Susaga @ Susaga @ttrpg.network Posts 24Comments 313Joined 2 yr. ago
Uh... Okay, optional revised version. Roll a d3 (use a d6 and half it) and use whichever option comes up. If you don't like the result, or you want more click clack throwing fun, roll again until you get the result you want.
Dice roll? No, you get to choose which one you'd prefer. Nothing random about it.
I take a system inspired by the video game Wildermyth, where the player gets to decide what happens at 0 HP.
Option 1: You fall unconscious. Your fate is out of your hands.
Option 2: You die, but... You might go out in a blaze of glory, or inspire an ally, but you're dead for good. At least it's a good death, which is better than some get.
Option 3: You live, but... You might lose an eye, or a magic item gets destroyed, but you manage to escape. You're still out of the fight, but you live to see another.
Adding to this: Order of the Stick. Starts as RPG parody, becomes a serious adventure with comedic tones. Currently on the final arc.
There was no misleading information. There was no name-calling. It's weird you think there was.
If you're allowed to say "Nazis are allowed a space to hang out", I'm allowed to say "shut the fuck up". If you're allowed to say "yeah, I agree with this" by upvoting, I'm allowed to say "this is a terrible idea" by downvoting. If you don't have to give an explanation for why you support something, you shouldn't have to give an explanation for why you oppose something.
I'm telling you to shut up from the front of my mouth. You are not the first person to put forward this argument, and you're not the first person to do it shortly after being downvoted for defending Nazis. You deliberately want a double standard that limits criticism and it was a pretty easy guess, proven right, that you had recently been justifiably criticised.
Every single time someone makes a post with this opinion, they're either a Nazi or a Nazi apologist. They don't want discourse, they just don't like it when people tell them to shut up. It makes it hard to take their arguments seriously because I know they're just excuses.
Lo and behold, you have a downvoted comment in your recent history where you argue Nazis should be allowed a safe space to talk in. The pattern continues.
Criticism is a part of public discourse as much as approval is. People who allow positive responses freely but put walls in the way of criticism tend to be the ones trying to silence all forms of criticism. They want a positive feedback loop so they can pretend people agree with them. Some people need to be told to shut up quickly and decisively.
Encounters, easy. You were going to prepare those anyway.
Maps, not as easy but there's resources online in a pinch.
Forces... What do you mean by that?
Terrain... That's just maps again, right?
Ecosystem... Yeah, you're definitely over-preparing at this point.
Descriptions... You shouldn't have been prepping this anyway. If you know what the thing looks like, you can describe it yourself during the game.
It's that thing you do in the shower the night before the session and forget to write down "but it'll be fine" and then you forgot half of it and only remember the dumb voice you gave the shop keeper. That, plus those notes you wrote down and you're sure you knew what you had in mind but now you're not sure what "damp lich" was supposed to mean.
I want to play the accordian. I just don't want to pay for an accordian.
I'd accept this as a bad example if it wasn't pronounced "hold". Like, you say "thresh hold" and not "thresh old", and that's why I get ticked off at it only having one H. Even if there's an explanation, it's irritating.
Good point, my mistake on hitchhiker. My brain just merged it in with my hatred of threshold.
It doesn't matter how old threshold is. They merged the h of hold with the h in the sh sound of thresh. There is an H missing from how it should be spelt.
Thresh + hold = threshold. Why did they drop the middle 'H'? You still have to pronounce both 'H's, and they don't even have the same sound. They're the worst kind of portmanteau, but they're in the dictionary.
Depending on exactly how well used, I suspect quite a lot fits.
I feel like actors wouldn't benefit from an adundance of hot coffee they have to spill take after take. Especially if they have to run with it.
I get your point, but I will say the Captain America scene isn't completely out of the realm of possibility. Cap weighs the helicopter down for a few seconds, and grabs a support beam for the helipad as soon as he can. If Cap can keep a grip on both the beam and the helicopter, then the propellers will only lift him if either Cap or the support beams break.
Of course, whether he should have had that much effect on the helicopter for those first few seconds is another matter entirely and I'm not enough of a physicist to make that call.
The only good example I can think of where people actually explain themselves is Agents of SHIELD, which isn't even a movie. It's amazing. She doesn't doubt his loyalty for a second and understands, given their situation, why he had to keep it a secret from her. You still get drama, but it's drama from everyone being on the same dramatic page.
...This is fiction. These are fictional innocent people. The fictional paladin played by a real person is doing fictional evil. The real person at the table is just a person playing a game. Nobody is in harms way.
...I very much do not understand your point.
You get that, no matter who provided the gun, the mass shooter shouldn't have done that, right? Even if they thought the gun was only going to fire blanks, they shouldn't point it at people and repeatedly fire. It's only manslaughter if they stop at one death, and manslaughter still carries a sentence.
You get that the DM is supposed to cause evil, right? They create monsters and villains and the players have to overcome the evil in the world. The DM isn't evil because they sent an army of orcs to attack a village, no matter how many villagers die in the assault.
You get that the people in the game aren't real, right? The DM made them up. Nobody is actually dying, no matter what happens in the game. The morality of the people at the table is not rigidly tied to the morality of the characters they play as.
Just so I know where I'm standing here.
First off, a sword that only destroys evil doesn't mean insta-kill. It just means you only deal a fatal blow if they're evil. You can just rule that it still damages good characters, so you lose basically all of your allies due to constant wounding.
Second, this is consequentialism vs deontologism. Is the morality of an act decided by the outcome or the act itself? You have the consequentialism view that the action is okay because you know it can only kill an evil person. I argue that the sword's properties can change without you knowing, so this knowledge is just belief. As the consequences cannot be truly known before the action takes place, the morality is decided by the action itself (deontology). Stabbing people at the start of every conversation is evil.
I did consider that. I like it not affecting evil creatures cause it might make the Paladin question things if it fails to harm one of the BBEG's minions. Whether they question which side their on or the sword itself is up to them.