TRPG General Chat

12:00 AM

Hrm. Because it occurs to me the answers might generally depend on the game itself - i.e. the company will tell you how to give them good feedback.

But there is definitely always going to be an element in common between playtests.

BESW

Yar.

I found this:

15

Q: How would you play test an RPG before all of its rules are complete?

I've been writing my own RPG, mainly to address some of the flaws / frustrations I've come across in other games. Luckily, I've found a few willing participants to help test the rules and mechanics in mini play tests, but this has lead to two problems: Some mechanics quickly appear broken - sho...

With some links to useful stuff.

The Oracle

12:13 AM

0

Q: Rename [nwod-god-machine] to [nwod-2e]

As we discussed in Lets get a clear consensus on the use of [nwod] vs [nwod-god-machine] Onyx Path has rebranded the God Machine Rules Update, to be a fully fledged second edition. Agreement seems to have been generally reach on the aforementioned thread that we should rename the tag. If it ne...

support feature-request tags

Oxinabox

Make It So.

BESW

By the way, @doppelgreener:

►

doppelgreener

@BESW aha yes I see, he reversed the polarity! Clever that, he must have seen us do it

The Oracle

12:37 AM

0

Q: Let's make the [new-gm] tag wiki useful

Since we're keeping new-gm, at least for now, we should fix up its (empty!) tag wiki. What should it say? Especially, what usage guidance should it include? So that it's immediately useful I've already given it a wiki roughly in-line with my understanding of the on/off-topic discussion about it...

discussion tags

BESW

1:28 AM

Hmm. Anybody here got experience with Cthulhutech?

wax eagle

@BESW @MadMAxJr mentioned it the other day I think. Though that may be less experience and more used to work in a game shop

BESW

On the one hand: It looks cool! On the other hand: That much underboob on the cover is usually not a good sign.

wax eagle

looks like the quick start rules are free

BESW

Yeah, downloading.

wax eagle

whoah nearly 50p of quick start?

BESW

1:37 AM

The Core book is something like 300 pages...

This thing is nigh-D&D-esque.

wax eagle

aye, I've now noticed :)

BESW

"Arcanotechnology" is so much less horrific than "arachnotechnology." [writes own campaign setting]

Page one introduction: typo.

Page two: punctuation error.

Interesting setting.

I like that they occasionally feel the need to stop and remind the reader "These are the good guys."

> Their holy warriors are those who have dared to join in union with something from beyond space and time. This union creates a person who can instantly shift into a monstrous form, capable of amazing feats, a creature of death. Again, they are the good guys.

Hmm. Fistfuls of d10s.

Lymia Aluysia

2:08 AM

@BESW Cthulhutech?

BESW

Cthulhutech.

Lymia Aluysia

2:43 AM

Typos and editor fails?

erk

BESW

Nothing really major yet, and it's the quickstart so I expect it had fewer passes by an editor.

Still, not a good sign.

Oxinabox

4:35 AM

Cthulhutech comes up when AdEva comes up in discussion.
People always tekk AdEva people "Why are you using a custom system, cthulutech would do it perfectly."
And the AdEva people are like "Cthulutech is a terrible system. For anything. Especially this."
Now considering I don't think AdEva is a great system (Well i didn't with AdEva 1.5-2.0 when this was still coming up in discussion), as it makes the already complicated rules for DH more complicated with its AT-Field stuff (on the other since then deathwatch used a similar, but less variable, mechanic for there delfector sheilds so ...*shr…

BESW

@jmort253 Hi!

@Oxinabox I'm unfamiliar with AdEva. [google]

jmort253

@BESW Hey

BESW

@Oxinabox Do you mean this?

@jmort253 What's up?

Oxinabox

Yup

jmort253

Not much.

Just checking out all the different chat themes to see what the color varieties look like.

BESW

4:41 AM

Fair enough. I'm fond of our chat theme; it's the best combination of utility and aesthetic I've seen thus far.

jmort253

It is pretty nice

Almost 3D in a way, with the background behind the chat body.

BESW

Which comes from the main site.

@doppelgreener, @trogdor In order to practice talking about my games for the playtest, and because it'll be two months before we return to it, I'm gonna try writing up last night's Doctor Who session.

doppelgreener

5:23 AM

@BESW Sure!

D'you want me to check over it or answer any questions?

