TRPG General Chat

BESW

00:05

Just made a rudimentary tag wiki for hungarian.

(I'm searching for other real-world-language tags and possible tags.)

Adeptus

test

BESW

success

Adeptus

doge such-topic many-tags wow

doppelgreener

@BESW Oh, us and your group? :O

BESW

@doppelgreener Yesh.

doppelgreener

00:14

@BESW ha, apparently I already voted to close it on march 1st and it never added up to actual closure

BESW

Hmm. Flagging.

In other news, why did you just self-answer a Pathfinder question? Are you sneaking some d20 System behind our backs?

wax eagle

@BESW "you've already voted to close this question"

doppelgreener

Should I post this as a self-answered Q&A..? Are people actually regularly confused by this? — doppelgreener 43 mins ago

This is likely a discrepancy in 3.5 versus pathfinder. But clearly it is a question worth asking in the right campaign. — Brian Ballsun-Stanton ♦ 39 mins ago

@waxeagle flaaaaags

BESW

Ahah.

...so, I've found no question aside from that one Hungarian Q which needs language-specific tags, nor any which have used the languages tag for table-level language scenarios.

I have edited the languages wiki to say that questions about real-world languages should be tagged with the specific language in question.

doppelgreener

@BESW so we get to have a hungarian tag?

excellent \o/

BESW

00:29

@doppelgreener Yup!

The Oracle

0

Q: Just For Fun Request: How to Tame the Dragons

Because of the popularity and controversy of the "apex lifeform" question, I think it might be good to recreate the question as a community-inspired "just for fun" question. To that end, I'd like the community to help me come up with an unambiguous set of guidelines for what qualifies. Let me sta...

BESW

I hope someone who actually knows the language will enhance the tag.

doppelgreener

hrm.

languages tag wiki excerpt:

> Questions relating to setting-specific use of language in RPGs, or issues arising from translating games into other languages.

is this consistent with the guidance on asking about real languages?

BESW

Oh, I missed that bit.

doppelgreener

the hungarian question doesn't have a languages tag.

BESW

00:31

It's a modification to the policy based on newer meta discussion.

I just missed that bit of older guidance.

Since we haven't actually had the languages tag used for "issues arising from translating games into other languages," I see no problem making this change.

Changed!

doppelgreener

Hooray! Good work ;)

BESW

Thanks for catching that.

doppelgreener

... i appear to be pretty good at catching things like this

i keep doing it in my current work

BESW

...and updated my meta answer to reflect the action.

Adeptus

Nostalgia! I grabbed a couple of Android games this week - Steve Jackson's Sorcery!, and Joe Dever's Lone Wolf

doppelgreener

00:41

> I've given the hungarian tag a rudimentary wiki (someone who knows more should modify it!)

hungarian is home to amazingly beautiful words, though that's just subjective and not really relevant to the tag wiki :P

BESW

I've left Thunderforge a comment asking him to improve the wiki.

Dorian

GAAH!!!! I feel like I'm the only one in the group that doesn't have a way outside of facebook to contact the DM, and I"M THE ONE HE GIVES A PROJECT TO!

Seriously, waited around all bloody day monday (had a day off anyways) for him, and nothing. Hasn't even seen the messages I sent him on fb yet (which I sent him monday morning).

And he wants me done with this magic lance by sunday?! How am I going to do that between work and the fact that he won't answer my questions?!!?!?!

Sorry... needed to explode a little.

Was hoping Grubermensch or however his name is spelled was present too lol.

BESW

@Dorian [patpat]

Dorian

Thanks. I know it's not much but it sorta helps lol

BESW

Just give him Gáe Derg, a spear which destroys any magic its head touches.

Dorian

00:51

I can contact one other dude through txt and iirc he has the DM's number but yeah, not going to ask him for the number. Did ask him to shoot the guy a txt though.

As for Gáe Derg... I was given an exemption on the cost for the senses/ability scores/communication that it gets at a certain rank, but I only have 28k to work with to give it abilities.

BESW

Tell him it was made by Punpun.

Dorian

Pretty sure an ability like that would cost WAY over 28k.

