have you ever had a beef with a teacher/prof
yes
no
hard to say
results

Janaina Medeiros
Claire Keane
Game of Thrones Daily
One Nice Bug Per Day
Cosmic Funnies
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
dirt enthusiast
No title available
Monterey Bay Aquarium
Mike Driver
NASA

Andulka
almost home
ojovivo

tannertan36
AnasAbdin
$LAYYYTER

No title available

titsay
will byers stan first human second

seen from Bangladesh

seen from Malaysia

seen from Italy

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Italy

seen from Netherlands
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Saudi Arabia

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
@zuiyomaru
have you ever had a beef with a teacher/prof
yes
no
hard to say
results
*puts my hand on your shoulder* Don’t worry, I have your back. We’re gonna turn this crisis into a crwaswas
Wait, so...Why DID 4E underperform? Or is that outside your expertise here? (No shame if so, you're a game designer, not a market analyst. You can tell by the having a soul).
(With reference to this post here.)
There were a couple of major factors in play there.
First, a big chunk of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition's popularity had come about due to robust third-party support, published under the auspices of Open Game License (OGL). Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition, however, was not licensed under the OGL, being subject to a much more restrictive license imaginatively titled the Game System License, or GSL. Hasbro reportedly refused to negotiate with existing third-party publishers to get them on board with the GSL, or to offer transition support of any kind; instead, they simply demanded an immediate halt to the publication of all 3E material, and attempted to bludgeon publishers into compliance by threatening to yank their trademark authorisations (i.e., the agreements which allowed them to put the "D&D compatible" logo on the covers of their books).
Predictably, this approach was not well received. The largest of 3E's third-party supporters, Paizo Publishing (now Paizo Inc.), elected to produce their own game which was statblock-compatible with 3E in order to provide a venue for other publishers to continue producing OGL material; many of their peers decided to gamble on Paizo's plan rather than play ball with Hasbro, and this is how we got Pathfinder. Hasbro's behaviour thus caused D&D's third-party support to crater nearly to zero with the publication of 4E and created D&D's largest competitor.
Second, 4E was badly behind the curve on digital availability. Shortly before 4E was scheduled to drop, the digital masters (i.e., the files provided to printers in order to manufacture the books) were leaked on file sharing networks. Hasbro responded by panicking and ordering an immediate and indefinite halt to e-book publication of D&D material (in spite of the fact that the leak had demonstrably originated from their print production arm rather than their e-publishing arm), even going so far as to refuse to honour pre-orders for 4E's now cancelled e-book version.
Combined with a series of mismanagement-induced delays which caused 4E's virtual tabletop tools to miss the game's publication date entirely, and a decision to paywall what few first-party resources did manage to hit their target behind a monthly subscription, this resulted in 4E being available exclusively in print for the first two full years of its lifespan, at a time when D&D's competitors – including the aforementioned Pathfinder – were literally giving their core rules away in digital form for free.
As you say, I'm no market analyst, but I have a strong suspicion that "alienating practically all third-party publishers for a game line which was critically dependent on robust third-party support", "being the first edition of the game ever to face significant direct competition", and "making a game which dropped in the middle of the worst economic recession in thirty years available exclusively as an expensive printed set" resulted in the 4E stepping up to the plate with three strikes already against it. Add to that the almost comical ineptitude of Hasbro's advertising for 4E, and the usual drama of any major edition turnover, and... well.
"But what about the rules" sure, there were some issues with 4E's mechanics, but you need to understand that "4E underperformed because people hated the rules" isn't just a convenient narrative for edition-warring grognards; it's also a fiction which Hasbro itself has tacitly embraced, because the alternative is acknowledging that their publishing department repeatedly shit the bed on 4E's rollout.
@crashional-thinker replied:
this kind of thing sounds like something that would kill d&d as a franchise entirely with how badly hasbro fumbled it, so i'm surprised to see 5e not only still kicking, but also still the primary force to the point that people will say "homebrew 5e" for anything. what's up with that?
"Commercially underperformed" doesn't mean "failed". Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition was still the single best-selling tabletop RPG on the market every year of its lifespan. The idea that nobody bought it at all is another of those edition-warrior myths.
Wasn't it outsold by Pathfinder for at least some portion of its run? I remember hearing that, but it could be apocryphal.