BESW

Yeah, I'll drop in a link when I've got it more fleshed out.

trogdor

@BESW mk

Magician

5:42 AM

Morning

BESW

....eh, I'll let it slide. Hi.

Magician

It's a Sunday! I'm allowed to start off slow.

Do you remember that many-sided battle in Fate we spoke about? I GMed it this week, and it went splendidly.

For which a large part of the credit goes to the players. But I love that they can contribute.

Having thought about it for a while, I realised I couldn't come up with any meaningful stages for this scene, but still was sure it wasn't about knocking out all the opposition, either. Instead, it was about both a) taking control of the objective (ha, poor girl) and b) convincing the leaders of each side to give up, one way or another.

And so on the initiative track there was the party and the opposition leaders. Most of the time, the enemy forces were just "fighting" in the background. Crucially, they provided active opposition to whatever PCs were doing: each group effectively controlled a zone and fought anyone in it.

Opposition leaders spent their turns either creating advantages for their forces, engaging in mental conflict with the party or just ordering troops around to pursue individual targets.

And this worked really well. There was fighting and talking and making unwise promises and, most amusingly, the utter destruction on the career of the agent in charge of SENSE forces. Her major consequence ended up being gone off the reservation. So now she'll be dismissed from service, and no doubt will show up again with a huge grudge.

Verdict: Fate is awesome.

2

BESW

6:01 AM

@Magician Awesome.

user61230

Sounds like a wonderful session.

user61230

You note that a large part of the credit goes to the players, but as a GM of Fate, if you can give your players credit for the story, this means you're doing it right.

Magician

Destined to be a Super Villain really is a wonderful Trouble. "You've said before heroes need villains with a personal connection. Here's your chance. Here's a Fate point, make agent Catherine Silver fall as hard as you can." To which the PC called The Conductor, a mastermind with electromagnetic powers, responded by pulling the trigger on the Catherine Silver's rocket launcher.

As a rule, agents of SENSE are not supposed to fire rocket launchers at prominent superheroes, while being livestreamed to a rapidly growing audience.

@Emrakul I hope so :).

I see a huge difference between Fate and, say, 4e here. In 4e, I'd painstakingly create set-piece battles, and PCs would run their characters through them. We played different games. In Fate, we play the same game.

3

user61230

That is a beautifully succinct way of stating it.

BESW

Nice.

Last night I compelled Leela's I'm not a tesh-nician Trouble to actually use her mind-control radio instead of just pretending to be using it as intended. End result: the Doctor took 24 stabby stress to the chest from his own companion in the middle of a shoot-out with Autons.

Magician

6:14 AM

24 stress sounds like a bit of a lot.

BESW

It is.

user61230

Wait... wait, what deals 24 stabby stress? Someone have 10 spare FP lying around? xD

BESW

The Nestene Consciousness stacked three free invokes on Leela, gave all her actions in its interest +1 while in its zone, and Leela had a giant stack of Fate points from not a tesh-nician compels to get in the way of the party during earlier scenes.

She actually dealt 8 stress with one attack, and 16 with a second.

user61230

Oh gods that's horrifying

BESW

Oh, and she had a raw +5 to Forceful physical attacks because of a stunt.

In addition to a mild and a severe consequence (I mistrust Leela and Regeneration confusion) and marking off some stress, the Doctor took an extreme consequence (absorb 8 shifts of stress if you permanently re-write a character aspect) and will regenerate at the start of the next session--which means he's been passed to another player to run; that player will determine the new character aspect.

user61230

6:19 AM

Is it permanently re-write in FAE? I thought it was just add a new permanent aspect

BESW

I'm not sure FAE has extreme consequences, strictly speaking.

But it's a perfect conceit to represent regeneration.

I've always run FAE as "dials to be turned up as needed," anyway.

Lymia Aluysia

7:14 AM

24 stress?

Don't you only need 3 stress to be taken out of a conflict?

BESW

A baseline FAE character has three stress boxes, meaning a single 4-stress hit can take them out.

Lymia Aluysia

Oh, it's 3 boxes with different stress values Opps.

BESW

But then you've got consequences, which are lasting effects you take on to absorb stress in order to not be taken out.

IE, you can choose to get a bruised ego, a bad reputation, or a broken leg--something that'll be problematic in the future--in exchange for staying in the current fight.

