The Gaming Den

@DSMatticus: Your argument seems to amount to you refusing to provide or accept any premises, thus automatically refuting anyone else's logic. But you're the one trying to assert something! The burden is on you to make an argument.

You want to propose another type of consciousness completely unlike our own? Define it! Posit some premises and make an argument out of them. It's not logically sound to say "I have no premises, and thus you cannot prove me wrong". That's just invisible unicorns.

I'm trying to find out the etymology of "lichyard." The definition I get from reading is that it means graveyard.

But, I've been looking for an etymology and uses over time. The earliest I can find is an 1893 book "Nadine and other poems" by Anne Reeve Aldrich.

I miss college. Being a student meant you had access to OED.com

Speaking of which, if anyone who has access to OED.com can help and basically post the entry for lichyard, it would be awesome.

Prak_Anima wrote:

PoliteNewb wrote:

Prak_Anima wrote:Does anyone know if punching daggers in D&D are treated as daggers for proficiency?

Can't point you to a rule, but I believe no. The best reference I have is that the Invisible Blade PrC mentioned having "Weapon Focus: Dagger OR Weapon Focus: Punching Dagger", implying that those are separate things.

Generally, I believe all weapons are assumed to be separate proficiencies unless specifically noted.

Yeah, I figured. Damn.

Yeah, the game would benefit from weapons being formed into groups where proficiency (at least proficiency, possibly all feats and such) for one applies to the lot. So Daggers + Punching Daggers + all the other "it's basically a dagger", or Unarmed Attacks + Natural Weapons + Gauntlets + Spiked Gauntlets + Those Ninja Claw Things, or "I'll take Swords for 400, Alex". Hell, even Pathfailure has a feat that applies to "all swords", potentially letting you argue about what is officially a sword.

Granted it's not one of the bigger, more important issues of the game, but just one of those nice little things. Fuck, if there were an easily-accessible list of every single fucking weapon in D&D, I'd fucking do it.

Koumei wrote:

Prak_Anima wrote:

PoliteNewb wrote:
Can't point you to a rule, but I believe no. The best reference I have is that the Invisible Blade PrC mentioned having "Weapon Focus: Dagger OR Weapon Focus: Punching Dagger", implying that those are separate things.

Generally, I believe all weapons are assumed to be separate proficiencies unless specifically noted.

Yeah, I figured. Damn.

Yeah, the game would benefit from weapons being formed into groups where proficiency (at least proficiency, possibly all feats and such) for one applies to the lot. So Daggers + Punching Daggers + all the other "it's basically a dagger", or Unarmed Attacks + Natural Weapons + Gauntlets + Spiked Gauntlets + Those Ninja Claw Things, or "I'll take Swords for 400, Alex". Hell, even Pathfailure has a feat that applies to "all swords", potentially letting you argue about what is officially a sword.

Granted it's not one of the bigger, more important issues of the game, but just one of those nice little things. Fuck, if there were an easily-accessible list of every single fucking weapon in D&D, I'd fucking do it.

Really? Awesome.

Cynic wrote:I miss college. Being a student meant you had access to OED.com

Um, Torrent?

http://tinyurl.com/6t9h3sw

Ok, I want to make double certain on this. The benefits of two weapon fighting count for thrown weapons too, right?

Prak_Anima wrote:Ok, I want to make double certain on this. The benefits of two weapon fighting count for thrown weapons too, right?

Yes, in both regular and Tome (hence the Flask Rogue). You can even use it for a melee weapon in one hand and a pistol/hand crossbow/thrown weapon in the other.

Good. I thought so, on reading the feat and thinking about the flask rogue.

Does anyone know if the bonus hd granted to a druid's animal companion increase it's size? It's implied to be normal advancement, given that they grant skill points and feats.

tussock wrote:@DSMatticus: Your argument seems to amount to you refusing to provide or accept any premises, thus automatically refuting anyone else's logic. But you're the one trying to assert something! The burden is on you to make an argument.

