The last time Google pulled out all the stops to fight ad blockers, I had to update uBlock Origin every now and then until the whole thing passed. That’s all.
So I’m not worried. But I am amused that they keep making ads more obnoxious, which pushes more people to use ad blockers. I didn’t even use sponsorblock until a particularly egregious bit of native advertising. They could probably gain ground by just making ads less irritating, but they absolutely will not.
Tankies: The word ‘tankie’ is meaningless because it gets overused by disingenuous people on the right.
Also tankies: Everyone who criticizes my position is right-wing.
It honestly reminds me of fascists saying that harsh criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic. It’s a dishonest rhetorical game.
And capitalist regimes. The Russian Federation was literally founded by a betrayal of a reformist movement in the USSR, and China consulted with Milton Goddamn Friedman on their economy, ending up with billionaires. I even saw .ml users crying about Russian *oligarchs" having their assets seized (“stolen,” as they said), and unironically citing Matt Taibbi. Not even “back in the day” Taibbi, but literally The Twitter Files. Using bought & paid for corporate propaganda to make their point.
They’re just campists. I don’t want to run afoul of a “No True Scotsman” situation, but fuck, for people who seem to think they’re the Only True Socialists, they’re willing to drop socialism in an instant if it means they can be edgy dickheads on the internet.
Three-way tie. Unfortunately there hasn’t been movement on any due to personal stuff, but hopefully soon:
Pathfinder 2e for a modern D&D-type experience. (Not to yuck anyone’s yum, but I have plenty of gripes with 5e.)
Dolmenwood. Currently awaiting delivery of the Kickstarter. For those old-school D&D vibes.
Burning Wheel. My favorite game I’ve never played, even after owning the books for nearly two decades. :P But for real this time!
It’s especially sticky because “Men’s Rights” is a bait-and-switch, ripping off “Men’s Liberation.”
Men’s Liberation is associated with feminist movements, because patriarchy hurts everyone. That’s not to equivocate between the extents to which men and women suffer under it (or any group under systemic bigotry), but liberation and egalitarianism would help us all.
So Men’s Rights does the thing where it appeals to people with genuine grievances, but offers them a bullshit solution that benefits grifters and people in power. It’s not this systemic problem, it’s this group of people, and if only we could deal with them, everything would magically fix itself. In this case, “It’s not patriarchy, it’s not capitalism, it’s feminists, and women in general. If only we could get them back in their place, your life would be back on track. So vote for me/sign up for my course…”
So, bringing up the ways in which men also suffer under sexism can kick up some dirt to muddy the waters, intentionally or not. Some will be bad faith actors who just want to shit on feminism. Others will be taking the feminist side on this. And those in the middle, who see things turn toxic, can go any way—but if they stay neutral, or especially move right, then the reactionaries gain some ground.
So I don’t know what’s in OP’s heart. But, at least from way too many fights online, I’ve found that the best course of action is to assume good faith, and give reactionaries enough rope to hang themselves. They don’t have the better ideas, and they don’t have the better plans, but they’re good at shit-flinging. If you just make a good case, they tend to unmask pretty quickly and fall apart. There’s no point trying to convince a die-hard bigot, but you can play to the audience by just making the better case and helping bigots embarrass themselves.
In my opinion, at least, for whatever that’s worth. Sorry for the rambling!
I quit Spotify when the “New Library Experience” completely fucked the music library side of the app. If you mostly use playlists, it was a lateral change. If you used it to collect some songs here, and album there, and keep them all sorted, it’s like it dumped your entire collection on the floor and expected a thank-you for the new organization system.
My guess, as others have mentioned, is that Spotify tries to squeeze more profits by pushing certain songs, whether because they get paid to promote them, or the royalties are lower. That’s easier to do with their playlists and recommendations, so they pushed people to that side of the app by making everything else dogshit. And now, apparently, the curated side took it too far and is awful, too.
I still use Apple Music, which is one of like two services that actually let you organize your music in a sensible way outside of playlists. That said, after I cut cords with video streaming services and set up my own library, I think I might do the same with music.
And their recommendation engine sucks.
Netflix used to be famously good at suggesting films. Articles were written about it, and there was even a cash reward for anyone who could contribute to its performance. Then it just turned to shit.
And the funny thing is that it would have helped counteract the shrinking library. Sure, there would be fewer films on the platform, so you’d be less likely to find a specific title, but at least you could select a film Netflix recommended based on your past ratings and be fairly confident you’d enjoy it. Now? Absolutely not.
Different strokes, of course. :)
I think for me and my group, it’s just a sometimes thing. I think I’d be happy to let players make some decisions about the world around them, but narrative control of action resolution just fell a bit flat.
It’s also why I like the distinction between “writing a story” and “being a character.” It indicates the difference without presenting either as better than the other, which is a risk when talking about… well, anything, especially online. :P
I think there are three main ways to make it work:
Giving the GM tools to do the job. I remember reading PF2e and thinking, wow, it fills in so many of the gaps I had to improvise on the fly as a DM, and the balancing systems seems to, you know, work. Kevin Crawford’s work, especially the …Without Number series, famously provides so many useful tables guidelines even if you don’t use the underlying system itself. Then there are system-neutral resources like the Tome of Adventure Design.
Providing clear explanations for how and why the system works the way it does. I know it’s a love-it-or-hate-it system, but Burning Wheel is great for this. It’s a weird system, and whatever you think of Luke Crane, it’s useful to have guidance and explanations for why the rules are the way that they are. Plus the Codex adds even more. I found I really like GM resources that explain the thought process behind running the game. IIRC some of Ben Milton’s work does the same, and I like to have a commentary for my own projects.
