What's on your mind?

[Darkpig]

19 hours ago, Count Chocula said:

I have no idea how the 2024 changes might have affected all of this. I will probably never play 2024.

That is fair. I never bought the book myself. I have heard some (at least what I think to be) interesting ideas in the book. Decoupling ability score from species* is one step closer to a role-player's paradise. Things like the DC 15 Stealth to hide is stupid though. Stealth may be hard to master but that doesn't mean we should gatekeep it.

 

* = Yes I know some people hate the word Species but I personally don't give a shit. A single word change means nothing compared to fighting and/or seducing dragons.

Edited July 22, 2025 by Darkpig

[Count Chocula]

1 hour ago, Darkpig said:

That is fair. I never bought the book myself. I have heard some (at least what I think to be) interesting ideas in the book. Decoupling ability score from species* is one step closer to a role-player's paradise. Things like the DC 15 Stealth to hide is stupid though. Stealth may be hard to master but that doesn't mean we should gatekeep it.

 

* = Yes I know some people hate the word Species but I personally don't give a shit. A single word change means nothing compared to fighting and/or seducing dragons.

I hate the fact that the ability bonuses are now totally generic and not tied to the character's race. But then I also didn't like it when they went from a combination of bonuses and penalties in 3/3.5 to nothing but bonuses in 5e. It all seems like tabletop cosplay now. You can make a Half-elf with +2 DEX and +1 CHA, and I can make a Half-orc with +2 DEX and +1 CHA. And every race now has a move of 30'. I get the feeling that the progression from 3e to 5e 2024 is "We don't want anyone to feel bad about their character, so let's have nothing but bonuses and make sure no race is better than another." That's why I play Old School Essentials, pretty much basic D&D from 1981 with a little bit of first edition AD&D tossed in. It's way simpler than modern D&D, but not so simple that I'd call it "rules light."

 

If a person I considered a good GM ran a 5e 2024 game and I was provided with what I needed to play, I might consider giving it a whirl. Because tabletop RPGing is all about role-playing for me, and role-playing is about the players (including the GM), not the mechanics. But I don't know anyone who runs it and I'm not gonna seek them out.

[Darkpig]

3 hours ago, Count Chocula said:

I hate the fact that the ability bonuses are now totally generic and not tied to the character's race. But then I also didn't like it when they went from a combination of bonuses and penalties in 3/3.5 to nothing but bonuses in 5e. It all seems like tabletop cosplay now. You can make a Half-elf with +2 DEX and +1 CHA, and I can make a Half-orc with +2 DEX and +1 CHA. And every race now has a move of 30'. I get the feeling that the progression from 3e to 5e 2024 is "We don't want anyone to feel bad about their character, so let's have nothing but bonuses and make sure no race is better than another." That's why I play Old School Essentials, pretty much basic D&D from 1981 with a little bit of first edition AD&D tossed in. It's way simpler than modern D&D, but not so simple that I'd call it "rules light."

 

If a person I considered a good GM ran a 5e 2024 game and I was provided with what I needed to play, I might consider giving it a whirl. Because tabletop RPGing is all about role-playing for me, and role-playing is about the players (including the GM), not the mechanics. But I don't know anyone who runs it and I'm not gonna seek them out.

In real life different creatures have different strengths and weaknesses. Life can be soul crushing in that way. In the fictional world of D&D, Orcs and half orcs can be Dexterous, Charismatic individuals if they want because magic. I wouldn't say get rid of "racial" abilities entirely. Fairies with working wings should obviously get flight and Changelings should obviously be able to change shape. It is better just to keep things simple especially for newer players. Many games already do follow this design philosophy. Save the complicated stuff for higher tier play. Besides I have noticed there were some additions to elves that weren't in the 2014 version so I doubt they abandoned "racial" abilities entirely.