You want to propose another type of consciousness completely unlike our own? Define it! Posit some premises and make an argument out of them. It's not logically sound to say "I have no premises, and thus you cannot prove me wrong". That's just invisible unicorns.

Uhh, WTF? This is retarded on a lot of levels.

1) Kaelik is the one asserting something; asserting the non-existence of something is still a fucking assertion! If I told you my parents never existed, that'd be an assertion, and I'd be obligated to provide some kind of valid and sound evidentiary argument for it. Just because it sounds like an English negative to you does not in anyway shift the burden proof. This is why weak atheism exists; it is neither the assertion of god's existence nor the assertion of god's non-existence. Kaelik made a strong atheist argument; claiming a rational grounds for god's non-existence. That is an assertion, and it has a burden of proof.

2) Telling Kaelik his argument for the non-existence of god was stupid does not make me a theist; it doesn't mean I have to fire back with "god exists." If you said, "god doesn't exist because spaghetti is Italian," I would say you are fucking retarded and that would not make me a theist. Kaelik made an inductive argument for the likely non-existence of god, and it was a shitty argument because it doesn't actually let us safely reach the conclusion that god's non-existence is likely. Induction is only useful if your evidence is pertinent to the question.

And then a bunch of other bullshit happened, like "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is," and "well, you haven't proved that consciousnesses other than Earth consciousnesses exist, so I'll assume they don't before I start doubting my argument that they don't, and no, that's not circular at all."

But the main point? Kaelik said he had a logical basis for the statement "god does (probably) not exist," and I said his basis was stupid, and showed why I said so, and that is the end of my obligation. Don't try and force me into defending Kaelik's opponents because I think he said something dumb. If you want to argue with me at all, the burden is on you to show why inductive arguments let us say god's non-existence is likely.

Largeprime: I mean access to the living online dictionary.

Prak_Anima wrote: Does anyone know if the bonus hd granted to a druid's animal companion increase it's size? It's implied to be normal advancement, given that they grant skill points and feats.

As far as I know, they're silent on this matter, but given they grant skill points and feats - they are actual animal hit dice - I would assume so. This isn't like a familiar which simply "counts as having the same number of hid dice as its master" to avoid being popped by Cloudkill, after all.

DSM wrote:As Frank has pointed out, that's a totally separate induction based on totally separate given evidence. Frank (and Kaelik, presumably) want to call both of those statements inductively valid. But they are also inherently contradictory, which is pretty telling that there might be some problems here, either with 1) the definition of inductively valid or 2) assuming the usefulness of a statement given only its inductive validity.

Uh... Induction is how we get 100% of all useful information out of the world. Science is based on Empirical Induction. You collect data, you make inductive predictions, you test those predictions, you discard or modify your inductions when they fail to match up with predictions, and you repeat over and over again until your predictions hold up to repeated scrutiny.

The way exo-biology works despite us not having ever been to a single other star system is that we make inductive predictions about what the universe is made out of and then we test those and compare the results to what we think is needed for life to come into being.

DSM wrote:Kaelik is the one asserting something; asserting the non-existence of something is still a fucking assertion!

No. That's the null hypothesis. That is the default state of knowledge. If you can't test for the existence of something, it doesn't fucking exist. Period. It's called a "non-falsifiable proposition", and it is discarded out of hand. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If you think that there is some consciousness out there that differs in some important way from consciousness we actually know about, you'd better have some reason to believe that or we will laugh at you. If your argument is simply "You can't prove it isn't true!" then a true scientist will answer "Stop wasting my time and go fuck yourself".

-Username17

What kind of restrictions does Australia place on flamethrowers? Preferably military-grade, as opposed to "hairspray and lighter".

Just, I've noticed there are rather a few potter wasps (Australian hornets) and... some other kind of wasp (1-2" length, obvious stinger hanging beneath it, orange and black) in the area. I hate to be cruel, but it's them or me, and I get the shivers just from bees (a puny 2.0 on the Schmidt scale) being near me, I have no desire to experience a 3.x.