Giving the players meta-narrative agency. Admittedly, this one is extremely subjective. I have mixed feelings about it. I’m absolutely happy to let my players make some decisions for the game, but I found that my group specifically prefers to inhabit a world rather than shape it, and I’m not crazy about that style of play in practice. It feels more like writing a story than playing it out. TO BE EXTRA CLEAR, this is a matter of personal preference. For those who like it, it works fantastic, and the popularity of that kind of game goes to show how it works for a lot of people.
My main goal is to GM again! I haven’t done that in too long. Step one is to just pick a game already. I think I’ve narrowed it down to three options:
Something OSR, probably OSE (or Dolmenwood, when I get it).
Pathfinder 2e, especially with the new update coming out.
Burning Wheel. It’s a White Whale of mine—my favorite game I’ve never played, despite owning for over a decade.
Too many games, not enough time!
Yeah, it’s such a frustrating conversation.
Yes, as long as people are having fun, that’s all that matters.
But it’s also fair to point out that hacking D&D to do something fundamentally outside of what it’s designed to do is going to be a lot of work for little pay off. Take it from people who are familiar with other games, it would honestly be easier to learn something new. (And most games aren’t as hard to pick up as 5e!) That’s not gatekeeping, that’s just advice based on experience. The juice isn’t worth the squeeze, so unless you like the squeeze for its own sake, maybe try something else.
Also, to speak on the system not mattering if you have a good DM: sure, that’s technically correct. That also doesn’t invalidate criticism of a set of rules. Yeah, a skilled and experienced DM can fix things, even on the fly, but maybe the entire system shouldn’t rely on that. 5e has notoriously bad DM-facing material, and after years of running it, I got burnt out. The DM is playing the game, too, and their time, effort, and fun matter just as much as anyone else’s. I’m sick of 5e’s approach that the DM will either figure it out or take the blame. The fact that it’s so hard to be a new DM is, in my opinion, the likely reason there’s a DM shortage. You don’t get the same problem with other games!
So yeah, like you said. System matters. Even if you don’t use a system per se and go FKR, that’s a choice you made on the structure of the game.
My experience with FitD games is the same. I appreciate them, I’m glad they’re there, but after trying them out a bunch, realized it just wasn’t the experience I wanted, nor what my group wanted.
Obviously for a lot of people that isn’t the case, and if they’re having a fantastic time, great! It’s just a personal preference.
The conversation around this topic always seems directly or indirectly framed around a zero-sum framing: what’s better and what’s worse? Which side wins? Even if you disagree with the premise, that’s what’s shaping the conversation. I don’t think the article suggested there’s a “correct” answer, but it was clearly inspired by people who think the author was doing things wrong.
It can simultaneously be true that there are successful long-term campaigns with and without high character turnover due to death. It’s a mater of personal preference and successful execution. The only thing categorically false is the idea that character deaths, in and of themselves, are inherently bad for long-term play.
You’re right that multiclassing an optional rule, but in practice, I think nearly every player assume it’s in use unless the DM says otherwise (and they will likely complain if the DM says otherwise). So I’d bet that if a ruleset basedo n 5e disabled multiclassing, people would either complain about it, or ignore that part and then complain when it breaks the game.
I guess as the devil’s advocate, the publisher put out both. So it seemed like it was the high-effort way to both create a bespoke system, and appeal to the people who are completely stuck on D&D.
Lowering HP would absolutely go a long way, you’re right. I think limiting or disabling multiclassing would also help, but that would be an extremely unpopular change that most people would ignore anyway. :/
Fair point. I think it would still take a lot of work, though, since Diablo includes a lot of fast-paced, high-powered stuff, while 5e kind of falls apart and turns into a slog at higher levels. To put it another way, it handles up to the heroic level fine, but the epic levels can feel like a drag, and WotC’s solution was to mostly publish adventures that stop at level 15. Cutting HP would be a part of it, maybe streamlining some stuff, creating a different inventory system…
So it can be done. But the fact that it’s not D&D also means there’s a higher floor to how much thought was put into the game, you know? Sometimes designers put the work in, but sometimes they just pick D&D to be lazy or as a cash grab.
Speaking of Adventures in Middle-Earth, I haven’t played it, but I heard the 5e edition is actually pretty good. You’re right in that Tolkien’s fantasy is way different from the high-fantasy superheroics of 5e, but I heard it had great rules for going on a journey, which 5e mostly glosses over (at least in practice).
Oh for sure! It’s really just treating D&D as the default that I have a problem with, not using an existing system per se. Sometimes it works, but a lot of the time making D&D support a radically different style of play is a bad idea. It also tends to suggest that either the designer doesn’t really know that much about RPGs, or the publisher doesn’t care and just wants to cash in on what’s popular. If they picked even another existing system, that at least suggests they’re aware of other games, and probably picked something they thought was a good fit.
Again, this is just speaking in generalities. There are good games based on 5e. It’s a red flag, but not a deal breaker.
More surprising is the confirmation that Diablo: The RPG will be built on a new “unique” gameplay system, rather than slapping a Deckard Cain mask over Dungeons & Dragons 5E or something.
At least there’s that. It might still be terrible, but I immediately lose interest in any game that’s just reskinning “The World’s Most Popular Role-playing Game.”
It might even be simpler than that. Capitalism just doesn’t care past the next quarter. And when ownership is disconnected from labor or even from customer, than it’s just a really rudimentary collective intelligence. The shareholders just want the line to go up, and everyone in the corporate structure is accountable to the shareholders, so they all do their part, big or little, to make that happen. It completely dispenses with personal responsibility, whether for negative externalities, direct harm, or even the future as close as months from now.