly disproportionate cost/reward ratio even if you win, which is far from certain. Its not worth it for the most part. The legal system is pay-to-play.

And, again, you have talked about two very different cases without differentiating them.

[Lacco]

Since I've been quarantined (stay at home, don't leave due to covid) with kids for over than a month now, we've developed an afternoon "ritual" of me running them through different exercises & simple games (my experience from kids' camps is relatively extensive and I'm good at improvising). Usually I create a simple map with the tasks shown on them and I try to keep it within certain theme.

We've done a trip through desert to the pyramids (of course including exploring them), a hunting expedition to Alaska, expedition to Aztec temple...

So, any ideas what to do next? I'm not out of ideas - but it's enough to think of the games. So, creative folks... what to do next?

...definitely scratching US high school :D

[Rater202]

Changing topics.

I like the idea of cybernetic enhancement, but as I've said before I'm squeamish about replacing perfectly good limbs and organs without a good reason. It just sounds like you're asking for dysphoria, dysmorphia, or phantom pain. Implants are better, but you're still going under the knife.

Nanomachine injections are better, but there's only so much they can do and anything particularly complex might require them to be connected to a server so if the wifi goes down... Or the manufacture decides they don't want to support your model... Or some hacker decides to screw with you...

Honestly, the best way to become a cyborg, from what I can see, would be something like a benign version of the Transmmode or Techno-Organic viruses. Itty bitty microscopic mechanical organisms that infect your cells and convert them into living machinery at the molecular level.

[Rockphed]

I think what's interesting about this entire teacher discussion is that, at least in Canada, it is the bell that dismisses you, 100%, because we actually acknowledge that not everyone has personal chaffer's that can take you too and from school.

If you're a kid who takes the buss, or kids with parents who can only afford so much time to get you home, when the bell rings you just leave. Don't bolt off like you're doing the 100 meter dash of course, but when the bell rings the teacher's time is over.

Honestly the idea that a teacher would be like "no, you have to stay I have more to say, I dismiss you" is horrifying to me. The teacher wants to go home too **** that. And if someone does like, try to do that, you can just... leave. What're they going to do, throw hands at a middle schooler?

Also just as quick aside; striking back when struck (in as simple terms as I can muster) shouldn't be punished and schools that push the mentality of "conflict requires two sides" doesn't understand a single god damn thing about what they're doing.

My memory from school (admittedly nearly 2 decades old at this point) was that you generally had about 10 minutes from when the final bell rang until when the buses would even think about leaving. It might have been more like 20 in high school. Passing times between classes were only about 5 minutes, so even if you were kept a minute late (unlikely at the end of the day for the reasons you describe), you still had almost 2 full passing times to get to your locker and get to the bus (or nearly 4 if my memory of high school is correct).

As for punishing people who fight back, I can't remember if they did that to me. Both times I got suspended (i.e. told not to come to school for a few days) in high school I technically threw the first punch. I am still not sure what the optimal solution to the bullies would have been, but losing 3 days of class was a decent price to pay to have them stop bothering me.

[Rater202]

Winter coats should extend into an insulated kilt in order to help keep the legs warm without restricting leg movement the way that snow pants do.

[Anonymouswizard]

I just realised one of the reasons I dislike D&D, and it's because of the wizard archetypes it allows. Specifically the way it sets up most caster classes means that I can't really play a wizard who dedicated their life to studying plant magic, or the healing arts, or a few other disciplines locked up by ;divine casters', at least until relatively high levels. Having just finished a game where I played a rather specialised plant/earth wizard (yeah, Warhammer Jade Wizard) I found the experience to be much nicer than D%D's grab bag of assorted powers I had no need to link thematically (at least Priests used to do that).

I'm starting to like the Cleric just because it has more clear space to move into alternate archetypes, as does the Sorcerer now subclasses are getting more spells known. I really want to build a setting where Clerics are the only casters, but that basically means cutting out most of the latest edition's character classes. Maybe I could worm Warlocks and Artificers in there somewhere...

[Rater202]

I wholeheartedly agree. That or we should just bring cloaks back.

Cloaks are more of an "it's chilly" thing than a "it's winter" thing. Wear the cloak over a sweater or something.

Of course, in an emergency situation, a cloak runs into the same problem as capes.

[enderlord99]

Of course, in an emergency situation, a cloak runs into the same problem as capes.