Well at least we don't have the Japanese ones, the Asian Giant Hornet that can be fatal even to the non-allergic and weighs in at 4.0 - yeah, the worst wasp/hornet is not Australian. Unless you count the sea wasp (box jellyfish), in which case we win again.

And because I tend to get obsessed with the things I fear when faced with them... is there a halfway playable D&D race that ~= giant wasps/hornets? I get that they'll likely have racial hit dice and an actual CR, but still.

At 1-2" long I'd almost advocate a baseball or cricket bat, if not for the fact that such only really works one on one. Surprisingly, flamethrowers are category r/e in your guys' gun laws, permissible in some states to collectors assuming the weapon has been permanently disabled. Pest control would probably be cheaper anyway.

As for D&D races, there's the Abeil in MM2, which are basically bee-formians, but monstrous humanoids, 1hd for vassal cast, 6hd for soldier, 14 for queen.

According to the Zombie Survival Wiki:

In Australia, state laws govern the possesion and use of firearms. They were mostly aligned under the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms. To possess or use a firearm, you must have a Firearms License and (usually) be over the age of 18. Owners must store firearms securely. Before one can buy a firearm, he/she must get a Permit To Acquire. There is a mandatory 28-day delay before it is issued. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given. Pest control, hunting, target shooting and collecting are valid reasons. Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license, though it may be legal to use a firearm for that purpose under some circumstances. Each firearm must be registered to the owner by serial number.
Firearms are divided into Categories:
-Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles and paintball markers
-Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), non-antique muzzleloading firearms
-Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding less than 10 rounds, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding less than 5 rounds
-Category H: Handguns, including air pistols, deactivated handguns and guns less than 65 cm long (target shooters are limited to .38 caliber or less) (barrels on semi-automatic handguns must be >4.72" long, >3.94" for revolvers)
-Category R/E: restricted weapons, including but not limited to machine guns, flamethrowers, assault rifles, and anti-tank guns
-Antique: single-shot muzzleloading firearms made before 1901, some antique revolvers and repeating firearms

Flamethrowers are apparently category R/E, but "pest control" is considered a valid reason for issuing a license and there are no other weapons that are useful against bees. So without discussing it with the issuing agency, I could not tell you whether a permit would be issued for a flame thrower.

-Username17

Ah, wiki didn't say anything about pest control being a valid licensing issue.

Thanks Prak, I'll tjeck it out.

FrankTrollman wrote:there are no other weapons that are useful against bees.

I beg to differ.

That said, it's almost worth looking into seeing how hard it would be to get a permit for pest control.

Frank wrote: Uh... Induction is how we get 100% of all useful information out of the world. Science is based on Empirical Induction. You collect data, you make inductive predictions, you test those predictions, you discard or modify your inductions when they fail to match up with predictions, and you repeat over and over again until your predictions hold up to repeated scrutiny.

Dude, what? That's not inconsistent with anything I said. If you want to call the statement "all observed life has originated on earth; therefore all life originates on Earth" inductively valid (a definition I'm perfectly willing to roll with), you have to also recognize that incomplete or shitty premises lead to arguments which are both inductively valid and bad predictors of the universe. In this specific example, you can actually see the problem with the relevance of the premises right off: 1) availability bias - the only observations available to you are ones from Earth, so of course all observed life is on Earth and 2) the premises turn out to be incomplete given our knowledge about criteria for life's formation.

Being inductively valid turns out to not be sufficient to demonstrate that the conclusion of the argument is even more likely to be true as a result of your argument. You also have to show that the premises aren't shit or missing giant holes.

FrankTrollman wrote:That's the null hypothesis. That is the default state of knowledge.

Wikipedia wrote:It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven. A set of data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it.

