No.250341473
>fantasy setting has magic and flying creatures
>still using horses as main transportation
No.250341651
>>250341473 (OP) #
>setting has nuclear energy
>still using coal as main energy source
There’s a lot of hidden costs and infrastructure needed for magical flying beasts. Not to mention limited capacity. Little can compete with the horse drawn cart when it comes to capacity for price though.
Boats beat out horse drawn carts by an insane amount.
It’s why trade hubs and major cities were practically always on a major river and/or in a favourable location for a port.
Yep, not having a bunch of your trade going to feeding and caring for your horses makes a huge difference.
Boats can also move much more than a horse and cart. More than a pair of bullock even
Someone’s never owned a boat.
There are 3 idioms that come to mind.
A boat is a hole in the water you pour money into.
A boat owner is only happy twice. When they buy a boat, and when they sell it.
“You don’t want to buy a boat. What you want is a friend with a boat!”
A boat for personal use and a boat for trade use are two very different things.
For trading, boats have always been better in regards to the amount of stuff you can carry, even back before sails were invented. Also, unlike roads, water doesn’t need maintenance, it just needs to be at a high enough level that the boat won’t crash into rocks or whatever.
My main point was that boats aren’t free to run. They require constant maintenance and care to remain viable. If you’re going to include the maintenance and running costs of a horse team, then you need to also include the equivalent for boats.
Don’t get me wrong, when you have a waterway, boats still win, by a large margin. Hence why Europe has so many canals etc.
This message brought to you by Big Equestrian.
Big horse killed my baby
They are opportunistic carnivores after all
Is that what Bojack Horseman is all about?
No, my baby loooved heroin.
Big (and smol) Equestrian
All magic comes with a price.
What can I get for tree-fiddy?
Well, it was about that time when I noticed that Rumpelstiltskin was about 8 stories tall and Crustacean from the Protozoic era…
It just costs 1 gold coin a month with the new wizard subscription…
I have giant hummingbird mounts in my game, but guess what? They need nectar from giant flowers, or just barrels full of sugar water, and/or they sometimes pick fights with giant insects in order to try and eat them. (Fun fact, hummingbirds eat small insects IRL) They’re dead useful and loads of fun, but it exacts its price.
I’m so very glad that I never tried to enlarge my pseudodragon familiar to try and ride him into battle. Never even thought about the fact that pseudodragons cannot pay attention for shit.
Big chocobo disagree with you
Large chocobo is pretty neat but can’t compete with my spherical sheep mount
True
Plus, not every species can be domesticated. Gryphons and dragons are independent and not herd animals. So they may not understand the concept of following a leader, which is an important part of domestication. And if they did, you’d probably have to best them in combat before they’d do it.
But you can talk to them and make friends with them
This assumes two things: That I am capable of making friends and that I would then not feel weird asking to ride on my new friend.
Is it not normal to ask if u can ride ur friend?
But what if cart drawn by flying pony?
I could never ask Fluttershy to haul things for me. At that point, I would start carrying things for her
YEAH!
But also Equestria is r63-land.
This, but also for coal power in the 80s and 90s.
setting has lemmy
still using 4chan
There are positives and negatives to both platforms. Lemmy has an abundance of information about Linux and memes about Star Trek but misses out on literature discussion and completely lacks the ability to recognize sarcasm. 4chan is a concentrated discussion hub where every interaction is seen and evaluated, but occasionally it hosts a slight hint of bigotry.
4chan (…) occasionally it hosts a slight hint of bigotry.
Understatement of the month. You don’t even need to visit the obvious alt-right infested boards to see that
Darn you, darn you to double-heck. I so completely believed that my sarcasm would be taken, especially after I lampshaded it. Unless this is also sarcasm, in which case you’ve checkmated me.
Dramatic understatement and sarcasm aren’t quite the same thing.
Iunno, if it walks with irony and talks with a negative connotation, it’s mallard enough for me. But point taken.
Nice
Honestly I love image boards so much.