It doesn't matter who it was made by though. Noone is making it, it's already made, I just assign a certain amount of abilities to it, determine where it's 17/17/10 stats are assigned to, and pick its personality and backstory up until some point in the last century when an important recurring NPC in the game found it and broke it trying to kill something.

BESW

yeah, I know. I'm just sayin', if the DM isn't gonna back you up on making the thing, give him something ridiculous.

28k...

D&D 3.5?

Dorian

yes.

level 8 wealth by level

Grubermensch

herro

Dorian

00:55

not counting the 9k for the perception/stats/communication it has.

Grubermens!

Scroll up. I had a minor explosion and I'd rather not repeat it. Though I was hoping to see you lol.

Grubermensch

I could yell at him for you.

Probably not an ideal solution.

Dorian

Probably not, but I honestly don't expect to see him again before Sunday.

If I had his number I'd respectfully request that he make an appearance on facebook or contact me whatever means is easiest for him at his earliest convenience... I realize everyone has a life outside of gaming but yeah...

Grubermensch

He's not very good at communication.

BESW

Take a standard build weapon like Sword of Life Stealing, make it a spear, drop some flat-rate (non-plus-valued) additions to make up the extra stats.

Hideaway Longspear of Life Stealing is... 27,705gp.

Dorian

@Grubermensch I've noticed. He's probably also a little annoyed with me since I do have a tendency to ask him lots of questions.

BESW

01:01

Then give it a Crystal of Least Return (300gp) so you can draw it as a free action.

Dorian

@BESW It's a Lance, not a Longspear. Also, I'm not being charged for the cost of the item itself, but any + valued additions would cost me out the ass since it already starts with a +3.

wax eagle

@BESW IIRC he is playing the lance at least until his character is unpetrified

Dorian

Also, it's Starmetal.

BESW

[bemused]

Dorian

Yes, I'm playing the lance. Though it can be a weapon used by someone else too.

It is afterall an intelligent weapon.

Also, if it was a spear I'd give it Changeling, but it's not a spear.

-_-

It's a bloody medium sized lance, so I'm praying I can find a way to change it into something else.

Preferably Light... but 1h would be satisfactory too. And I can't use Morphic, because it only converts to 2h weapons, and if it does that it won't retain any existing enchantments.

BESW

01:04

+5,000gp Sizing?

At-will swift action change weapon size category to any other size category.

Dorian

Sizing would incur a -2 penalty on me if I reduce it to Small (for the 1h) or -4 for Tiny (for the Light).

BESW

Then I'm not sure what you're looking for.

Dorian

What I'm looking for doesn't exist that's the problem.

At least from what I can tell.

Grubermens, any ideas?

One guy in my question suggested a story-based ability to change its form once per wielder

Adeptus

How does Scooby Doo and the gang have enough money to travel the world and solve mysteries for free?

BESW

Voting to close as dupe

Dorian

01:13

@Adeptus Aren't at least two of them rich? And one is a borderline genius? And the fourth is a stoner used to living off whatever he grabs (and probably "sharing" his "herbal supplements" with his "friends")

Sent this to my DM:
When you see this, I humbly request a means to contact you outside of Facebook, even if said means is only used to touch base and humbly request your presence on Facebook, particularly due to the nature of this project.

BESW

@Adeptus In... I think it's A Pup Named Scooby-Doo? ...it's shown that Daphne bankrolls them.

Dorian

@BESW that

Grubermensch

@Dorian I don't actually know anything about D&D 3.5, which is among the reasons I'm no longer in your group.

Adeptus

@Dorian Yeah, some of the other responses go into the "real" answers... that one's just funny

Dorian

@Grubermensch I meant as to what he might allow, not ruleset.

BESW

01:15

(BTW, I'm upvoting that question as well as voting to close as dupe; duplicate questions mean it's a good question.)

Dorian

@BESW how does one vote on that? I'd do so

BESW

@Dorian It's a 3k rep privilege. You'll get there!

Dorian

@BESW Ah, I thought that was something like you could close automatically lol. Not too worried either way.

Grubermensch

@Dorian My lack of system knowledge also renders me fairly unqualified to answer that.