Lymia Aluysia

I'm pretty sure 24 is enough to flat out fill every box on someone's sheet in one go.

BESW

Multiple stress boxes can't get filled in at once.

11

A: How many shifts are needed to take out a character with a single blow?

The other answers are addressing the context of the narrative and the general tone of Fate, and at the table they're probably more useful. But let's answer the question literally too: You need to inflict 24 shifts of harm in a single hit to take out the average unprepared "main" NPC. That's shi...

BESW

9:35 AM

Note to self: in the future, do not give NPCs stress.

BESW

10:06 AM

Dear Moffat: If Twelve must have a catchphrase, please make it "don't be lasagna."

3

trogdor

@BESW huh?

BESW

It's something he says in the most recent episode.

(Which is... not very well written, and has some major problems, but Capaldi is having SO MUCH FUN that I had fun too.)

trogdor

uh, I was talking about the stress thing

BESW

Oh, I see.

I don't like what stress on NPCs does to conflicts.

It drags things out and makes each attack less meaningful: stress is a buffer mechanism for maintaining the individual's status quo, and most NPCs don't need that kind of narrative buffer.

Basically they just drag things about without changing things.

If, instead, an NPC has to take consequences each time it's hit--that is dynamic and interesting.

Take the Consciousness (please!): when the Brig reversed the polarity on the console and started damaging the Consciousness, wouldn't it have been more interesting and dramatic to impose a consequence on the Consciousness instead of dealing it stress?

trogdor

yeah, I suppose so

but I also might not have had the chance to even use the aspect I made

BESW

10:21 AM

Oh, you would have.

trogdor

by the time I gave him my free invokes it had taken 3 hits already

BESW

Because I would've given the Consciousness more consequence slots instead of more stress.

trogdor

mk

that works too

BESW

That's the weird thing about attacks: they're the only action in Core which can result in an outcome of "nothing changes" (a failed hit that is not a stylish defence), and when they're successful their usual outcome is "nothing visible happens, but you have moved toward a visible outcome."

doppelgreener

@BESW yeah, there was also the point where Kameleon was at the console

I could have kept tearing out wires, but it would not have had any immediate impact... yet. It would take persevering until I'd taken out all the wires to be any good. But distracting and stopping Leela gave me opportunity to have some immediate palpable impact.

BESW

10:28 AM

Right.

If the console had been taking consequences instead of stress...

doppelgreener

(That said, that's not why I chose to save the Doctor - I thought it was urgent, and the console could wait.)

@BESW we could've given it a consequence like Blasting Static by me pulling out one of the critical cables, for instance, and someone could have invoked that for bringing Leela to a halt.

BESW

Yes.

(BTW, I never used any NPC Fate points in that session.)

I was sitting on six FP for bonuses to NPC rolls or increased target difficulties.

BESW

11:26 AM

Oh, man. Cthulhutech is worded so awkwardly.

After introducing the expertise mechanic and giving a brief overview: "Levels of expertise are better explained in the Character section."

Framewerk is an interesting mechanism, though.

It involves rolling a fistful of d10s against a target number, but before you roll you get to declare how to calculate the result of the roll: the highest number you roll, the sum of the highest set of multiples, or the sum of the longest straight.

[rummages around for a premade]

So let's say this guy with 9 dice in Stealth wants to go sneaking around, and the GM declares it's a difficulty of 8.

He rolls 9d10, but before he rolls he says if he's hoping at least one of the dice will be 8 or better; or if he's hoping that dice will roll multiples that add up to 8 or better (two 4s, maybe); or if he's hoping to get a string of numbers in a row (like 2-3-4) that add up to 8 or better.

I'll say... multiples.

9d10

Dice Service

8

4

8

9

2

10

5

4

3

BESW

I got two 8s and two 4s, so my highest multiple sum is 16. Win!

I would also have succeeded on "highest number" (10), and my largest straight is... 8-9-10, which would've given me a 27.

[looks at difficulty table] 8 is Easy; the table goes Easy (7-9), Average (10-14), Challenging (15-19), Hard (20-25), Incredibly Hard (26-31), and Legendary (32+). I could've done something on the light end of Incredibly Hard with that roll if I'd chosen straight.

Aaaand now they took all the fun out of it. Failure isn't fail-forward, and critical failure isn't complications, it's just wasting time.

