You must log in or register to comment.
You mean to tell me that someone conducted independent research to verify what they saw on TV, and then choose not to believe what they saw on TV based on a real life experience?
I don’t believe it.
It was the 80s.
it was acceptable at the time
I’ve got hugs for you
There wasn’t a storm of internet influencers and news media telling people it wasn’t acceptable, so it was by default.
I can see this happen the following way:
Grandma is influenced by TV or the local church or whatever and wants to forbid their grandchild DnD. Her son-in-law hates her and tells her to fuck off, explicitly allowing his son to do as he pleases (regarding DnD). His wife wants to pour oil on troubled waters and allows her mother to watch without disturbing the kids unless the satanism shows.
Then the math induced rage commences.
At least she was open minded enough to sit in on the session to determine for herself if it really was satanism.
And her anger actually sounds like it was directed at the satan-preachers, like she was storming off to give them a piece of her mind: “These kids are choosing to play a game that reinforces their math and higher-level thinking skills better than their homework and you want me to stop them!?”
Can you imagine how much better our world would be if people who formed radical opinions about things actually investigated the things they’re terrified of? I’m reminded of a recent story about a community forming a reading group to actually read the books that local conservative community leaders were trying to bad from the schools, and something like 99% of the books were reinstated because the citizens group found nothing offensive about them.
But a lot of our “internet culture” has formed this “double down forever” mentality in people where we’ve adapted and socialized ourselves to not even READ the things that run against our current stances and opinions, to not even address arguments, to not listen to the person debating us, and so on. These kinds of stories are just going to get more and more rare, particularly as we all start growing up with AI that kisses our asses and praises our every fart.
It’s math but with enough consulting of books and argumentation about rule mechanics that I swear lawyers would probably make better dnd players than mathematicians
so far all the sessions I’ve been to have at least one american chopper energy moment over rule disagreements and I love it
deleted by creator
every maths professor I’ve had in college told me to use the simplest numbers possible in my answers because arithmetic is annoying.
Imagine if you had one of the greatest piano players in history offering to play you something, and you ask him to play the opening bars of “Heart and Soul”, three times in a row.
Yes, they could do it, and do it perfectly… But why would they want to do that when Claire De Lune or Für Elise exist. And yes, those are still fairly basic in the grand scheme of things but heart and soul is boring AF.
deleted by creator
Noob, not even using bayesian probability to determine if certs dice rolls should be done /s
Okay, so playing D&D could be helpful to a child interested in a nursing career? Getting the arithmetic fully automatic, since they also have a lot of other details to think about.
deleted by creator
A great DnD player is the perfect confluence of math nerd, obnoxious lawyer, and theater kid.
Can confirm. I like math, I consider myself a decent debator and I was in drama class…
100%
Alright, she’s gone, we can start summoning Satan
To kill him for exp!
I was disappointed it wasn’t satanism too.
It can be if you run the campaign right
I’ve summoned a demon, AND been to MULTIPLE hells.
LPT: don’t summon a demon if you aren’t certain you can control it.
But if there’s lots of DnD in Hell, sign me the fuck up.
It’s everywhere in hell, yet everyone cancels still.