The null hypothesis is not initially true! That is not how the fucking null hypothesis ever fucking works ever. The null hypothesis is about setting up a proof by contradiction. You assume the null hypothesis is true, and then gather evidence, and you try to show that the null hypothesis and evidence lead to a contradiction. If you get a contradiction, then it turns out the null hypothesis must be false. If you fail to get a contradiction, that means your argument or your evidence sucked; it doesn't mean the null hypothesis becomes actually true. That is not how proof by contradiction ever works.

That means the null hypothesis is going to be the negation of whatever you want to prove. If you want to prove "god exists," your null hypothesis is "god does not exist." You then go out and try to collect evidence which is incompatible with god's non-existence. If you want to prove "god does not exist," your null hypothesis is "god exists." You then have to go out and collect evidence which is incompatible with god's existence.

The default state of knowledge is the fucking unknown value, because logic is mathematics; the symbol X has to follow the same rules no matter what X represents and how many times it contains an English "not". When X means "god exists," it has to follow the same logical rules as when X means "god does not exist," or else logic doesn't work.

FrankTrollman wrote:That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Dismissal does not mean assume the negation of. It means that you discard the accuracy of the conclusion; not that you immediately assume the opposite of the conclusion. Anyone who asserts anything without evidence is fucking retarded, and that means when someone rambles about magic sky fairies, you dismiss them, and when someone tells you god can't possibly exist and fails to provide a compelling argument, you dismiss them too. Both claims are currently (will always be) non-falsifiable, so you believe neither until evidence presents itself. Strong atheism is exactly as stupid as theism from a rational standpoint.

tl;dr you are confusing dismissing an opponent's argument with dismissing an opponent's conclusion. An evidenceless proposition is not false, it is unverified.

DSM wrote:An evidenceless proposition is not false, it is unverified.

Wrong. There are an infinite number of evidenceless propositions, and almost all of them are in fact false. They are all treated as false until they get some fucking evidence.

What you are doing is promoting a radical and frankly insane epistemology in which the fact that we can't prove that there aren't any invisible pink unicorns means that we have to seriously entertain the possibility that there are. No. We don't. Similarly, we don't have to seriously entertain the notion that we're all in The Matrix right now on the grounds that we can't prove that our sense data is really real. Nor do we have to seriously consider the possibility that large numbers of people aren't real and are just elaborate hoaxes.

If you don't have any evidence for a proposition, it is false. If you do have some evidence for it, then it goes in the maybe pile until it gets falsified and then gets put back in the false pile. There are other epidemiological systems available, but they are stupid. Because the good one is Science: the one that makes light bulbs, vaccines, twinkies, and air planes.

Anything which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Anything. If you don't have any evidence for your position, your position is wrong. And if your epistemology says otherwise, your entire theory of knowledge is wrong.

-Username17

Koumei wrote:Just, I've noticed there are rather a few potter wasps (Australian hornets) and... some other kind of wasp (1-2" length, obvious stinger hanging beneath it, orange and black) in the area. I hate to be cruel...

Are you panicking about nature and deciding to kill and destroy in the most burnt earth possible manner AGAIN like you did that time when faced with the terror of a potential couple of hours gardening?

I have a LOT of experience with wasps. Sure there may be some regional differences... but I suspect not and down where you are if anything you should be mostly further away from the worse ones. Most of the wasps you are likely to encounter are not especially aggressive to people. Especially the various solitary girls who build mud nests.

They are hanging around your place for one of several reasons.

1) You have awesome mud.
Solution : Clean up all that awesome mud.

2) You have awesome build spots.
Solution : Well, it only works for some wasps, the ones who like your walls are just gonna cover your walls with mud and there's not much to do about it, but if you find you have the type that like filling up little holes get a bundle of small bamboo stalks or similar with around about centimeter sized holes (give or take) and hang it up in a nifty tree or something far away from your house. The hole fillers at least will nest there instead and stop blocking up the the exhaust/intake on your lawn mower every few weeks.