And if you're not trained in the skill you're using, tests are nigh impossible to succeed at if you're allowed to try at all.

trogdor

11:45 AM

lol

Lymia Aluysia

12:18 PM

Uhm

How are you suppose to do Cthulhutech rolls /manually/?

BESW

@LymiaAluysia Not sure what you mean.

Lymia Aluysia

That dice roll seems way too complex to pull off repeatedly during a game.

@BESW wtf is the point of this step except to make rolling dice a pain

BESW

@LymiaAluysia It's actually quite clever.

Lymia Aluysia

I don't see the point, if so.

BESW

You can get much higher numbers with some of the options, but at the risk of not getting much at all.

So you can go with "safe, low numbers" or "risky, but with high potential."

Lymia Aluysia

12:30 PM

I see

Straights sounds like a huge pain to resolve after rolling, so. >.<

BESW

Easier than cribbage.

(And cribbage is a conversation game.)

Lymia Aluysia

I'll trust you on that. :P

BESW

If a group is interested in complexity--as many "traditional" style groups are--then complexity becomes part of the fun rather than an obstacle to it.

And RPG groups with that kind of mindset have a much higher tolerance for complexity than many other recreational groups, but games like poker are still popular with the non-nerds.

Zachiel

@Magician which is probably why I like 4e XD

BESW

Heh. I liked the 4e GM game, but too much work went into each hour of play, never to be used again.

"I spent how long designing the minions that lasted only one round? I mean, they did exactly what I wanted them to, but..."

Zachiel

12:54 PM

@BESW yeah, and that's why I play published adventures. I wish those who write them were more competent, yet I've been pleasantly surprised when, without even knowing I had to play some specific encounter, I read it from the book and it worked, even providing interesting tactical choices to the players. Including the three attacks in a row on the striker that brought him to 1hp and 10 ongoing damage and forced the whole team to work togheter to save him.

BESW

(Unfortunately?) I don't have the whatever-it-is which would let me run an as-is adventure, once I figured out that I could do at least as well.

I guess I'd rather wallow in my own failure than languish in someone else's mediocrity.

Zachiel

@BESW Probably, I suffer from enough inferiority complex to think I couldn't do at least as well. Not without the effort you talk about and maybe even more.

BESW

I didn't get into massive re-tools until I read Magician's blogs on the subject, but yeah--as soon as I figured out I wasn't running the first encounter wrong, it was really written with the kobolds hiding on the wrong side of the bushes, I felt like it would be hard to make the adventures worse.

Zachiel

Also, I have this problem where I need to discuss things with people before thinking I've done them right, and my attempt to open an encounter room here was met with indifference or fastidious overeagerness.

BESW

Yeeeah... I'm afraid it's difficult for me to immerse myself in the 4e mindset enough to be useful for that kind of thing.

Zachiel

1:04 PM

@BESW ah, yeah, those encounters. I obviously changed them. But I'm more the kind of guy that browses the internet for people who did that before me. And that's why I'm following the Orcus Conversion, already including Monster Vault statblocks, for H1-H3

BESW

Every time I try to go full 4e for someone these days, my brain starts wandering off and poking the fourth wall with sticks. "'Ey, what's all this mechanic stuff doing between us and the narrative?"

Zachiel

@BESW Don't get the impression I'm asking you. I perfectly understand people not willing to do boring things for themselves, let go for other people

@BESW While I'm more than happy to work with story after, as I think Ron Howards called it.

which is building a narrative based on the mechanical events that happened during play

Zachiel

1:44 PM

@Zachiel definitely not Ron Howards. I meant Ron Edwards.

Lord_Gareth

3:19 PM

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarkneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssss

Monika

4:45 PM

my question was put [on hold] any comments on that?

KRyan

4:59 PM

@Monika it's an opportunity to work with the community to shape the question so that it works better for our site paradigm, but I suspect your question is going to be very difficult to do that with

just because the information you're trying to get is information we're not really well-designed to offer

talking about it here, actually, may work better, since we're happy to just chat in Chat, and we could have a decent discussion about it

but the Q&A isn't for discussion and doesn't work well that way

Monika

well, I'm not looking for a discussion, but I am looking for opinion. I asked the same question at a history forum, but they told me: "there is no such thing as a 'standard soldier' (silly goose)". Since this is intended for gaming, I thought I try my luck here.