You would just not believe the regulatory burden of maintaining magical creature flying safety regime too.
You drop a simple glove off directing and 30min later, boom. You’ve got a gnome commission setting up barriers around it and paperwork for weeks to come…
Setting has electric cars
Car enthusiasts of the setting are fanatical about petrol cars instead
They are now because you can still get petrol reasonably cheaply. When the price rises because everyone else has gone over to electric I think they’ll be less interested. Part of the problem is that there’s a whole generation of people who’ve grown up with loud noise equals cool car.
Pretty soon though there’ll be a whole generation for whom the vast majority of cars were electric their whole lives and I suspect they’ll be less interested in petrol cars. It’ll become a much more niche hobby.
Even for luxury cars that run on petrol, there’s been a need to mimic old engine sounds so that the owners don’t feel like their cars are underpowered.
Cars like the BMW i8 which muffle the 3 cylinder engine down as quietly as possible and pump ‘cool’ engine sounds both into the cabin and outside.
I bought my 30 year old car 15 years ago for $2000 and it still runs well and hasn’t needed too much in the way of repair. Find me an electric that can do the same and I’ll make the jump in a second.
Find a 1994 EV in good nick? I can find you 2024 internal combustion cars that won’t last 15 years; I can find you a 2024 EV whose manufacturer says will last a million miles (or maybe that’s the 2025 version), that’s 33.3 thousand miles a year for 30 years. But that manufacturer lies.
Did your car claim a greater than 30 year low maintenance life when new? Is its lifespan typical of the model?
Can we take your position as “has an outlier lifespan car, doesn’t want to replace it”? My last car I sold was 20 years old and had seats with worn out cloth (and exposed padding) and broken plastic trim around its adjustment controls
Nissan leaf battery replacements were a minor repair when the first of those needed them. They got much better than new batteries for pretty cheap
A quick look at the used market shows me a shit ton of nissan leafs going for $1500 to $3000. I wouldn’t be able to go to the next town over with one, because it would die on my return trip. 10s of miles of range on a full charge according to the listings.
Granted, ANY half-decent car in the used market goes for a lot more than what I could get when I bought mine, but the bashing over the head that some people do about “go electric, or you’re the problem” isn’t feasible for most people.
I mean you are part of the problem. Objectively. It’s not entirely your fault as your country should have better public transport so you don’t need a car for everyday use. The prices of EVs are possibly too high as well. Don’t pretend though that driving an old car isn’t harming the planet. If you really want something old get a diesel car and run it from bio diesel or vegetable oil. Might even save you money that way if you are lucky.
I doubt my old car rotting in a junk yard is much better than the little bit of driving I do, never mind the bullshit of pinning the death of the planet on me when private jet owners create vastly more emissions that I do. I can save a lot more money NOT replacing my perfect functional car with a gamble on the shit heaps in my local area. I may be “part of the problem,” but I’m a very small droplet in the ocean.
I think those other guys have it all wrong. You shouldn’t feel pressured to ditch a reliable machine for something that is still being tested. You may want to consider encouraging younger people to invest in those things because commercially valued electric vehicles are really only just hitting their stride. 15 years from now is when people will say “I bought my electric car for 30,000 usd, that’s right, not credits!”
There are much bigger threats to the environment than people driving cars right now, that are simple to solve (but not easy). However, be careful about singing thr praises of the old because others become too wary of the new.
You’re killing people around through pollution. We don’t have to find you a car, we should put you in jail.
The bait isn’t even good.
We’ve already started fining old car users over here. Jail time will come as well. You think it’s a bait, but it’s a reality.
> Setting has public transport
> Setting is still full of carbrained petrolheads
just once, I want to see a Mad Max movie where everyone gets on a train. Oh wait, they did that kinda with Snowpiercer
A more accurate analogy would be along the lines of having jets and helicopters in the world but still using cars or trains as the main form of transportation.
Not sure how it applies, when trains are the superior form of transportation
Exactly. This is how it applies.
Not to go down the road to the store.
That’s where legs shine.
