I'm really entertained by the subtle difference between the Board and Card Game SE and RPG SE answers to the "What's the difference between a board game and an RPG" question.
What's the difference between a roleplaying game and a non-roleplaying tabletop game?
An RPG using miniatures looks (at a glance) a lot like a non-RP miniatures game. Some RPGs use cards, but they're not card games. Some games don't use boards or cards (like Pictionary), yet they're not RPGs. ...
Let's say you have a roleplaying game with these elements:
a board on the table, depicting the rooms of a castle
miniature pieces on the board, representing the different characters in the game
cards and dice used as randomizers
How is this not a board game?
(The question may sound antagonis...
@DuckTapeAl yeah, i don't like having the text show up either (at least in firefox it's in the lower left and not a tooltip), but i like having a big target that's going to be right there (because I'm reading it) rather than having to scroll up or down and hunt for a fairly small target above/below/beside the comic
time taken to click an icon is inversely proportional to its size, so a great big comic-sized button = very quick to click on
the best case though is always having a guarantee my mouse can just stay where it is on a Next button that's off the comic.
like i'm not comfortable being told "you can't rest your finger on your keyboard in case you press the button that interrupts your reading" but i'm fine with being unable to click my mouse
mainly because my fingers are resting there so I can scroll the comic! but if my ring finger gets just a little too heavy, the right arrow gets pressed and i get my reading interrupted.
@Magician As a software developer I agree with this assessment.
Dear Internet: there is a difference between Art Nouveau and Art Deco. I love them both, but please try to learn why my love for each of them is its own unique and special unicorn.
@BESW not sure whether it will reinforce or undermine the point of your meta answer, but a possibly-useful argumentative device would be the case where someone asks how to do X with class Y, and at the time there's limited ways to do that, then someone releases a sourcebook on doing X and suddenly there's too many ways. has anything like that happened?
not sure it has.
(because, y'know, if you want to do thing there's usually no convenient way)
It's basically a series of short stories, each featuring only a few characters. One is about a guy from Earth who comes to Babylon 5, and turns out to be possessed by a demon (whether it's a supernatural being or a noncorporeal alien is left open to interpretation). I won't spoiler the ending...
@Adeptus Ending: he just had schizophrenia all along, and Babylon 5 had reverted to a medieval understanding of the disease. Everyone feels bad, has a philosophical reflection and the episode ends.
(* not the actual ending, I haven't seen this at all)
could I get some proofreading on this board games.SE question? It's one of the "tell me why the publishers did it, and absolutely not just why you think they might have done it" questions, and we have experience with that stuff and I want to make sure I'm asking it effectively.
i am sure a cross-site proofreading request is very unusual
What does it mean when a user's name is greyed out on their question? Does it mean their account has been deleted? Looking at this question for reference.
@PurpleMonkey usually that means the user was deleted, or the question got migrated to a site they weren't on, but that doesn't seem to be what happened here!
there might be something like that floating about that *replaces your spell cast modifier for some spells?). But not much in the straight up +1 to attack/damage way
Look, @KRyan, I know. I know how stupid is the thing, believe me. Proof by contradiction might work. That other thing? I don't think it's enough. Was it me, you would have convinced me. Even because I already believe the game to play the way we all say.
its by Jon Schafer who was lead designer on civ 5 and gameplaywise it seems to focus on some on the part of that game I liked best, early game when you are exploring and discovering new resources and threats
@Zachiel I don't care if it's "not enough" for this idiot, that is how the English language works. The interpretation you posit isn't "lawyering," it's wrong
There are a great many questions about the 5th edition of D&D that were asked prior to the release of all of the core books. Some of those questions are now outdated, since additional detail is available in the DMG.
For better or worse, these outdated questions have accepted answers. As a result...
Bottom Line
A full attack is not something granted because you have multiple attacks, it is the required action to take advantage of them. You can always make a full-attack, even if you see no benefit for doing so.
A character with haste, by definition, has multiple attacks. Thus, they not only...
there we go
A rules statement that says "you can X" and he's arguing that it doesn't actually mean you can choose to do X
If one tells me "you can, sure, but you don't have a car", what should I tell him?
That it doesn't matter because, theoretically, I can?
The sentence we're arguing about is the same: In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. Provided you have the prerequisites. Prerequisites I don't think exist, but that guy I'm looking do disprove does.
or, rather, you are supplying extra information in the car example, because contextually you know that going by car has the requirement of having a car
so really, your statement is "you can go by feet or by car (if you have a car)"
you are inserting that condition there
there is no similar requirement for a full-round action
we know this because the rules never state that there is one
and this guy, with no proofs on his side and supposedly no proofs on our side, says that unless it's written somewhere that that condition isn't there, he's free to think things work his way, since they're coherent with the rules. Is this a stupid thing to do? Yes, it is. I'm not disputing it's stupid, I'm hoping there's something confuting the basics of his reasoning.
@Zachiel they do state that there is no other requirement
because they state what the requirements are
and don't state any others
@Zachiel what you are saying is that this moron wants a letter signed by Skip Williams telling him he is wrong. He wants this because he knows he'll never get it, which means he'll never have to admit he is wrong. He is absolutely adamant about not doing that, because he likes being right. And that is an idiot that isn't worth interacting with.