Dorian

@Adeptus Didn't even click the link. I just read the link and answered lol

wax eagle

01:17

@Dorian you can get a start on learning the system by using your flags

flag -> is a duplicate -> post

or

flag -> should be closed for some other reason -> reason

Grubermensch

I will restate something I said earlier, which is that you shouldn't demote the lance back down to just a weapon that someone else uses once your regular character is back in.

Keep it as a character.

Dorian

@Grubermensch Not truly. If you have more experience with him you might understand what he's willing to work with. Or how to properly ask him about things that go against the rules (or are outside of the rules).

And I wholly intend to keep it as a character. Including to the point where if the party's goals get too far away from its goals I may just have it grow legs and walk away.

Literally.

BESW

Voting to close this old question as too broad.

Dorian

Are flags limited to so many per day or just 10 total until ???

BESW

Per day.

Dorian

01:21

Alrighty then.

wax eagle

@Dorian and you'll get more if you use them well

BESW

> When you start out, you are allotted 10 flags per day. This number may increase to up to 100 flags per day:
You get one bonus flag per 2000 reputation.
You are awarded additional bonus flags when you flag correctly - one bonus flag for every ten net helpful flags (helpful flags minus declined flags).

Help Center post on flags.

Dorian

Gotcha.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

@Dorian I cannot help but comment here. Psionic sammich :) It'll likely make the spear build easier, since all you need to do is build the psion haunting it.

::vanishes back into a meeting::

Dorian

I'll try to keep that in mind. I only recently was brave enough to downvote a rather short answer I saw on a question that barely helped at all and was far less useful than other answers (just was the oldest answer)

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

01:23

@Dorian oh, downvote early and often.

Dorian

@BrianBallsun-Stanton It's a lance. And it's already built. Problem is I get to assign powers to it.

Though he said I can give it class levels, I just don't know whether I can give it class levels NOW (he said it can gain them, didn't say if I can build it already having them or not)

BESW

@Dorian I was pretty timid about my sanctions early on, too.

Admittedly having rep coming out of my ears helps be a little more blasé about downvoting, but one upvote coming in counters five or ten downvotes going out, so the rep disincentive is really just psychological.

Also the first downvote I ever handed out came attached to someone telling me I had a bad case of "just didn't get it."

(It was an awful answer.)

Dorian

Sounds like one lol

BESW

I was asking how to mechancially model a permanently blinded PC in D&D 4e, and his answer was "just tell 'em they're blind and move on, and if you need a mechanic give them darkvision."

Dorian

Wow..........

Darkvision is sight...

An IMPROVEMENT on sight.

BESW

01:33

I thought the actual answer I finally got was brilliant, though.

Adeptus

Yes, good answer! And I just downvoted the jerk answer... and flagged his "just don't get it" comment as rude or offensive

Dorian

@Adeptus Friggen ninja. I got distracted by some smexy tail someone posted on another site >.>

Adeptus

@BESW That reminds me... In Dark Sun (AD&D2e) there was a Gladiator subtype/kit called "blindfighter". The fluff said they wore helmets without eyeholes, and that some were naturally blind. Their special abilities included ranged blindfighting.

2

I always thought that sounded like an interesting character to play

"Darkness spell? I didn't notice..." "Gaze weapon? That's nice..."

BESW

Blind characters in RPGs run a knife's edge between being unable to contribute to the game's typical milieu, or trivialising their blindness in ways which make me uncomfortable.

Grubermensch

01:49

0

Q: Is Forgotten Realms the default setting in 5e?

In D&D 3.x, the default setting was Greyhawk and the first few adventures were set in it (e.g. The Sunless Citadel, Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil). In D&D 4e, the default setting was Nentir Vale and the first few adventures were set in it (e.g. Keep on the Shadowfell, Pyramid of Shadows...

dnd-5e forgotten-realms

I do not get.

BESW

Working on a comment asking for clarification.

Grubermensch

Asker seems to define criteria for "default setting", then show that FR meets it for 5e.

doppelgreener

@BESW oh hey, and they're under 10k. time for a bounty!