Or bicycles
Jets and helicopters also have some problems with that
Probably shouldn’t drive that either
That’s when you walk or bike.
Sounds nice, but let’s be real. Not everyone is young and healthy. You can only carry so much on a bike. If the weather is bad it can be down right dangerous.
Yes. Not everyone young and healthy to get driver’s license. If you have bad health you will kill people around you.
How do you go down the road to toilet?
Fall off a horse -> dust yourself off and get back on. There’s a whole idiom about how falling off horses is a frustrating but ultimately minor inconvenience.
Fall off a gryphon -> you are dead.
Superman was paralyzed from falling off a horse. It can be way more than an inconvenience.
Could slip in the shower too. Not sure what my point is… just trying to be extra pedantic I guess.
Wait, what’s the reasoning? Dude can stop bullets and be slapped through buildings but a Lil fall screwed him?
It’s a joke about Christopher Reeve
There’s a whole idiom about how falling off horses is a frustrating but ultimately minor inconvenience.
There’s also a whole list of people who have died falling off of horses. So there’s that.
It is possible to die falling off a horse. It is nearly impossible to live falling off a flying mount.
My druid always carried a feather fall potion (fantasy parachute?) until contingent spells became available
The trick then is to always fly high enough to quaff a potion in case of falling
Most fantasy settings that allow for gryphon / dragon / other winged mode of transport, also have saddles for such beasts that tether the user to the saddle/ animal. If you fall off, you unclipped your harness and deserved it.
It’s considerable extra risk and cost for insignificant benefit. Helicopters exist but I don’t take one to work.
Speak for yourself, if i had the means to fly to work…
I’ve considered getting a paramotor for this reason. The only trouble is, it’s quite a bit slower than driving.
I’d probably die electrocuted in one of the power lines if I tried to use that as my means of transportation to/from work.
Simple solution: wear rubber.
Like this, right?
from The Naked Gun movie
Aw damn the winds here blow counter commute
Also magic like slow falling potions
Both of these can be explained with the same reasoning.
Capitalism!
Didn’t know that capitalism made people blow the miniscule dangers of nuclear power out of proportion and create irrational fear
The by now miniscule risk of meltdown is not the only downside to nuclear power compared to renewables.
There’s the fact that a nuclear power plant takes a decade or more to build and make operational and we need to replace fossil fuel energy production NOW. In comparison, gigantic solar arrays and wind turbine parks can be ready in a matter of months.
Then there’s the nuclear waste. There’s been discovered one truly forever safeplace to store it in the world, deep down into a mountain in Finland (afair, could be Norway). Even if we (unreasonably) assume that it can all fit there, transporting all the radioactive waste of a world reliant on nuclear energy to Finland would be an environmentally ruinous nightmare.
Lastly, nuclear reactors need cool water to function efficiently and safely. Global warming, the very thing proponents say they’re the best solution for, is making nuclear plants less effective and less safe.
In conclusion, renewables are by far the best solution, not nuclear energy.
a nuclear power plant takes a decade or more to build
That’s largely due to waste, not the actual process of safe construction. If there’s public will, nuclear projects could be fast-tracked without compromising safety, though the costs would probably go up:
But those were far from the only costs. They cite a worker survey that indicated that about a quarter of the unproductive labor time came because the workers were waiting for either tools or materials to become available. In a lot of other cases, construction procedures were changed in the middle of the build, leading to confusion and delays. Finally, there was the general decrease in performance noted above. All told, problems that reduced the construction efficiency contributed nearly 70 percent to the increased costs.
By contrast, R&D-related expenses, which included both regulatory changes and things like the identification of better materials or designs, accounted for the other third of the increases. Often, a single change met several R&D goals, so assigning the full third to regulatory changes is probably an over-estimate.
So, while safety regulations added to the costs, they were far from the primary factor. And deciding whether they were worthwhile costs would require a detailed analysis of every regulatory change in light of accidents like Three Mile Island and Fukushima.
