Lianodel @ Lianodel @ttrpg.network Posts 1Comments 356Joined 2 yr. ago
Same. I've been thinking of replacing the cheap immersion circulator we have, and was going to go with Anova. This blatant enshittification is enough to make me look elsewhere.
I think part of it is that meme discussions are just a great place to actually talk shop about D&D.
Back on reddit, the vast majority of D&D subs were flooded with fan art and very little discussion. There were DM subs, but those obviously left out players. I loved /r/rpg, but that place was also a refuge for people who don't want to talk about D&D and only D&D all the dang time. (And even if I'm mostly over D&D, I still like D&D in theory, if not always in practice). So... that kind of left /r/dndmemes as, unexpectedly, one of the few places to get in-depth discussion about all kinds of RPGs and experiences from around the table.
Oof. I wouldn't like that at all. I'm already bothered with how many player powers just shut off certain parts of the game. Also putting it on the monster side seems like it will make the game an arms race of things not mattering.
My bad then! I just saw options for a trial and a one-time purchase, didn't realize there was a subscription.
Honestly glad to see the option. I'll take a one-time purchase any day.
It's a one-time purchase.
edit: It's a one-time purchase for the "pro" version. I've been using the free version for a while and really enjoying it. I've been thinking of upgrading more to support the developers than for the added features.
It sucks that I was unsure at "unemployed minors," because the party is overtly pro-child labor and that bad at optics.
From the same folks who were just calling Kamala Harris a "DEI pick."
Oh yeah. The campaign already had a lot of comedy in it (the whole cast are improvisers), and the one-off was extra silly, but there was also a log of nostalgia and genuine joy.
As an Innuendo Studios video put it, it's "last hired, first fired."
The fascinating thing about this is that, in context... it's still fucking weird, but for different reasons.
He's technically joking about how it makes you transition, saying it's a claim he heard from "scientists." So he wants to call men women as a misogynistic insult, but also to poke fun at the concept of scientific study. It's wrong to distinguish between gender and sex as part of evidence-based medicine and basic conscientiousness. It's cool and good if you're doing it to be a dick, though. He's got to police gender roles, but also insist that they are completely immutable based on your sex.
What a creepy weirdo.
Somewhat off-topic:
I really enjoyed the NeoScum podcast, which is a Shadowrun actual play, but they also had a one-off side-quest in the digital world of Neopets. So I've kind of seen a Neopets RPG in practice, before this bespoke system. :P
It's definitely something that's a part of newer D&D, though it's debatable when it started. It was inarguably a part of 4th edition, I think it was here by 3rd edition, and there's even a case to be made that 2e was headed in that direction with some of the supplements.
Anyway, your dad was right. :P During 2e, that was still a big part of the game. It's part of the differentiation between "old school" and "new school" D&D. Whatever I think of any particular edition, I think both approaches are rad for different reasons. :)
It's just the mismatch of expectations that would be a problem. It sucks to die because you were expecting another epic set piece battle, and it also sucks to try to come up with a clever solution to avoid an encounter just to end up not doing much or getting railroaded.
My favorite part was that Vance, supposedly, wrote about it in Hillbilly Elegy. Reading the book would easily solve the issue once and for all, but no one wanted to.
It's also why the AP article was retracted. They could obviously prove that it's not in the book, but like you said, it would be impossible to prove that he never, at any point in his life, when no one was around, fucked a couch.
...but also, the AP article didn't even involve reading the book. They just used Ctrl+F on key terms because, again, no one wants to actually read that book.
Yeah, we had a near-TPK with our group recently. The rogue picked a lock and opened a door, which triggered a comical amount of explosives. We dealt with the consequences, but it was frustrating because it just kind of came out of nowhere. It didn't seem to be that kind of campaign, y'know? Nothing remotely like it happened in months of play up to that point.
...so I was kind of reading my own experiences into this. :P
Alright, gotcha. Just taking it as a launch point for discussing the game.
Plus apparently situations like this happened in CR recently, so I thought it was about these kinds of situations in general.
For sure, and it is absolutely true.
I just like "weird" because it only works one way. For people who value individuality and diversity, it doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation. For people who value conformity, it's a devastating insult. Apparently Ben Shapiro went on Megyn Kelly's show to cry about it, which is great.
Just to get it out of the way, I don't watch CR, so I don't know if this is a specific reference, and am just speaking about D&D in general. :)
Kind of inevitable with most D&D games. If you design adventures around having a series of more-or-less balanced encounters, almost always combat, where player characters are expected to be stressed but not generally killed the vast majority of the time... both the players and their characters are going to have the expectation that they can just do that.
So you need to manage those expectations. Make it clear up front, and either run the game so that death is a real threat more of the time, or find other ways to make it crystal clear when it is.
(Or just don't make things lethal and find other consequences for failure. Or whatever you'd like, my point is just to get folks on the same page.)
Yeah, that's true.
It's just that based on prior arguments I've had, they're just so agitated by thinking things through. even if you put aside the overt heinousness, they just wave away the collateral damage, dismissing them as trivial details as though the whole fucking point of policy is the effect those policies will have. It's partly that they're advocating for awful things, but also frustrating that they are too willfully ignorant to realize how bad their own arguments are.
That's what I found funny about it. It's something that could have been resolved in an instant of people said either "Yes, it's on page whatever whatever," or "We just read it, and no, it's not there." It took longer to resolve because of how few people have read it recently, or were willing to read it now.