

Probably a support character. I’d expect they are good at emotional and physical first aid, morale boosts, and diplomacy.
They probably aren’t good at physically fighting, but they’d be good at stopping fights non-violently.
Probably a support character. I’d expect they are good at emotional and physical first aid, morale boosts, and diplomacy.
They probably aren’t good at physically fighting, but they’d be good at stopping fights non-violently.
I’ve been saying similarly for ages. We’re all emotional to some degree, but the right wing often turns it up to 11. Facts don’t matter. In-group belonging matters.
I don’t know a better word for it than “Stupid”, but it is deeply what I’d call stupid. Doesn’t care about facts, consistency, outcomes. Just feeling good about being a member of the group.
The oatmeal did a comic about this: https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
I sometimes wonder about people who played final fantasy 7 but are conservative. Like, did you just blank out everything except tifa’s tits and cool swords? They’re ecoterrorists fighting against a corporation. Be like Barret.
Recommend not letting old people use YouTube unattended. Same for children.
Really, no one should be using most of YouTube. It’s a big ol’ cognito-hazard.
I mean, YouTube has let all sorts of horrible things fester on their platform. Anti-vax stuff, far right extremism, climate denial stuff. They’ve got blood on their hands and I wouldn’t be sad if their leadership was hanged.
Who is watching this slop? Are we sure there are real people watching it, or is it just AI watching AI?
I think I’d need to see more examples to understand this better.
If I’m a thoughtful (d6) wizard and I want to carefully open this portal, what do I roll? What if I’m trying to do so but the building is on fire?
It really does seem a lot like Fate Accelerated. You’ve both got four actions (though they theirs are more general purpose. create an advantage, overcome, attack. defend). Their approaches are (by default) careful, clever, flashy, forceful, quick, sneaky.
It sounds a lot like Fate Accelerated, except more complicated.
I’m not sure I understand the dice sizes. Looks like some types just are weaker?
I guess it’s fine. Not sure how useful it would be for gauging how apart subways are, like if I need to get to the G from the Q.
The new one makes it look like they intercept, but they don’t.
If we were all in the room, we could strangle Sam Altman or whatever other capitalist dog was calling the shots.
I think your text has what are supposed to be spoilers on some phrases, but they are fully revealed to me (lemmy, firefox browser)
There’s a shared theme with like all of humanity’s woes: people don’t care that much.
From pollution to injustice to shitty websites, if people cared just a little more the problem would be dramatically reduced or even eliminated.
But so many people are just apathetic. Overwhelmed and checked out.
I posted in another thread about this somewhere, but the original’s D&D 3.x ruleset was bizarre and, frankly, awful. I don’t want to play that again.
A larian-style turn based RPG could be interesting, if the system was solid. But I feel like there’s still this lingering idea that players don’t want complexity, despite the continuous success of Larian. But maybe disney is looking to aim higher? Meh.
Unknown Armies will live on forever in my head. It was such a cool setting and the book had such great writing. There’s a third edition, but I only really read 2nd.
Sadly, I could never get anyone to play it. I’ve been cursed with “everyone only wants to play D&D” most of my life. I still remember trying to sell Mage to a college friend and he was like “You can just cast spells whenever? That sounds totally broken”
Seems like a recipe for subtle bugs and unmaintainable systems. Also those Eloi from the time machine, where they don’t know how anything works anymore.
Management is probably salivating at the idea of firing all those expensive engineers that tell them stuff like “you can’t draw three red lines all perpendicular in yellow ink”
I’m also reminded of that ai-for-music guy that was like “No one likes making art!”. Soulless husk.
…yeah so if you’re the kind of player who argues and fights at the table. Maybe stick to structured games with clearly defined rules.
You ignored the “or play a game I don’t like” part. That is what this process is extremely likely to create. Go look at the blog post again. Go look at those rules.