 

But here I am rambling on. Whatever~

Edited July 22, 2025 by Darkpig

[Count Chocula]

1 hour ago, Darkpig said:

In real life different creatures have different strengths and weaknesses. Life can be soul crushing in that way. In the fictional world of D&D, Orcs and half orcs can be Dexterous, Charismatic individuals if they want because magic. I wouldn't say get rid of "racial" abilities entirely. Fairies with working wings should obviously get flight and Changelings should obviously be able to change shape. It is better just to keep things simple especially for newer players. Many games already do follow this design philosophy. Save the complicated stuff for higher tier play. Besides I have noticed there were some additions to elves that weren't in the 2014 version so I doubt they abandoned "racial" abilities entirely.

If you like what I consider the sameiness of 5e 2024, OK. I don't. You say "keep things simple." In my view, the more decisions a player has to make in terms of the mechanics when making a character, the more complex the process is, not the more simple. Which does not mean I am opposed to player options.

 

My beef with 5e in general is the cookie cutter nature of character builds. 2024 just makes it worse. In 2014, a Half-orc Rogue and a Half-elf Rogue will have slightly different stats (probably) because of the different bonuses those two races have in 2014. With 2024, even that small variation will be gone and one Rogue will be even more than in 2014 the same as the next Rogue.

 

In any event, it sounds like you and I have widely divergent tabletop RPG philosophies. Which is no big deal because the G in RPG stands for Game (except when it stands for Grenade) and we play games for fun and we all have fun in different ways.

Edited July 22, 2025 by Count Chocula

[Zorai]

36 minutes ago, Count Chocula said:

If you like what I consider the sameiness of 5e 2024, OK. I don't. You say "keep things simple." In my view, the more decisions a player has to make in terms of the mechanics when making a character, the more complex the process is, not the more simple. Which does not mean I am opposed to player options.

 

My beef with 5e in general is the cookie cutter nature of character builds. 2024 just makes it worse. In 2014, a Half-orc Rogue and a Half-elf Rogue will have slightly different stats (probably) because of the different bonuses those two races have in 2014. With 2024, even that small variation will be gone and one Rogue will be even more than in 2014 the same as the next Rogue.

 

In any event, it sounds like you and I have widely divergent tabletop RPG philosophies. Which is no big deal because the G in RPG stands for Game (except when it stands for Grenade) and we play games for fun and we all have fun in different ways.

 

This is why I always preferred homebrew DnD or any homebrew RPG tabletop when it comes down to different formats of rulings and generations. I get both sides, its nice to have simple where there doesn't need to be complications, and complicated when simple just isn't enough.

 

I love games that offer a ton of customization on how to build a character and how you're able to play out the game. Like Baldur's Gate 3 for example, I love how the game feels so fresh just by playing a different class of character, despite the story being the same pretty much. While offering many different options to play. Sure a few of its flaws bother the living hell of out of me, but those can be fixed (except for a couple).

 

I think what's most important is just who you're playing with and who's running it. DnD can be one of the best games ever with the right group, or just a massive headache with the wrong group. Like my last group.

[Raven 54]

Don’t Miss Jupiter And A Crescent Moon Shining Together This Week.

There are few sights so fleeting, so delicate, and so beautiful than the moon when it’s about to sink into the sun’s glare. On Wednesday, July 23, just before sunrise, a whisper-thin crescent moon will appear just above the east-northeastern horizon — but that’s not all. Just a few degrees to its right will be brilliant Jupiter, just days after reappearing from the sun’s glare.

Where And When To Look

The delicate pairing of a barely 3%-lit waning crescent moon and Jupiter will take place low on the east-northeast horizon before sunrise. Jupiter will glow brightly at magnitude -1.8. The waning crescent moon, just 3% illuminated, will lie about five degrees to Jupiter’s left — roughly the width of three fingers at arm’s length. Both celestial bodies will fade quickly in the growing light of dawn.

What You’ll See

Seeing the moon when it’s this slender can be a bit of a challenge. However, if you struggle, bright Jupiter will be there to help you — just look to the left of the planet (binoculars will help), and a view of the moon’s final appearance before it slips into the sun’s glare will be yours. Above the pair will be Venus, shining noticeably brighter than Jupiter and the moon.