As for the majority of the cost explosion, the obvious question is whether we can do any better. Here, the researchers’ answer is very much a “maybe.” They consider things like the possibility of using a central facility to produce high-performance concrete parts for the plant, as we have shifted to doing for projects like bridge construction. But this concrete is often more expensive than materials poured on site, meaning the higher efficiency of the off-site production would have to more than offset that difference. The material’s performance in the environment of a nuclear plant hasn’t been tested, so it’s not clear whether it’s even a solution.
The above focuses on costs, but there’s also some discussion about time as well (e.g. waiting for tools and materials).
nuclear waste
At least in the US, we have plenty of space for that. Most of Nevada is barren, and isn’t likely to be used by people for anything important. There’s also research into recycling spent nuclear fuel into new fuel:
Spent nuclear fuel from power plants still has 95% of its potential to produce electricity
I don’t know much about water use though, so that could absolutely be an issue in many parts of the world. I am interested in looking into efficient ways to desalinize water, which is important for a whole host of reasons.
In conclusion, renewables are by far the best solution, not nuclear energy.
The best solution is a mixture of both. We need an inexpensive baseline energy production. Solar, wind, etc are bursty by nature, so we’d need a large amount of energy storage in order to go full renewable. Until I see a practical, inexpensive way to store energy, I’m going to push for nuclear since it’s a clean, stable energy supply.
As far as the waste goes, China is building molten salt reactors that can use the waste to run. The waste that those reactors produce has much shorter half lives, like days, and can be stored almost anywhere.
That being said, agreed that we would be better off investing in renewables, and getting the planet down to two or three reactors total. We can’t go completely renewable, as we need the isotopes we create in nuclear reactors for medical reasons.
As far as the waste goes, China is building molten salt reactors that can use the waste to run. The waste that those reactors produce has much shorter half lives, like days, and can be stored almost anywhere
And I’m building a perpetual motion machine that can run forever on a single scoop of dirty cat litter 🙄
I agree that China says they’re doing things that they have no ability to do, but in this case I’m pretty sure they’re telling the truth. They’re using the designs that the US created 40 years ago. Only reason they were never tested here is the cost and regulations. China can bypass both of those issues.
Yeah I think people don’t appreciate how much the cost of renewables has gone down. If we were making a big push on fixing climate change two decodes ago, then nuclear would’ve been a good route to go. But that didn’t happen, and looking at the cost of renewables now and the timelines needed for nuclear, it simply doesn’t make sense anymore.
Though what Germany did with shutting down their nuclear plants was stupid. Keep existing nuclear going until all carbon emitting power generation is replaced, then consider replacing existing nuclear with renewables.
Renewables are a solution only in short term. The biggest issue with renewables is the relatively low power output. Our power demands will only grow in the future and eventually we’re going to hit a wall with renewables. Long term nuclear is the way to go. Ideally we should be creating solar and wind parks and focus on making thorium reactors viable so we could switch from renewables to thorium.
Nuclear is the future, just not the kind of nuclear we’re using right now.
Renewables are a solution only in short term
That’s literally the opposite of true. What do you think the word “renewable” means? 🤦
The biggest issue with renewables is the relatively low power output
Which is not a problem when done on a larger scale by now.
Our power demands will only grow in the future and eventually we’re going to hit a wall with renewables
Only if we keep doing half measures like now rather than go all in. Wind, solar, thermal and wave energy combined can more than cover the world’s energy needs in perpetuity.
Long term nuclear is the way to go.
Nope. Which parts of “already made less effective and safe by climate change that will have become fat worse by the time we build just one nuclear plant, let alone replace all fossil fuel power” did you not understand?
By that time, nuclear power will be rendered all but useless by the necessary conditions no longer existing. Renewables aren’t so fragile.
Nuclear is the future
It really is not. By the time the thorium reactors that have been 10 years away for 30 years arrive, it’ll be too late. The very problem they were supposed to fix will have rendered them inoperable.