Also, nesting isn't a big deal for the mud wasps when it comes to your personal risk. They don't LIVE at their nests, they just stuff a caterpillar in there, lay an egg and pretty much abandon it. They only come back to do it again nearby and they don't give a crap about you while they do because they are really busy industriously carting mud and caterpillars back and forth and unless you pretty much literally stick your face in their half complete build site they would RATHER fly around you.

3) You have awesome caterpillars.
Solution : Actually the wasps ARE the solution for the fucking caterpillars. Personally I prefer the mud wasps.

Mind you if you DO still have a weed and pest infested back yard. (or do so... AGAIN) then there's your problem and you can solve it with a few hours of gardening. You probably need the exercise and something to do anyway


Now that said there is a very common form of wasp in Australia that IS aggressive and sooner or later WILL sting you if they build near your house.

They are the colony forming, rather than solitary, wasps that build those PAPER type nests. And those guys can be real assholes. I mean they won't kill you but they can hurt and they will potentially actually have a go at you.

But they DO NOT REQUIRE A FLAME THROWER to control. See these guys DO live at their nest. And at night they all cluster together and have a good long sleep at their nest.

So deep in the dark of night get a nice strong can of REGULAR FLY SPRAY, go out to their nest and do a good solid straight on drive by spraying. Or, pay an assassin to do it for you. Don't pay much it's a kinda easy hit. The wasps should be fairly passive, especially if you don't go too early and it's cold out. This should kill the whole colony in one hit, if paranoid about strays give it a couple of goes over separate nights.

BUT occasionally a new generation will emerge from INSIDE the nest some time after you kill off the adults. So you might need to come back again later. Or just dispose of the nest once there are no adults to defend it. You can do that with a nice controlled regular barbeque fire if you MUST, but a boot stomping or whatever would probably do just as well and take less time.

PS The paper wasps will also mostly be at home at any given time during the daylight too. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO SPRAY THEM THEN. Do not even approach the nest during the day, and if you do anger them, CHEESE IT.

Double PS Citizen! READ THIS URGENT DISPATCH FROM YOUR NATIONS SCIENCE ORGANIZATION - Mud Wasps : solitary and harmless.

Our regulatory bodies take the advice of the CSIRO seriously. In theory this means no flamethrower licensees for BACK YARD pest control of a "pest" the relevant government agency has declared harmless and/or beneficial and says you should "leave alone if possible".

I would also strongly suggest you also listen to their advice about not recklessly attacking their nests. That's how wars get started.

PhoneLobster wrote:Are you panicking about nature and deciding to kill and destroy in the most burnt earth possible manner AGAIN like you did that time when faced with the terror of a potential couple of hours gardening?

You mean the gardening that caused rashes, welts and blisters to form all over my hands and arms? That gardening, that people in civilised countries don't have to deal with because their plants aren't actively trying to kill them?

and down where you are if anything you should be mostly further away from the worse ones.

Well, I'm a big enough girl about, you know, honey bees, with their 2.0 on the Schmidt scale and tendency not to actually attack people because of the bit where they tear themselves in half.

Back in SA, the only wasps I'd ever encountered were Australian hornets and European wasps. Over here I've encountered both of the above, along with spider-eaters (see: you can ignore them completely) and mud wasps. And whatever the giant thing was.

I suppose it could just be an exceptionally large potter wasp, like a mutant variant. Or maybe it actually was some other weird variant like... presumably an English hornet that somehow got lost? I dunno. I refuse to believe Japanese hornets have reached Victoria, because they shouldn't be in this country at all, and if they were this far South, they'd have gone through practically every other state first, killing every single person there.

What with you regrettably still being able to type, this is clearly not the case, so I can safely assume they have not invaded.

They are hanging around your place for one of several reasons.

They're not actually at my house, they're in the trees between here and the supermarket (and in fact right at the entrance). And on the dog-walkies path. So a change of paths has been adopted.

Actually the wasps ARE the solution for the fucking caterpillars. Personally I prefer the mud wasps.