Observing Tips

Timing and preparation are crucial. Arrive early to give your eyes time to adjust to the dim twilight. Jupiter should be easy to find — once you do, look just to the left to spot the delicate crescent. You’ll need a clear sky and a good view down to the horizon. Stop observing before sunrise begins to avoid any risk to your eyes, especially if using binoculars or a telescope.       

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2025/07/22/dont-miss-jupiter-and-a-crescent-moon-shining-together

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

[Raven 54]

Twelve Don’ts For The Aged

 

Don’t neglect your daily bath.

 

Don’t become a psychopath.

 

Don’t say all the best has gone.

 

Don’t go on and on and on.

 

Don’t decide to grow a beard

 

Don’t do anything too weird.

 

Don’t rub pigfat on yer bonce.

 

Don’t make scenes in restaurants.

 

Don’t be stingy: tip the waiter.

 

Don’t become a couch potater.

 

Don’t spend every evening plastered.

 

Don’t be such a dismal bastard.

 

– John Whitworth

[Count Chocula]

7 hours ago, Zorai said:

I think what's most important is just who you're playing with and who's running it. DnD can be one of the best games ever with the right group, or just a massive headache with the wrong group. Like my last group.

Yes, who you are playing with has way more impact on how much you're going to enjoy the game than the mechanics do. Yet I constantly encounter people who can't want to try out some new system they just backed on kickstarter. It's their money, so I don't harangue them openly. But to myself and to like-minded others, I say "What the fuck is wrong with these people? If they want to role play, why don't they just pick a mechanics system they like and play it? You don't need a whole new game to enjoy a whole new genre."

 

One of the reasons I stopped using reddit was I got tired of encountering people who insisted that Blades in the Dark was inherently better suited to running capers than any other system. I insisted back that there;s nothing Blades does that I couldn't do using a d100 roll under system (i.e., a system like Delta Green's or Call of Cthulhu's) or a d20 roll high system (i.e., a system like D&D's). Those games are very strongly linked to their genres and settings, but their systems are not.

 

What kills me about "modern" game systems like the Forged in the Dark system Blades uses and the Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA) system is how just about everything is codified in a rule, chart or table (although obviously the GM of any game can ignore anything in the rulebook they want).

 

Here's my lengthy example from a Dungeon World (which uses PbtA) game.

Spoiler

We were tracking some Goblins and I mused "I wonder if Goblins can use magic." The GM said "Well,  make a Spout Lore roll." So I did, and got a middling success. The result on the chart was that I got to declare one thing that was true about Goblins and one thing that was false but which I thought was true. So I said "The true thing is that Goblins can use magic, the false thing is that Goblins eat other intelligent races." So now all the mystery is gone from those two nuggets of data in the world. At the player level, we now know for a fact in the game that Goblins are not cannibals and that they can use magic. There's no more mystery to explore or information for the GM to slowly reveal. It was on a chart, so now it's in the game. That's not role playing, that's roll playing. Boring.

 

[Darkpig]

15 hours ago, Caveman 74 said:

Don’t decide to grow a beard

If you try to grow a beard

You will fucking die -The Mad God

Edited July 23, 2025 by Darkpig

[Zorai]

9 hours ago, Count Chocula said:

Yes, who you are playing with has way more impact on how much you're going to enjoy the game than the mechanics do. Yet I constantly encounter people who can't want to try out some new system they just backed on kickstarter. It's their money, so I don't harangue them openly. But to myself and to like-minded others, I say "What the fuck is wrong with these people? If they want to role play, why don't they just pick a mechanics system they like and play it? You don't need a whole new game to enjoy a whole new genre."

 

One of the reasons I stopped using reddit was I got tired of encountering people who insisted that Blades in the Dark was inherently better suited to running capers than any other system. I insisted back that there;s nothing Blades does that I couldn't do using a d100 roll under system (i.e., a system like Delta Green's or Call of Cthulhu's) or a d20 roll high system (i.e., a system like D&D's). Those games are very strongly linked to their genres and settings, but their systems are not.