...It gets sucked into a jet-engine?

[Rater202]

...It gets sucked into a jet-engine?

Among other things.

Loose-fitting cloth gets caught on stuff. You'd want the cloak tied with a clasp that will come undone if it's yanked on really hard, but then it might not stay fastened when you want it fastened.

[LaZodiac]

Winter coats should extend into an insulated kilt in order to help keep the legs warm without restricting leg movement the way that snow pants do.

As with many things, Canada's got you covered Rater.

I just realised one of the reasons I dislike D&D, and it's because of the wizard archetypes it allows. Specifically the way it sets up most caster classes means that I can't really play a wizard who dedicated their life to studying plant magic, or the healing arts, or a few other disciplines locked up by ;divine casters', at least until relatively high levels. Having just finished a game where I played a rather specialised plant/earth wizard (yeah, Warhammer Jade Wizard) I found the experience to be much nicer than D%D's grab bag of assorted powers I had no need to link thematically (at least Priests used to do that).

I'm starting to like the Cleric just because it has more clear space to move into alternate archetypes, as does the Sorcerer now subclasses are getting more spells known. I really want to build a setting where Clerics are the only casters, but that basically means cutting out most of the latest edition's character classes. Maybe I could worm Warlocks and Artificers in there somewhere...

The problem here does not lay in DND but in your DM not discussing your spell list with you and helping you reflavour and alter spells in slight ways that allows you to evoke the feeling you're searching for, so you can properly play the game.

Not to like, put them on blast or anything. I'm sure they ran a good game. But if it was me and someone said "I want to be a plant/nature based mage" my next immediate thought would be to help them work out how to do so.

[Rater202]

Though that kind of thing is why I more and more prefer freeform games over defined systems for roleplaying.

[LaZodiac]

Though that kind of thing is why I more and more prefer freeform games over defined systems for roleplaying.

That's an entirely reasonable opinion, but for me I need some sort of structure to things.

[halfeye]

I just realised one of the reasons I dislike D&D, and it's because of the wizard archetypes it allows. Specifically the way it sets up most caster classes means that I can't really play a wizard who dedicated their life to studying plant magic, or the healing arts, or a few other disciplines locked up by ;divine casters', at least until relatively high levels. Having just finished a game where I played a rather specialised plant/earth wizard (yeah, Warhammer Jade Wizard) I found the experience to be much nicer than D%D's grab bag of assorted powers I had no need to link thematically (at least Priests used to do that).

I don't play D&D so I'm probably missing something basic, but isn't that a druid?

[Rater202]

I don't play D&D so I'm probably missing something basic, but isn't that a druid?

A Druid is either a Divine Caster(Gets powers from a deity or personified concept) or a Primal Caster(get power from nature) depending on the edition of the game.

A wizard is an arcane caster: You spent years of you life studying and from it gained the power to manipulate the fundamental forces of reality.

Telling someone who wants to play a nature wizard to be a druid instead is like telling someone who wants to be a brain surgeon that they should go to nursing school. While they are technically doing a lot of the same stuff, one is more prestigious(which isn't exactly fair but thems the breaks) and past the superficial similarities("both use magic" "both work in a hospital") the skill sets and expected duties are quite different.

[Anonymouswizard]

The problem here does not lay in DND but in your DM not discussing your spell list with you and helping you reflavour and alter spells in slight ways that allows you to evoke the feeling you're searching for, so you can properly play the game.

Not to like, put them on blast or anything. I'm sure they ran a good game. But if it was me and someone said "I want to be a plant/nature based mage" my next immediate thought would be to help them work out how to do so.

It goes a bit beyond that, the character I was playing in a campaign that just finished was a wizard, and as we are using a homebrew system and a Warhammer alternate timeline I was allowed free reign on my spells as long as I restrained myself to one lore, of which I picked Life. After deciding that the image of the most prosperous and infrastructure associated college being crazy druid types was stupid I instead presented my character as a botanist and geologist and slid firmly into the 'wizard' archetype.


Now a good GM would also allow some modification of your spell list or a homebrew subclass with access to desired spells as a (relatively costly) feature, but D&D does put some barriers in the way and strongly hints you should conform to class archetype.

Weirdly I'd be happier if it made archetyping stronger and made playing to it explicit. I like games which are willing to have strict classes with little crossover.

Though that kind of thing is why I more and more prefer freeform games over defined systems for roleplaying.