That’s literally the opposite of true. What do you think the word “renewable” means? 🤦
Let’s say a perpetual motion machine exists and you can create infinite energy from it, but it takes a lot of space and makes very little energy (let’s say 400wh) Would it solve the energy question? The answer is not really. Theoretical you have infinite energy, but in practice you’re still making a finite amount of energy at any given time. If our energy consumption exceeds what the infinite energy source creates then it doesn’t solve the energy question. You can make “infinite” amount of energy from renewables, that’s what renewable means. However if the energy throughput generated by renewables is less than our consumption then we still need a different source.
Which is not a problem when done on a larger scale by now.
And what will we do when all the space is used to and we still need more energy?
it takes a lot of space and makes very little energy
That’s not true of renewable energy, so your analogy has already fallen apart. It’s an untrue stereotype concocted by people trying to hold on to their fossil fuel profits.
if the energy throughput generated by renewables is less than our consumption
It isn’t.
then we still need a different source.
And thus we don’t.
And what will we do when all the space is used to and we still need more energy?
Well for one thing, most sources of renewable energy can be built places where a huge nuclear power plant can’t, such as in the ocean, lakes, on hills or even mountains. In deserts. On a slight incline. Somewhere without a cold stream.
If anything, renewable energy is much MORE space efficient since it doesn’t need a huge flat area and the aforementioned rarer and rarer stream.
That’s literally the opposite of true. What do you think the word “renewable” means? 🤦
Let’s say a perpetual motion machine exists and you can create infinite energy from it, but it takes a lot of space and makes very little energy (let’s say 400wh) Would it solve the energy question? The answer is not really. Theoretical you have infinite energy, but in practice you’re still making a finite amount of energy at any given time. If our energy consumption exceeds what the infinite energy source creates then it doesn’t solve the energy question. You can make “infinite” amount of energy from renewables, that’s what renewable means. However if the energy throughput generated by renewables is less than our consumption then we still need a different source.
Which is not a problem when done on a larger scale by now.
And what will we do when all the space is used to and we still need more energy?
Only if we keep doing half measures like now rather than go all in. Wind, solar, thermal and wave energy combined can more than cover the world’s energy needs in perpetuity.
We will run out of space. One nuclear reactor will generate more energy than multiple parks combined.
Nope. Which parts of “already made less effective and safe by climate change that will have become fat worse by the time we build just one nuclear plant, let alone replace all fossil fuel power” did you not understand?
By that time, nuclear power will be rendered all but useless by the necessary conditions no longer existing. Renewables aren’t so fragile.
Less effective is roughly 1% less effective per 1 degree of ambient temperature rise. We will dead before it’s going to have a significant impact.
It really is not. By the time the thorium reactors that have been 10 years away for 30 years arrive, it’ll be too late. The very problem they were supposed to fix will have rendered them inoperable.
You’re thinking only in terms of the current century, I’m thinking beyond the current century. We most likely need renewables to quickly get away from fossil fuels, but eventually we will also move away from renewables because unless we build a Dyson sphere renewables are not enough to meet our future energy demands.
Edit: I don’t know what fucked up my precious edit but I’m not going to fix that on mobile.
I won’t comment on what’s true worldwide, but at least in Australia, a report from 2014, a decade ago, found that it would be more economical to invest fully in renewables rather than starting up a nuclear industry.
The notable difference between Australia and some other countries like America is that at the moment, we have no nuclear generators. So we have no capacity in terms of expertise in designing, building, operating, and maintaining nuclear generators whatsoever, and would be starting an industry from scratch, which obviously will be more expensive than merely scaling up an existing industry in places that have it.
Yeah, just getting nuclear waste disposal and whatnot started up would be very expensive, despite having a ton of space to put said waste, since there are likely all kinds of regulations around moving such waste between states and territories.
That said, Australia surely needs some electric backbone for overnight use, and the goto solution for renewables is batteries, which are quite expensive at scale. So I’d like to see the numbers here.
So, what you’re talking about here is essentially the concept of “baseload power”, which is a very common talking point in anti-renewables conversation, including by well-meaning people who have simply come to accept it because of how often it gets mentioned in the media and in online conversations.