As someone who is not a farmer, why would I care about caterpillars? Can they fly at my face and deliver painful stings? I didn't think so. That they eat your vegetables isn't my concern, country boy.

Mind you if you DO still have a weed and pest infested back yard.

Different house, clean yard: the landlord actually arranges for a gardener to come and take care of all of that, just like (as far as I'm aware) every other house in this state.

You probably need the exercise and something to do anyway

Exercise, no, I've lost all the weight I need to and am now just continuing the diet for the sake of vanity.

Now that said there is a very common form of wasp in Australia that IS aggressive and sooner or later WILL sting you if they build near your house.

The Euro/yellowjacket, yeah. And they're tinier and more aggressive than the giant one I encountered. Usually they're the kind that used to enter my window the last time I lived in this state, causing me to keep a large can of spray nearby so I could gas the room and leave it for an hour or so to become breathable.

But they DO NOT REQUIRE A FLAME THROWER to control.

See, here I think you just hate fun. Are you saying that, given the option to use a flamethrower, you would turn it down?

says you should "leave alone if possible".

That's generally my plan, but the moment it stings me, all bets are off and it's in my best interest to ensure the next meeting goes in my favour. And if that means military-grade weapons designed for killing brown-skinned unarmed civilians then so be it.

Anyway, on to a question that possibly belongs in IMHO but would really involve starting a new thread.

Board games. Generally I don't like them. This started with the intense hatred that Monopoly taught me, and people who advocate playing that game should be strangled in their sleep for the good of mankind.

But most board games I generally haven't liked. Settlers of Catan (yes, "I've got wood for sheep", I get it, the joke only gets pulled out every single time), that racing one that has weird dice (indeed its only real value is to use the "d20" (11-20 twice) in D&D games where the MC has retarded rules about natural ones), the fucking awful WoW board game...

Even that "Lay map segments out as you go" horror/haunted house one is merely "kind of interesting to watch others play". I liked Hero Quest, but nobody owns that and it'd be impossible to find (and very expensive if I did find it).

Is it possible that I should not bother looking, and just stick with "No, I don't like board games." as normal, or is there one out there I'd find enjoyable? Mostly I want the following:
[*]The players are working together towards a common goal (you can have the exception of one DM if you want, but not a secret traitor)
[*]Some kind of story or plot to it while still having replay value (in the style of that haunted house game or Hero Quest)
[*]With the above, being able to carry characters from one game to the next (actual advancement is preferable but optional) so that 3-4 games played in an afternoon actually string together in a natural story.

I know, I'm basically looking for an RPG that happens to have a board and little minis and simple rules rather than a regular board game - just for those inevitable situations where people suggest playing board games. If Hero Quest were re-released at a reasonable price I would scoop it up, paint all the minis and take it with me to such gatherings.

But I figure if such a game exists, then you guys would know of it.

Battle Stations doesn't have a board exactly it has tiles that you lay out to build ships and stuff. You create characters with roles on a space ship one MC runs a mission and you do stuff usually involving ship-to-ship combat, or boarding ships for inside ship combat, or something. And you can gain experience and stuff and improve characters and your ships and equipment between missions. 3-4 games in an afternoon is not feasible however.

Really 3-4 games in an afternoon is probably a deal-breaker for any game that is expected to have some continuity or depth.

Arkham Horror/Shadow Run Horror are cooperative and have a bit of story and replay value. No continuity though.

I think Descent and Doom fit as well, though they are more expensive.

You could play an Arkham Horror campaign where you carry your characters on to future games.

It's tricky, but I think what you're looking for is Ghost Stories. It's cooperative and the 'siege' story is very simple but present. The characters don't advance, but they do persist, and the multiple-game story is severely episodic, but it is there, especially if you increase the difficulty between games.

There are some expansions, including one that lets a player be the antagonist, but I'm not familiar with them.

edit: It also plays fast enough that you could fit 3-4 games into an afternoon once everyone's familiar with it.