KRyan

@Monika yeah, and we do deal in informed opinion, but this seems just like personal preference

some people prefer that almost all attacks are lethal and starting a fight means someone is dying and very soon

Monika

Hmm, that's why I rephrased the question into 'realistic'.

KRyan

some people prefer long, drawn-out tactical minigames where every hit merely improves your position and advantage and you have to whittle them down

@Monika in my experience, almost no RPG combat system is particularly realistic, and huge abstractions in the form of rounds, grids, HP, and the like are very, very common

at the very least you have to indicate how abstract or not your combat system is

what does a "hit" mean in your system anyway?

in D&D it often doesn't mean that much, because of HP and magic and stuff

HP being a huge abstraction that doesn't even necessarily represent any one thing, and the loss thereof doesn't necessarily signify, say, bodily injury

Monika

I can see your point. That's why I tried to ask the question outside the its context in other rulers.

KRyan

5:08 PM

@Monika yes, but you didn't replace that with the context of your rules, which means we have no idea what a hit even means

Monika

Maybe I should update the question a 'hit' means that the weapon would cause a wound if the opponent would not wear any armor.

KRyan

@Monika that's useful info that you should have, yes

also, are you interested in like

real-time frequency (in hits/second), game-time frequency (hits/round), what?

does your system even make a distinction along those lines?

(I suppose it has to have some distinction, even if you play out each second individually, real-life has plenty of fractions-of-a-second events, particularly in combat)

Monika

I'm interested in the chance that a single attack (the single instance of an attacker swinging his weapon) would result in 'a hit'.

Basically, a hit happens when a) the attacker managers to overcome the 'to hit' number and the defender fails to score a higher success than the attacker had.

KRyan

@Monika I'm not a martial artist, but my understanding is that there is no answer to that question, because it's going to depend massively on armament, training, footing/environment, fatigue, priorities, goals, and so on

how often does a person get to swing?

Monika

That's why I provided the reference soldier taken from the 11th century (battle of Hastings basically). And since both soldiers are identical in every respect, I thought that people would be able to give an opinion on what would be a realistic chance of striking a hit.

for this question it is about a single attack/swing.

KRyan

5:14 PM

@Monika and that's closer to a history question than a gaming question, but the historians have already told you that there just is no answer to that

like, I could probably offer some meaningful statements about game design and what kinds of answers enable different play styles

but I'm not familiar with real-life historical combat and that's not really what this site's about

Monika

well, they told me there is no standard soldier. The discussion then spinned off in what standard equipment was, how good they where with the axe and how effectively an axe could be wielded vs a sword or even a sword wielding person riding a horse (in the midst of, well, you get the point I guess).

basically they refused to abstract into 'identical' for the purpose of a game

KRyan

@Monika well, you might have more luck with History SE for keeping on target, though I don't know that they'll find the question any more answer-able than we will

Monika

I rephrased the question into 'realistic' because it offers more handholds than 'your preference here'. Yet, it is all about is it easier to defend or attack; if a soldier makes 10 attacks (against his identical twin), how many times would he get past his opponent's defences.

KRyan

@Monika I understand the question, but it's just not a question I think anyone is equipped to answer

Monika

Ideally I would line up 100 soldiers and count results, but some may find that unethical if not impractical.

KRyan

5:20 PM

real life has way too many variables to give a straight answer, and gameplay has too many considerations not mentioned to give a single definitive answer that is anything but personal preference

Monika

I think the problem seems to be that the stackexchange rules do not allow for opinion + argumentation answers.

KRyan

@Monika it also wouldn't, I think, be particularly representative of... much of anything?

@Monika I don't think any set of rules can make this into something that can be solidly answered

but yes, the format is also limiting here

because answers should be self-contained and not go back and forth

Monika

I would love to share the whole system and ask for feedback within the context of the rules... but, I can't due to copyright / non-disclose agreements.

KRyan

@Monika and, also, SE's not really a great place for that, either, heh

which is a shame, because I have a fair amount of stuff that I'd like to get this community's feedback on, but it's just not the place for it

Monika

SE's is limited by the idea of an ideal one-size-fits-most structure of its creators. It works very well for stackexchange, but less so on topics like games of make believe.

KRyan

5:30 PM

@Monika it's not intended to be the end-all, be-all for it, though

it's geared to doing one specific thing well

which it does

that specific thing just isn't what you're looking for

we have a lot of questions by people for whom it was what they were looking for

Monika

Oh, I agree that it does the 'one answer is correct' part very well.