Eh, if defined systems have enough content and avoid too many limits it's not a massive problem, I can comfortably build whatever GURPS magician I want. But I am starting to prefer lighter systems for other reasons (number one being 'why will nobody else read the bloody book').

I don't play D&D so I'm probably missing something basic, but isn't that a druid?

No, druids are hard to get into because of historical context, but considering the last game I played in I was a nature-wizard who completely rejected any druidic trappings (he wore a greatcoat for warmth and kept his hair and beard neat) there is a difference. Druids are priests, you could say they're nature Clerics, and have baggage I tend not to like or want.

[LaZodiac]

Now a good GM would also allow some modification of your spell list or a homebrew subclass with access to desired spells as a (relatively costly) feature, but D&D does put some barriers in the way and strongly hints you should conform to class archetype.

Weirdly I'd be happier if it made archetyping stronger and made playing to it explicit. I like games which are willing to have strict classes with little crossover.

Eh, if defined systems have enough content and avoid too many limits it's not a massive problem, I can comfortably build whatever GURPS magician I want. But I am starting to prefer lighter systems for other reasons (number one being 'why will nobody else read the bloody book').

No, druids are hard to get into because of historical context, but considering the last game I played in I was a nature-wizard who completely rejected any druidic trappings (he wore a greatcoat for warmth and kept his hair and beard neat) there is a difference. Druids are priests, you could say they're nature Clerics, and have baggage I tend not to like or want.

Funny. I do occassionally see those strong hints, but then I just remind DND that I have chains and whips and as DM it does what I tell it and not the other way around, if I so choose.

There's something good about having archetypes, don't get me wrong, but just because the game suggests an archetype doesn't mean you have to follow it. You don't have to be gandalf if you're a wizard, you don't have to be Strider if you're a ranger, and you don't need to be Gimli if you're a dwarf.

A good example of this from the game I'm playing in is that I wanted to be a cleric of Tiamat, based on this character idea I had of "adorable nun with large axe and zero morals with regards to getting money" and there just isn't a good divine domain for Tiamat that fit with what I wanted. Trickery was close, but Tiamat isn't really a goddess of _TRICKERY_ persay, and none of its abilities really fit. So I worked with the DM to modify the starting stuff of domain that did kinda fit better but mechanically was kinda bad, and once it was clear the game would continue to where it would matter we then proceeded to homebrew the rest and made our own, perfectly fitting Domain; The Dragon Queen's Own.

So we created the archetype we wanted, effectively.

[BisectedBrioche]

After trying since 2019, I've finally got a chance to play Blades in the Dark! Unfortunately I also agreed to GM, so, this is going to go pear shaped fast. ¬_¬

[Peelee]

A Druid is either a Divine Caster(Gets powers from a deity or personified concept) or a Primal Caster(get power from nature) depending on the edition of the game.

A wizard is an arcane caster: You spent years of you life studying and from it gained the power to manipulate the fundamental forces of reality.

That is entirely fluff though. There's no reason why you can't just run a druid under the background of studying plants and getting it from a divine source (nature), or letting the wizard have a druid spell list while still being arcane.

[Anonymouswizard]

Funny. I do occassionally see those strong hints, but then I just remind DND that I have chains and whips and as DM it does what I tell it and not the other way around, if I so choose.

There's something good about having archetypes, don't get me wrong, but just because the game suggests an archetype doesn't mean you have to follow it. You don't have to be gandalf if you're a wizard, you don't have to be Strider if you're a ranger, and you don't need to be Gimli if you're a dwarf.

A good example of this from the game I'm playing in is that I wanted to be a cleric of Tiamat, based on this character idea I had of "adorable nun with large axe and zero morals with regards to getting money" and there just isn't a good divine domain for Tiamat that fit with what I wanted. Trickery was close, but Tiamat isn't really a goddess of _TRICKERY_ persay, and none of its abilities really fit. So I worked with the DM to modify the starting stuff of domain that did kinda fit better but mechanically was kinda bad, and once it was clear the game would continue to where it would matter we then proceeded to homebrew the rest and made our own, perfectly fitting Domain; The Dragon Queen's Own.

So we created the archetype we wanted, effectively.

Teah, but I'm going to have to go with Warlocks/Sorcerers because their subclasses are more varied. Or a Cleric, of course.

Still don't get the Arcane/Divine/Primal/Psionic split.