But it turns out that we have known for over a decade that a mix of different renewable technologies do not need any base-load power stations to operate reliably.
From your article:
concentrated solar thermal with 15 hours of thermal storage 15-20%; and the small remainder supplied by existing hydro and gas turbines burning renewable gases or liquids. (Contrary to some claims, concentrated solar with thermal storage does not behave as base-load in winter; however, that doesn’t matter.)
The real challenge is to supply peaks in demand on calm winter evenings following overcast days. That’s when the peak-load power stations, that is, hydro and gas turbines, make vital contributions by filling gaps in wind and solar generation.
So basically the concentrated solar w/ thermal storage acts as a battery. I’m interested to know what the costs look like (is that the salt reactor thing I’ve heard about). And if you have lots of hydro available, then yeah, you can probably get away with it, and may even be able to pump water so the hydro station can act as a battery. However, hydro isn’t practical in many areas, and moving electricity long distances may be too lossy.
I’m interested in the development of nuclear microreactors, which can be transported where they’re needed. I think they could potentially replace hydro in areas where it’s not available. So as areas transition to more renewables, these could operate as a backup in case simulations don’t match reality.
I’d love to go 100% renewable, I just don’t think that’s feasible at the moment. But I could absolutely be wrong, I may need to read up on the latest energy storage options.
Rubbish dump methane to electricity is cheap and effective. The Canberra mugga lane tip has had a pilot plant~~, not sure if it’s still running~~ generating 37 GWh a year
Hydro on the mainland is pretty much just Snowy Hydro. There was a project from a former government to make that pumped hydro. I don’t think it has yet been finished. I don’t know whether the project has been cancelled
37 GWh, now that’s a “random” number
Solar thermal - yes, the leading technology is a field of heliostat mirrors focusing sunlight on a tower, melting and heating salt. That system can easily hold onto the heat in their salt for use at night
CSIRO in 2014 thought it was possible. I trust they did the maths right.
You can extract hydrogen from water with electricity. You can store hydrogen in tanks. Burn hydrogen to produce electricity similar to natural gas, except without any carbon in the equation.
The other problem Australia has is we have too little need for power. We couldn’t build five nuclear plants to allow one at a time to be stopped for maintenance
We could probably use two, but then lose half our baseload supply for maintenance
That 2014 plan was for 100% renewable energy by 2020-something wasn’t it?
There are other things you don’t know obviously, among them the amount of time it takes to build a power plant, the insane amount of money it costs to build it, and the actual running costs!
For the nuclear energy one, i was thinking factorio. Which the reason no nuclear yet is that im just lazy.
A wizard did it.
Makes me wanna link the thread where people were making the argument that wheelchair users and deaf people wouldn’t exist in fantasy settings.
Just because there is magic doesn’t mean everyone can afford it.
Also interesting to think about, if a deaf person has a magic amulet that grants different hearing, are they no longer a deaf person or are they a deaf person with a magical aid?
are they a deaf person with a magical aid?
I think they’d still identify as deaf for community purposes.
I think they would do the exact opposite for community purposes. In a medieval fantasy world they might be the only deaf person in their small town, so they don’t wanna be ostrasized for being different and weird.
Sure, until they found their people, and then they’d start a community.
That’s basically hearing aids or cochlear implants and the thing is sound is uncomfortable if you’re used to not sound.
Are they naturally deaf or just hard of hearing? A deaf person would get a zero to sound checks no matter what.
I remember seeing the same for trans people, but in granblue fantasy some people still weaponized how Cagliostro was a born a man to make her mad, doesn’t matter how she looks or what she has down there, bigots will exist even in fantasy.
Fantasy worlds really often have sex as something one may select. It doesn’t serve the non-binary folk all that well, but there are several ways to pick either of the binary options
Another problem is that in order to have magic that is capable of fully transitioning someone, you basically need to enable full body modification for other purposes as well, so transhumanism becomes something you need to represent in your story (unless you just add arbitrary and meaningless restrictions to the magic).
