When called with n=1 ? It’s from i=0 to i<1, so it will do only one iteration with i=0 and print one #.

Yes, to better understand this you have to understand the “flow” of the program. Meaning the order at which the instructions are executed and not written.

Here you have the flow of the program starting from n =3 until the recursion reach draw(0), note that none of the for loop have been executed yet. At this point it reach the first “return” instruction and go finish the call to draw(0).

Then the flow go back to where it previously was: inside the draw(1) call just after the line calling draw(0). And it start executing the next lines of the draw(1): the for loop.

Then it reach the second “return” and proceed again until the whole program is over.

Yes, as I wrote when the method draw(n=1) finish the for loop that print one “#”, this call of the method draw return. Then the process start again from the after the line draw(n-1) of the method draw(n=2), which execute the for loop to print “##” and return. Then again you come back to after the line draw(n-1) of inside the method draw(n=3), ect.

You should keep in mind that everytime a draw(n-1) is called, the current method is “paused” until this call return.

You are looking at a recursive method, as you can see with the line draw(n-1) inside the draw(n) method. You can search for “recursive function” on internet for a better understanding.

Basically, the method draw is called a first time n = a user input, but then this method call itself with n-1 until it reach 0. So you can think as if function draw(6) will call draw(5) and wait for it to return before continuing, draw(5) call draw(4), ect until draw(0) that return immediately.

So then the order of execution will be draw(1) that print " #\n" and return, then draw(2) will proceed to print “##\n” and return, then draw(3), ect until draw(n).

Yeah I had to make an android app for that because one person in the group was taking ages to proceed each rolls …

I would say that the game as a whole is fine but it’s carried by the franchise. The system is not for me, but no doubt a lot of people like it. I cannot even explain why I don’t like it specifically, it just didn’t work for me.

Work related project was a library for curves representation (polynomial, bezier, and a lot of other types) in C++. I liked working on it for several reasons. First one is that I could finally start something from scratch after years of working on legacy code. No dependency on strange old library from the team, only mainstream libraries.

But mostly it was because I learned a lot on this project. I had to mix template programming, heavy use of polymorphism, python bindings of the c++ and serialization together. I had experience in all of this stuff already, but mixing everything together bring a lot of new troubles and you have to understand how it works more in deep to be able to solve them.

I’m not making “famous” open source package with thousands of download and used everywhere, but seeing this package still in use in several other projects (and not only in my initial team) even after I left the initial team feels good. One day someone from my new company recommended to use “my” library as dependency to solve one of our problem, without knowing that I was the author, saying that it was a good well written lib. That’s a nice ego boost!

Lancer ! I did one short scenario (6 sessions IIRC) and the system and combat were a blast ! The story a little bit less, it was a homemade one for the GM. But apparently the published ones are quite good.

Oh I would like to try the star wars D6. I played quite a lot of the ffg star wars because at some point it was the favorite for most of the people in my play group, but I never found it very nice. I love star wars lore, but not this system.

I may be wrong but from what I’ve heard from some “small” content creator on YouTube the money from the sponsored talks in their video is a much bigger part of their income than money from youtube coming from the YouTube-selected ads that play before/during the video.

Also, this part do not give any money to YouTube and do not use/collect any data on you.

Yeah, such a long time that i’m sure the victim has forgotten this trauma after 7 years … /s (obviously)

Exactly. Take 20 when there is no consequence of failure and plenty of time. Take 10 when there is plenty of time and no stresfull environment.

Thieve tools are 3Gp but replacement picks are 3sp. Also, the tools are light bulks, and the replacement pick don’t even list a bulk.

To me the time requirement looks fine. There is examples of super skilled people on YouTube who can pick good locks in less time than a round in pf, but they obviously are legendary.

My issue is the chance to break picks. That part seems unrealistic (even for a fantasy world) and it just add something to keep track of in a “video game” style.

My other issue is that from a gameplay perspective, if there is no ongoing fight and we are not in encounter mode, I don’t see at all the point to make so many rolls and require several successes. I would be more inclined to a system with a lower DC and where the difference between your roll and a dc determine the time you spend to open it. I am kind of homebrewing it this way in my campaign, but I was not very consistent with my ruling for this … I should think about it and write it somewhere.

In the end, if your players agree to a little homebrew, it’s up to the GM to tweak the rules to fit the story. Are they trying to pick a lock while being chased with enemies dozen of meters behind ? Then it’s important to clearly define how many rounds are needed and I would make a check per rounds. Otherwise, if they are calmly trying to open something without stress and with all the tools required, just make one check and determine the time spend (if it’s relevant) from the result.

Are they in a dire situation with only one precious pick and without possibility to find more ? Then it’s important to follow the rules to break it, otherwise just handwave it.

To me the time requirement looks fine. There is examples of super skilled people on YouTube who can pick good locks in less time than a round in pf, but they obviously are legendary.

My issue is the chance to break locks. That part seems unrealistic (even for a fantasy world) and it just add something to keep track of in a “video game” style.

My other issue is that from a gameplay perspective, if there is no ongoing fight and we are not in encounter mode, I don’t see at all the point to make so many rolls and require several successes. I would be more inclined to a system with a lower DC and where the difference between your roll and a dc determine the time you spend to open it. I am kind of homebrewing it this way in my campaign, but I was not very consistent with my ruling for this … I should think about it and write it somewhere.

I fully agree with you. And I want to emphasize that the main issue is that if you start advertising Lemmy like OP suggest before it’s “fully ready” to give the best experience to this people, they will decide now that lemmy is not for them and after that it’s very difficult to make they try again and change their mind.