[Mith]

Teah, but I'm going to have to go with Warlocks/Sorcerers because their subclasses are more varied. Or a Cleric, of course.

Still don't get the Arcane/Divine/Primal/Psionic split.

It made sense in the original game when there was only 4 classes to choose from, and Clerics were the only ones that could heal. Druids at the time were not even a separate class from Clerics, but a branch off at 9th level.

Basically they kept things in the system long after the paradigm that defined and shaped them had been discarded.

Not saying that 'it was better in the original version', but that there were a lot of things that were thrown out without consideration as to why they existed.

[Peelee]

It made sense in the original game when there was only 4 classes to choose from, and Clerics were the only ones that could heal. Druids at the time were not even a separate class from Clerics, but a branch off at 9th level.

Basically they kept things in the system long after the paradigm that defined and shaped them had been discarded.

Not saying that 'it was better in the original version', but that there were a lot of things that were thrown out without consideration as to why they existed.

I think there was consideration on why they existed, but the ultimate decision was that they could change things anyway. I, for one, like how they moved away from a lot of those things.

[Mith]

I think there was consideration on why they existed, but the ultimate decision was that they could change things anyway. I, for one, like how they moved away from a lot of those things.

I like a lot of them too. I think my grumpiness is more due to going from BECMI to 3.5. That explosion in numbers to track really sucks compared to the general 'roll under relevant stat'. Plus the dynamics around 'get gold' vs. 'kill things' does lend itself to a different set of priorities and approaches to the game that I personally appreciate. But that could be simply the nature of starting the hobby with an adult DM as a young teen before switching to someone as the same age under this new system.

A lot of the cultural stuff in D&D history I am glad we moved away from. Both myself and a friend who started the hobby with BECMI both pour a stiff drink before reviewing some of the old modules because wow there is some not great stuff in them.

[Rater202]

My first experience with D&D was checking the old AD&D books from the local library.

Gotta say, Bards are a lot more fun now that you can start as one instead of starting as a rogue, completly giving up all of your rogue abilities to become a level one druid after a certain point, repeating that to get your actual bard abilities, and then get your rogue and druid stuff back after a bit.

[factotum]

Gotta say, Bards are a lot more fun now that you can start as one instead of starting as a rogue, completly giving up all of your rogue abilities to become a level one druid after a certain point, repeating that to get your actual bard abilities, and then get your rogue and druid stuff back after a bit.

Let's be honest, the entire way multiclassing worked for humans was utterly broken and ridiculous in 1st edition AD&D. So, I've spent several levels training as a fighter. I've spent years honing my skills with a weapon so it becomes an extension of my arms, moving faster than most people can see...yet, because I decided to take *one* level in Cleric or whatever, suddenly I forget how to use a sword? I can't use *any* of my neato fighter stuff until I've got to a higher level as a Cleric than I did as a fighter? But when that moment comes, wow, suddenly all that weapon knowledge I've been forgetting for the last few months suddenly comes pouring back and I can fight as a fighter again...

[Rater202]

Let's be honest, the entire way multiclassing worked for humans was utterly broken and ridiculous in 1st edition AD&D. So, I've spent several levels training as a fighter. I've spent years honing my skills with a weapon so it becomes an extension of my arms, moving faster than most people can see...yet, because I decided to take *one* level in Cleric or whatever, suddenly I forget how to use a sword? I can't use *any* of my neato fighter stuff until I've got to a higher level as a Cleric than I did as a fighter? But when that moment comes, wow, suddenly all that weapon knowledge I've been forgetting for the last few months suddenly comes pouring back and I can fight as a fighter again...

Meanwhile, my Elf can just be a fighter, a magic-user, and a rogue at the same time and level them up at the same time with the only caveat being that I effectively only get one-third experience.

Better than the basic box set though, where "Elf" was a class where it was just "you're a fighter and a magic user at the same time." There were the racial level caps but my understanding is that everyone ignored them so there was really no reason to play a straight human of any class.

[Anonymouswizard]

What's wrong with elf as a class? My secxnd D&D character took the elf class.

[Rater202]

What's wrong with elf as a class? My secxnd D&D character took the elf class.

Its very existence invalidates the existence of "Human Fighter" and "Human Magic User" as character options. Since everyone ignored the arbitrary level caps for the non-human classes, there was really no (mechanical) reason to play a human.