 

What kills me about "modern" game systems like the Forged in the Dark system Blades uses and the Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA) system is how just about everything is codified in a rule, chart or table (although obviously the GM of any game can ignore anything in the rulebook they want).

 

Here's my lengthy example from a Dungeon World (which uses PbtA) game.

  Hide contents

We were tracking some Goblins and I mused "I wonder if Goblins can use magic." The GM said "Well,  make a Spout Lore roll." So I did, and got a middling success. The result on the chart was that I got to declare one thing that was true about Goblins and one thing that was false but which I thought was true. So I said "The true thing is that Goblins can use magic, the false thing is that Goblins eat other intelligent races." So now all the mystery is gone from those two nuggets of data in the world. At the player level, we now know for a fact in the game that Goblins are not cannibals and that they can use magic. There's no more mystery to explore or information for the GM to slowly reveal. It was on a chart, so now it's in the game. That's not role playing, that's roll playing. Boring.

 

 

I honestly agree with that example from Dungeon World. I think most of the world building should come from something that's either already established, or already thought of before starting the game by the GM. At that point the player can just make up whatever they want as long as they get the roll, which can become very boring unless you want a chaotic run. And even that can be set up by the GM without needing a roll.

 

And while I don't mind Reddit for the most part, yeah, those echo chambers get really annoying. And this is why I just rather a nice home brew of different things. Yes, I enjoy 5e DnD, no, I don't care if someone wants to use something that's not in 5e. As long as Kobold's can be stupid as sin and smart, and got Tasha's Cauldron of everything, I'm pretty contempt. Anything else should be workable when setting up the game, and how those go about should be done by the GM/DM only depending on what it is.

Edited July 23, 2025 by Zorai

[Count Chocula]

3 hours ago, Zorai said:

 

I honestly agree with that example from Dungeon World. I think most of the world building should come from something that's either already established, or already thought of before starting the game by the GM. At that point the player can just make up whatever they want as long as they get the roll, which can become very boring unless you want a chaotic run. And even that can be set up by the GM without needing a roll.

The thing about games that have die rolls or use meta-currency to allow players to alter the fiction of the game, that I don't like. When I run a game, players add to the fiction all the time, but they don't get to undo what I've done or what I have in mind but have not revealed yet. And I don't need special rules to do it. I guess new GMs might need help from the rules to do thing like that, though, because they don't have the experience to when it is or isn't a good idea to do it on their own. But when a game puts something in the rulebook, many players, including GMs, take the attitude "Well, it's in the rules, so it has to be allowed." I've seen a few, not many, but a few, games ruined because of a GM's slavish adherence to something in the books but was not a good idea in that particular context. And I was one of them, in my early days.

[Raven 54]

6 hours ago, Darkpig said:

If you try to grow a beard

You will fucking die -The Mad God

Too late, beard about a foot long now.      🧔🏽   

 

[Raven 54]

On Aging

 

When you see me sitting quietly,

 

Like a sack left on the shelf,

 

Don’t think I need your chattering.

 

I’m listening to myself.

 

Hold! Stop! Don’t pity me!

 

Hold! Stop your sympathy!

 

Understanding if you got it,

 

Otherwise I’ll do without it!

 

When my bones are stiff and aching,

 

And my feet won’t climb the stair,

 

I will only ask one favor:

 

Don’t bring me no rocking chair.

 

When you see me walking, stumbling,

 

Don’t study and get it wrong.

 

‘Cause tired don’t mean lazy

 

And every goodbye ain’t gone.

 

I’m the same person I was back then,

 

A little less hair, a little less chin,

 

A lot less lungs and much less wind.

 

But ain’t I lucky I can still breathe in.

 

– Maya Angelou

[Grey Cloud]

Was Zeus anti-LGBTQ+?