As a Jew, I have huge admiration for anyone trying to restore their own ancestral ethnic religion that was suppressed by Christianity or Islam.
Like, yes greek girl, build that shrine to Hestia above your hearth!! I miss our iron-age peers.
when i was a kid i decided that killing people was bad therefore war was bad therefore the military was evil. and adults would tell me it's more nuanced than that and i would understand when i grew up. well i'm a grown up now and idk i still think that killing people is bad and war is bad and the military is evil
this is such a thoughtless post but thankfully other people have addressed the core issue in few simple words (ty @raksha-the-demon for the screenshotted tags in particular:)
Cool how you can always tell when someone is making a bad faith reading of a post
or maybe op is posting from a place of us-centric ignorance and its absolutely fair to disagree and point it out!
There's no such thing as a moral military, anywhere in the world. Even armies fighting defensive wars commit atrocities against civilian populations. The necessity of having a military for defense against hostiles does not negate the evil that comes from maintaining a military force.
And which is the lesser evil? Defending people from death while committing unnecessary harm to others or instigating the war in the first place?
Should everyone just roll over and die if someone more powerful wants you to die?
None of the major reblogs I've seen on this post that disagree with OP are saying any military is perfectly moral. That's something you just pulled out of your ass your own self to try and make your point look better.
"See? When you compare my argument to this pile of shit I just made up, mine is so much better!"
Well maybe stop shitting and start listening.
Goddamn, you people are insufferably cringe.
And on our left we can see the fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem
Imagine calling someone else's argument a pile of shit and then getting mad when they don't take you seriously
when i was a kid i decided that killing people was bad therefore war was bad therefore the military was evil. and adults would tell me it's more nuanced than that and i would understand when i grew up. well i'm a grown up now and idk i still think that killing people is bad and war is bad and the military is evil
this is such a thoughtless post but thankfully other people have addressed the core issue in few simple words (ty @raksha-the-demon for the screenshotted tags in particular:)
Cool how you can always tell when someone is making a bad faith reading of a post
or maybe op is posting from a place of us-centric ignorance and its absolutely fair to disagree and point it out!
There's no such thing as a moral military, anywhere in the world. Even armies fighting defensive wars commit atrocities against civilian populations. The necessity of having a military for defense against hostiles does not negate the evil that comes from maintaining a military force.
wow, any other sparkling insights from that high horse of yours? because afaik no one was arguing otherwise.
You. You were arguing otherwise. Once again, bad faith.
oh, i'm arguing with someone who can't fucking read. figures. not once have i claimed that a moral military is a thing. in fact, i've made my stance and my problem with op and the people that parrot the initial post very clear—if anyone here is acting in bad faith at this point, it's you.
"All militaries all over the world are different, so characterizing them all as evil is bad. However, now I'm going to claim that I don't disagree that all militaries are immoral."
Lol. LMAO even.
when i was a kid i decided that killing people was bad therefore war was bad therefore the military was evil. and adults would tell me it's more nuanced than that and i would understand when i grew up. well i'm a grown up now and idk i still think that killing people is bad and war is bad and the military is evil
this is such a thoughtless post but thankfully other people have addressed the core issue in few simple words (ty @raksha-the-demon for the screenshotted tags in particular:)
Cool how you can always tell when someone is making a bad faith reading of a post
or maybe op is posting from a place of us-centric ignorance and its absolutely fair to disagree and point it out!
There's no such thing as a moral military, anywhere in the world. Even armies fighting defensive wars commit atrocities against civilian populations. The necessity of having a military for defense against hostiles does not negate the evil that comes from maintaining a military force.
And which is the lesser evil? Defending people from death while committing unnecessary harm to others or instigating the war in the first place?
Should everyone just roll over and die if someone more powerful wants you to die?
None of the major reblogs I've seen on this post that disagree with OP are saying any military is perfectly moral. That's something you just pulled out of your ass your own self to try and make your point look better.
"See? When you compare my argument to this pile of shit I just made up, mine is so much better!"
Well maybe stop shitting and start listening.
Goddamn, you people are insufferably cringe.
when i was a kid i decided that killing people was bad therefore war was bad therefore the military was evil. and adults would tell me it's more nuanced than that and i would understand when i grew up. well i'm a grown up now and idk i still think that killing people is bad and war is bad and the military is evil