Yet, I think the bubble up format can work very well for opinion based questions .

Opinion based question within forums work, but the best / most relevant answers get buried within the long tail of answer (hidden across several pages usually)

wax eagle

@Monika a lot of times, decisions like you're asking about in your question are determined a lot less by reality, and a lot more by the intent of the setting. "How lethal do you want it to be", "how pingy do you want it to be" etc. So if you asked "What's a good hit chance for a high lethality system where each hit is likely to to do half of your HP in damage" That might be more answerable. But right now there are too many unknowns there for there to be a real answer.

(but as you guys have discussed, asking good game design questions here is hard)

in a lot of ways the expectations of the designers and players has a lot more to do with what should be designed than our feedback based on what is described

Monika

based on this chat, is there any way the question could be rephrased so that it would have a chance of being a valid question (within the format of SE) and attract reasonable answers?

KRyan

5:46 PM

@Monika depends; is this question still about some hypothetical altercation between a historical figure (who is nominally "normal") and his clone, or is it a game-design question about how to achieve the intended gameplay for the setting and style?

Zachiel

5:56 PM

Ha, I was just going to propose this as the resolution method. But 100 is not statistically relevant. You need way more.
There's another thing to consider tho'. Say the statistical chances of hitting someone aware of the attack with an axe in standard predefined conditions are, let's say, 65%. Is it really good for your game to have a 65% chance in that place? Will it lead to long, boring combats? Will focusing on the physical world mean the players will all become optimization machines trying to find the best weapon ever? (what waxeagle said, now that I scroll down)

and I'm sorry not to be able to continue exploring this discussion right now but I got called for dinner.

Monika

@KRyan, the question is, in essence, about game design. The 'historical' 11th soldier is about giving some context, yet he lived in the real world's history and this question is about designing a fantasy game world.

KRyan

6:16 PM

@Monika a game design question is only workable if it includes a lot of information on what the goals of the design are

Zachiel

6:47 PM

On a side track, @Monika. What is your (or your team's) experience with RPG systems? I mean, it looks pretty obvious to me that you're going for some very classic and D&D-ish way of managing combat.
If that's your intention I suggest you to look at how D&D and similar systems did things (but possibly do it with the help of KRyan, Lord_Gareth, BESW, Magician, me or some other player who is disillusioned with the system and is therefore able to point you the problems of D&D's math so you won't fall in the same traps.

Monika

@Zachiel, while it is a classic sword & sorcery setting, the game system is drastically different.

Zachiel

7:10 PM

If BESW was awake I'd let him tell you how he said a friend that FATE was completely different from D&D and the reaction was "Oh, you mean like Pathfinder?".
But he isn't there so I'm gonna slightly change my question, just to see if we're giving "similar systems" the same meaning.
Does the system still include hitting, dealing damage, hit points? Is the combat still a matter of doing actions, aiming to reducing those HP to zero?

user61230

10:09 PM

Fiasco is an insane game

Zachiel

@Emrakul define insane

user61230

Just... designed to create chaos

user61230

and it very much succeds

Monika

@Zachiel, if you phrase the question like that, then yes, at least partly. The combat includes hitting and dealing damage. Instead of hit-points there is a non-linear wound system.

Zachiel

10:35 PM

Non linear wound systems are good

BESW

11:02 PM

@Monika If it's about game design, then it can't be purely framed in terms of realism because game systems are built on abstractions and abstractions are leaky. This means that any discussion about realism in game mechanics must first be about where that particular game is okay with having leaks.

But it looks like you want actual historical combat data on which you will independently design your abstract system; that's a good place to start for your game design if realism is important to you, but it's not actually an RPG question yet.

(There's a great deal of debate in various scholarly circles about exactly how such battles would have played out: the physical imposition of various types of armour in battle is non-trivial to determine hundreds of years after the fact because we don't know their training and fighting styles, and things like how archers held their arrows are still being rediscovered.)

doppelgreener

11:42 PM

:'3 a programmers question in hot network questions has an accepted answer that is completely incorrect

user61230

@doppelgreener This one?

doppelgreener

@Emrakul yes

those are standards organisations but they're not standards

unless my entire life has been a lie

BESW

@doppelgreener [patpat]

@Hjulle Hi!