 

The figure we seek is described in Plato, Symposium 180 et seq., in the famous story of Aristophanes about the origin of love. Once, Aristophanes says, men had roundish bodies, with four hands and four legs, two sexual parts, two faces attached to one head, and four ears. There were three genders, male, female, and androgynos, gender being determined according to whether these strange beings had two male sexual parts, two female sexual parts, or one male and one female part. And because these individuals, who were so complete in themselves, were too self-confident and somewhat truculent, Zeus had to cut them in half. He then pulled the skin over the wound, tying it up at the point that is now the navel, and begged Apollo to twist the head so that it faced in the same direction as the cut. Finally, because these halves had some problems copulating — as one might imagine — Zeus also caused the sexual parts to be displaced to the front. From then on, these halves looked for each other, attempting to join themselves together again, desperately looking for their lost unity and original identity.

 

"Reflections, Echoes and Amorous Reciprocity", pp 14-15, in Interpretations Of Greek Mythology, Jan Bremmer (Ed.).

[Darkpig]

10 hours ago, Caveman 74 said:

Too late, beard about a foot long now.      🧔🏽   

 

Oh our Lord Sheogorath won’t be pleased about that. I wish you luck. You’ll need it.

[Raven 54]

Missing 

 

I’ve hunted near, I’ve hunted far

I even looked inside my car.

I’ve lost my glasses, I’m in need,

To have them now so I can read.

I loudly swear and I curse

Did I leave them in my purse?

Are they behind the sofa, under the bed?

Oh there they are—on my head!

 

– Anne Scott                              

[Count Chocula]

Unless this is a trick question, it's not a very challenging question for a "Tokyo quiz."

 

But if is a trick question and the answer is either Kyoto or Osaka, then it's not really a question about Tokyo. 

[Raven 54]

Don’t Change On My Account

 

If you’re sloppy, that’s just fine.

 

If you’re moody, I won’t mind.

 

If you’re fat, that’s fine with me.

 

If you’re skinny, let it be.

 

If you’re bossy, that’s alright.

 

If you’re nasty, I won’t fight.

 

If you’re rough, well that’s just you.

 

If you’re mean, that’s alright too.

 

Whatever you are is all okay.

 

I don’t like you anyway.

 

– Shel Silverstein                                               

[RedHeadAngel]

The modding scene has become so fucking depressing since Nexus announced they were making changes to adult content.

[Raven 54]

There's a new supermodel in town. She's striking, stylish... and not real.

In August's print edition of Vogue, a Guess advert features a flawless blonde model showing off a striped maxi dress and a floral playsuit from the brand's summer collection.

In small print in one corner, the ad reveals that she was created using AI.

While Vogue says the AI model was not an editorial decision, it is the first time an AI-generated person has featured in the magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/does-look-real-woman-ai-000432017.html

Spoiler

 

[Raven 54]

Inventory 

 

Four be the things I am wiser to know:

Idleness, sorrow, a friend, and a foe.

 

Four be the things I’d been better without:

Love, curiosity, freckles, and doubt.

 

Three be the things I shall never attain:

Envy, content, and sufficient champagne.

 

Three be the things I shall have till I die:

Laughter and hope and a sock in the eye.

 

– Dorothy Parker

[Guest]

> I can't tell you how relieved I was when I learned this lesson:

[Guest]

> My Ivy and I aren't angry with my Prince when he says, "How dumb women can be" during movie watching, because it is true. Almost all women in action, horror, drama, and thriller movies are dumb and annoying.

Edited July 28, 2025 by Evaloves4

[Darkpig]

26 minutes ago, Evaloves4 said:

> My Ivy and I aren't angry with my Prince when he says, "How dumb women can be" during movie watching, because it is true. Almost all women in action, horror, drama, and thriller movies are dumb and annoying. Sometimes I see myself and some other women I know the same, but never my Ivy. 

Maybe slap him a few times just to be sure. I will admit that Hollywood and movie studios in general kind of suck at writing female characters.

[Count Chocula]

Apparently it's a thing among folks in the age group we call Gen Z to answer their phone and wait for the caller to say something. If true, that's fuckin' bizarre.

 

EDIT: And rude. If it ever happens to me, I hope I have the presence of mind to also stay utterly silent just to see how long it takes for them to either speak first or hang up. They apparently do this even for scheduled phone interviews, thus sandbagging their chances of getting the job.

Edited July 30, 2025 by Count Chocula