Furthermore, the process described in the blog post is
When a rule is needed, everyone at the table quickly discusses what the gameplay should feel like and what rule(s) would support that. If a majority of players agree on the rule (voting is necessary only if there is dissent)
Arguing is built right into the process! Someone proposes a rule, and you talk about it. And you know what I don’t want to do? Discuss the merits of rules mid-session. Especially large systems like “how does magic work?” or “can you change someone’s mind?”. That sounds awful. It’s one thing to do a quick “Do you think Alex can climb a ladder with this ‘Broken Arm’ consequence?” discussion in Fate. It’s a whole other thing to invent aspects whole cloth, and then try to integrate them with whatever else people came up with this week.
Or, if I pass on discussing why (for example) dropping your sword on a low roll is going to have weird effects, then I end up playing a game with rules I don’t like. Why would I want that? What don’t you get about this? Do I need to make you a flow chart?
System doesnt know how to handle something
|
|-- Propose a new rule
|- is the rule good? --> yes --> oh that is surprising. carry on
| no
|
discuss <-- the void of wasted time
|
| - were they convinced? --> yes --> go back to 'propose a new rule'
|
|-- no --> keep discussing? -- yes --> well this sucks
|-- no --> give up --------^
Ironically, the game I mentioned as an example of what I do like (Fate) is very light weight. But not so light weight that it doesn’t exist, and I have to deal with Brian trying to introduce hit locations mid session, again.
You seem to be imagining this like perfectly spherical frictionless group of players that are all super chill, on the same page about everything, and happy to just do whatever. I’m imagining what has been more typical in my experience, which is not that.
Again…this isn’t your scenario. I don’t know what to tell you. You’re conflating taking game systems and adding other mechanics to it and just goofing around and making it up as you go.
The blog post is about building a game system! Look at all the weird rules they made up! This whole blog post is about taking game systems (ie: rules people know from other games) and smushing them together! Anyone doing this process is going to start with some baseline system(s) in their head. Even if it’s just “let’s rock paper scissors for it” or “flip a coin”. It is in fact taking game game systems and adding other mechanics to it.
They certainly had fun, but as I said that sounds like my personal hell.
It’s okay to say “I need a game with explicit structure and rules”. That’s fine too, but maybe don’t argue with your players though.
Arguing is built into the process described into the blog post. Unless you’re splitting hairs and saying “argue” isn’t the same as “discuss”.
I have a daydream where we set up honey pots for this kind of thing. We invite people who think company towns are a good idea to come to a convention and make their pitch. And then they don’t leave.
I think there’s a famous quote from some right-winger about how they need to oppose social programs because people like them, and once they see how good they can be it’s really hard to repeal them. Can’t find it right now, or I might have imagined it.
This has nothing to do with builds. Fate, the game I said I’d play, doesn’t really have builds.
This is all about not wanting to have to spend a lot of time arguing with people, or playing a game I don’t like. Those are the two most likely outcomes. People will propose bad rules, and we either argue or I suck it up. There are so many common ideas in RPGs that I really don’t enjoy, but are popular nonetheless. I don’t want to stop the game and argue that “save or die” kind of sucks, and if we kill Alex’s character now like that a. they’re probably going to be unhappy just look at their face and b. what are they going to do the rest of the night?
(Or I’ll propose rules that won’t achieve the desired goals very well, because I’m also not such a good designer I can nail things on the first try)
Maybe with some hypothetical spherical frictionless group of players that are all on the same page about rules and design it would be fun. But that doesn’t seem to exist in the real world. We live in a world where people go “Let’s use D&D for a game of political intrigue! Wait, why does the fighter barely have anything to do and gets bad results on every check he does make? Why weren’t they scared when the antagonist pulled a knife on them??”
This is an interesting point I’d thought about before but never articulated.
I think it was part of why I didn’t gel with one of my old DND groups. They’d sometimes be faffing around doing “funny” stuff, but I mostly was sticking to the “use your resources wisely or perish” mode of DND.