They can totally exist in fantasy settings, but there has to be a reason why magic “doesn’t work” to heal that. “It’s a curse” or “there’s a powerful magical will” or whatever.
If it’s DnD, it can easily escalate into whether Reincarnation “fixes” that, since the person is getting a new body of a possibly different race.
There are deaf people in our world that refuse cochlear implants. Why the hell does magic need a reason to “not work” when people IRL prefer to stay the way they are?
Heal in both D&D5e and Pathfinder heals, among other things, Blinded and Deafened statuses. Your deaf character is the target of a heal spell. Rules as written, your character can hear again, whether you’d like to or not, end of story.
Why the hell does magic need a reason to “not work”
For the same reason any D&D story dealing with an actual disease epidemic needs a deus ex for Lesser Restoration, Heal or other spells to fail to cure said disease.
people IRL prefer to stay the way they are
And some would rather be cured IRL. Your point is completely irrelevant because it’s not about choice, the question is “why the people wanting to be cured haven’t been cured yet?”
The funny thing is that in low fantasy settings where magical healing is very limited, this whole discussion doesn’t exist.
My dude, people exist IN OUR WORLD with EASILY TREATABLE CONDITIONS that for a variety of reasons HAVE NOT BEEN TREATED. It’s not a head scratcher.
Nope. Stop with the fucking ableist erasure of differently abled individuals. It’s just a fun little game to play with friends. It doesn’t need fucking massive essays of world building.
Yep, it’s fine to roleplay a character who can’t be cured, or just prefers it that way. Just as it’s also fine to have a tabaxi be a vegan, because it’s a fantasy and players are allowed to express themselves however they wish and the lore is always secondary to player enjoyment.
Even in a setting where having your head chopped off is a minor inconvenience for anyone who has 1000g, there would still be people who choose not to have an amputation healed for any number of reasons, and thay choice should be up to them.
Imagine walking into a lemmy board on the internet and trying to tell people something doesn’t need fucking massive essays of worldbuilding…
I’m saying you don’t need that to explain the existence of differently abled individuals in a fantasy setting when there are curable conditions people have in the real world that go uncured.
That’s a v fair point.
Essays of world building are basically the bread and butter of D&D.
A horse costs way less than a scroll of Teleport, or seven Fly. Like how it’s cheaper to drive than take a plane. You also don’t take a plane when an hour long drive will do, and you don’t cast Teleport to go from your room at the inn to the nearby village to clear out some goblins.
you don’t cast Teleport to go from your room at the inn to the nearby village to clear out some goblins.
Me who casts teleport to go from the inn, or my house, to the centre of town in games.
Towns can hire wizards to make teleportation circles to make quick cheap travel to specific places. No one more than an hour’s ride from a capital would use any other way of getting there
Coal 675 billion kwh
Nuclear 775 billion kwh
Renewables 894 billion kwh
Natural Gas 1802 billion kwh
This meme is dumb and wrong. Funny tho.
Setting has Nuclear energy
Still using Natural Gas as main energy source
Natural gas is not really an improvement 😭
I think Natural Gas is something like a 20% improvement over coal. So it is an improvement, but yeah it’s still 80% bad and it’s gotta go.
https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw?si=gLjJB3v4Mdr6XQ-2
Now we have methane observation satellites we know that despite natural gas (methane) companies never having reported themselves for leaked methane, huge leaks have been observed (who’d have thought it was a faulty enforcement plan, asking companies to volunteer for fines)
Unfortunately the gas is odourless and colourless in visible light, so it has historically been hard to find leaks if you don’t own a natural gas company
Methane is a many times worse greenhouse gas than CO2. On the up side natural gas isn’t radioactive unlike coal
Only if it doesn’t leak. Unfortunately it loves to leak. Like all the time.
Discworld really handled the overlap of magic and technology the best.
Arcanum has also got to be up there too
“We need to subsidize the horse industry to protect jobs!”