this is such a thoughtless post but thankfully other people have addressed the core issue in few simple words (ty @raksha-the-demon for the screenshotted tags in particular:)
Cool how you can always tell when someone is making a bad faith reading of a post
or maybe op is posting from a place of us-centric ignorance and its absolutely fair to disagree and point it out!
There's no such thing as a moral military, anywhere in the world. Even armies fighting defensive wars commit atrocities against civilian populations. The necessity of having a military for defense against hostiles does not negate the evil that comes from maintaining a military force.
wow, any other sparkling insights from that high horse of yours? because afaik no one was arguing otherwise.
You. You were arguing otherwise. Once again, bad faith.
when i was a kid i decided that killing people was bad therefore war was bad therefore the military was evil. and adults would tell me it's more nuanced than that and i would understand when i grew up. well i'm a grown up now and idk i still think that killing people is bad and war is bad and the military is evil
this is such a thoughtless post but thankfully other people have addressed the core issue in few simple words (ty @raksha-the-demon for the screenshotted tags in particular:)
Cool how you can always tell when someone is making a bad faith reading of a post
Cool how you can always tell when someone forgot other countries exiet
Go ahead and name for me a military that isn't evil so I can disprove it
Go ahead and explain what you're supposed to do when a global super power invades you?
Okay, cool, so Ukraine. In 2014, the Azov Brigade, a right-wing Neo-Nazi militia, was officially absorbed into the Ukrainian National Guard and remains an official formation of the Ukrainian military.
when i was a kid i decided that killing people was bad therefore war was bad therefore the military was evil. and adults would tell me it's more nuanced than that and i would understand when i grew up. well i'm a grown up now and idk i still think that killing people is bad and war is bad and the military is evil
this is such a thoughtless post but thankfully other people have addressed the core issue in few simple words (ty @raksha-the-demon for the screenshotted tags in particular:)
Cool how you can always tell when someone is making a bad faith reading of a post
Cool how you can always tell when someone forgot other countries exiet
Go ahead and name for me a military that isn't evil so I can disprove it
when i was a kid i decided that killing people was bad therefore war was bad therefore the military was evil. and adults would tell me it's more nuanced than that and i would understand when i grew up. well i'm a grown up now and idk i still think that killing people is bad and war is bad and the military is evil
this is such a thoughtless post but thankfully other people have addressed the core issue in few simple words (ty @raksha-the-demon for the screenshotted tags in particular:)
Cool how you can always tell when someone is making a bad faith reading of a post
or maybe op is posting from a place of us-centric ignorance and its absolutely fair to disagree and point it out!
There's no such thing as a moral military, anywhere in the world. Even armies fighting defensive wars commit atrocities against civilian populations. The necessity of having a military for defense against hostiles does not negate the evil that comes from maintaining a military force.
when i was a kid i decided that killing people was bad therefore war was bad therefore the military was evil. and adults would tell me it's more nuanced than that and i would understand when i grew up. well i'm a grown up now and idk i still think that killing people is bad and war is bad and the military is evil
this is such a thoughtless post but thankfully other people have addressed the core issue in few simple words (ty @raksha-the-demon for the screenshotted tags in particular:)
Cool how you can always tell when someone is making a bad faith reading of a post
Does this mean the louvre is the sexiest museum?
i've never been to the louvre and i certainly wasn't there at 09:30 on 19/10/25 [jewels spilling out of pockets]
Are you the antisematic fuck?
I don't know what antisematic means. Did you perhaps mean something else?
Hey! Spin this wheel of Every Pokémon!
This is now your Pokémon Partner. Whatever you would want to do in the Pokémon world, your Result goes with you. It would be your Ace in Battles and/or contests or they might just help you around with your regular Not-Inherently-Pokémon Job or just hang around your house as your beloved Pet. If you really really want to BE a Pokémon than this is the Pokémon you just turned into.
How are you feeling about it?
HELL YEAH!! THIS IS ONE OF MY FAVORITE POKEMON!!
OH!! I LOVE THIS POKEMON!!
Yeah, this Pokemon is great!!!
This Pokemon is good!!
This Pokemon is nice, but nothing more
...I mean, it could be better
This Pokemon is okay…
I have mixed feelings about this Pokemon…
Not bad, but I’m still kinda disappointed…
Well… it could be worse?
I mean, at least it’s better than NOT having a Pokemon, right?
OH NO THIS IS ACTUALLY WORSE!!
Texts From Superheroes
Facebook | Threads | Patreon | Instagram | BlueSky
Wolverine is such a drama queen (From X-Men Unlimited #22, 1999, by Brian K. Vaughn and Patrick Gleason)