You know what? I'm gonna exit this conversation. As I already said, that guy conceded not to argue against us, I don't see why I should keep arguing to prove a point that's not mine
If the guy starts thinking things work his way and then looks at the rules, he finds nothing to definitely disprove them, but has a hard time arguing that things might not be meant to tell what they seem to do. Instead, starting from our PoW, nothing has to be twisted to conform to what we think we know. Which means we're very, very probably right (unless Skip Williams, of course)
as in, by definition. Because full-round actions are defined as one of the ways you can spend your turn, and full attack is defined as something you can do as a full-round action
if you have the ability to take any full-round action, you have the ability to take a full attack
why? because it's listed as an option for a full-round action
unless you can read in Skip William's mind, I don't think there's anything definitive. He might (reeeeeeally small change) even have botched the rules he wrote and been meaning something completely different instead. But yeah, save that, definitely
@Zachiel I'm AFB, so I don't know exactly how it reads in the PHB, but in the SRD you have “Full-Round Actions [some stuff about not using a full-round action at the same time as a move or standard action] Full Attack”
mmmh now, suppose you have something that activates when you take a swift action. Can you take a swift action for doing nothing, just to have that something activated? By our reasoning, it looks like we can...
and that's why I think the proof by contradiction would be great, because it would solve the problem the other way, by demonstrating that you can do multiple attacks in that full round action because of haste
Ah, if only a full attack was declared like it is in the Italian manual. "You can use a full attack to deal one or more attacks"
@KRyan I'm saying I learned the game before reading the rules, so most things I know are due to people telling them their interpretation, rather than being RAW.
I'm saying that I get to doubt what I know and I get "oh gosh it's possible I've always been wrong, better ask" whenever someone understands the rules differently than me
I think he read that sentence about "you need a full roound to make 2+ attacks", understood it completely wrong, grow convinced over time that those are the rules and now, when we told him that does not read as he thinks, he's on the defensive.
But again, it doesn't matter
(What I'm still not convinced is that, even if the rules were like that guy said, haste would create the condition for full attacking.)
I am planning on starting my Newest campaign for End of the world: Zombie Apocalypse before the outbreak has occurred. I am looking for advise on how to make the gameplay interesting, and realist.
For instance I can't have my PCs running around hoarding supplies and the like when the rest of...
@Zachiel true enough, obnoxiously, but there at least we can fall back on "things work like they do in reality unless otherwise noted," which we can't do here since people's real lives are not neatly divided into different sorts of actions
@Zachiel actually, going back to this, there's no issue with the way haste is worded when you can always take a full attack
@Zachiel But that situation doesn't really apply to your question does it? You are talking about when you don't want to move but make a full attack when only having a single bab attack.
@JoshuaAslanSmith I'm not sure it should be, honestly; I've been kind of turned off from worldbuilding because of the extremely wishy-washy questions and answers
I dont know if youve seen Sci-fi and fantasy in comparison where solid, easy to vote on Qs like book/movie identification are not allowed but rambling discussion style questions about say, why didn't aragorn use the army of the dead to defeat ALL of the forces of mordor
also, a lot of the bad rambling questions seem like fine questions but the answers should be "well, we don't know because they never said" but instead are "well, one could speculate that it could have been like this!"
but then, those answers are often more interesting
@KRyan True, its more a problem with the answers than the original question
Its just Ived had a very well sourced and reasoned argument of my own for that specific question get like no upvotes vs. someone who just talked out of their butt and made up a theory
I did a class on tolkien, have written papers about him, I have collections of essays on his various works in addition to reading a lot of his stuff and his own essays
but there are a number of answers where the answer that people want to be correct is upvoted, while my answer indicating what the rules actually say is not, because people don't like those rules
its a balancing act, Ive thought about if SE had weighted votes what that would mean, maybe if it was tied to both votes you'd earned within that tag and overall site rep
on the one had system experts could outweigh neophytes in terms of rewarding good answers and questions
but on the other hand its equally open to an abuse of power
I think of one of my first answers here; it argued that d7 was wrong (and he was, both by a strict reading of the rules and by an FAQ entry that explicitly addressed the situation specifically)
considering he had the second-highest rep on the site, while I was brand-new
I mean like, what if mxy, who while I disagree with often, I think has the sites best interest at heart, but not in my opinion 4e's could use his rep to influence 4e Qs and As
that could be catastrophic since his approach is very much counter to the widely accepted way to play and think about 4e's systems
(it still annoys me that he's the accepted answer on that question, since I know the querent accepted the answer because it looked authoritative, came from a high-rep user, and there wasn't, at the time, any one contradicting him)
(they presumably haven't looked at the question since)
> Winter storms are not named. The Weather Channel assigns names to winter storms as part of a social media marketing campaign. When you mention "Juno," you're participating in the proliferation of Big Weather. Think before you hashtag.
> The only acceptable names for this storm are "Blizzard of 2015, "Thanks Obama," and "UGH."
What's the difference between a roleplaying game and a non-roleplaying tabletop game?
An RPG using miniatures looks (at a glance) a lot like a non-RP miniatures game. Some RPGs use cards, but they're not card games. Some games don't use boards or cards (like Pictionary), yet they're not RPGs. ...
Bottom Line
A full attack is not something granted because you have multiple attacks, it is the required action to take advantage of them. You can always make a full-attack, even if you see no benefit for doing so.
A character with haste, by definition, has multiple attacks. Thus, they not only...
I am planning on starting my Newest campaign for End of the world: Zombie Apocalypse before the outbreak has occurred. I am looking for advise on how to make the gameplay interesting, and realist.
For instance I can't have my PCs running around hoarding supplies and the like when the rest of...