BESW

Two things. First, didn't you just answer your own question? What are you asking us to put in our answers? Second, and more nitpicky but relevant: Nentir Vale is a small region in the default setting called "Points of Light," while "Greyhawk" is both a setting AND a city in that setting. That can be confusing re: what kind of answer you're looking for since your examples of previous settings are not explicitly settings. — BESW 9 secs ago

Voting to close as unclear.

doppelgreener

same

BESW

01:56

@doppelgreener Alas, Simon hasn't asked or answered anything for more than a year.

doppelgreener

@BESW then if he comes back he may have a nice surprise

BESW

...ahuh. So he wants us to quote the as-yet-unpublished core books for an answer.

Dorian

.............

wax eagle

Mearls has said probably upwards of 10 times that realms is the default setting...

BESW

@waxeagle Which would be a great answer if he hadn't shot himself in the foot with the question.

If he'd just asked "What is the D&D 5e default setting?"

wax eagle

02:10

yeah...I guess someone can answer on Friday....

BESW

Any particular reason you can't simply ask "What is the D&D 5e default setting?" without providing criteria for answers which make it as-yet-unanswerable? It seems like the previous edition context is more complicating than useful. — BESW 9 secs ago

Grubermensch

@BESW That's a little snippy.

BESW

Point.

Dorian

mrf... going to bed soon prolly. still no word from dm. tomorrow night i'll be busy. thursday night i'll prolly be shopping. friday will be the only night i'll get some serious work done, then saturday...then thing is due.

blah

well if i don't hear from him i'm going to resort to making the spear as hilariously useless as I possibly can.

now i'm calling it a spear!

lance.... give the lance unlimited castings of caster lv1 dancing lights, ghost sound, and similarly useless cantrips.

and see if there's any other useless abilities i can give it.

because a +3 intelligent starmetal lance is only useful if someone can use it or if it can stand by itself as a character.

BESW

Good luck.

Grubermensch

02:18

So I saw Guardians of the Galaxy earlier tonight and it made me want to play a future/supers type game so bad.

wax eagle

heh, I kind of want to play an all smuggler version of SW

Dorian

play BESM, restrict/eliminate magic and anything that can't be explained with ____ technology level

Wesley Obenshain

@BESW Like I had said previously, the point of the new question is to provide clear expectations of what a good answer is. In this case, I've defined what a dragon is, but not all dragons hoard treasure nor does it seem particularly relevant to the question. But that sort of disagreement is why I suggested putting edits in answers. That way we have a system to tell if the community thinks its a useful clarification or not. But I wouldn't include it on my own.

As for "mythological" it actually does have a clear definition.

Dorian

recent BESM games I've played in include one that was steampunk/wild west (think Wild Wild West) and one that was space navy (kinda similar to Banner/Crest of the stars imo)

Wesley Obenshain

What was unclear in the last question was what qualified as "classic fantasy" and what was "Western" and what "originating" meant.

BESW

02:21

They're firmly entrenched in the mythology of D&D, and inspired by older works--aberrations draw on the Cthulhu Mythos, which Lovecraft credits as drawing on ancient cultural myths of "cosmic fear." Beyond that, such things are part of our modern cultural mythos. At what point does a creature move from "intellectual property" to "popular culture" to "myth?" Is it time, or ubiquity, or something else which makes a thing mythical? That's why I'm suggesting you clarify your terms. — BESW 1 min ago

As for dragons, you've not explained the reasoning behind your definitions. My suggestion seemed like a reasonable addition based on your terms, but was dismissed out of hand because of something you assumed but didn't make explicit which underlies those terms. Thus I suggest you make your goals and assumptions more transparent so people don't misread it like I did. — BESW 42 secs ago

@WesleyObenshain Lots of dragons don't fly, or aren't serpentine--or even reptilian--or have breath weapons, either.

Wesley Obenshain

@BESW I agree.

That's why it's "3 or more" at the moment.

BESW

There are a lot of underlying assumptions which will trip you up if the question is published as-is, and I'm trying to help you root them out.

I'm not making suggestions about how to change it, because I don't understand enough yet about your goals to make useful edits.

Wesley Obenshain

Fair enough.

BESW

But instead I'm getting a lot of pushback that I need to "prove" my confusion is valid, so I'm inclined to just walk away.

Wesley Obenshain

@BESW The "pushback" as you call it is because you stated it was unclear. I don't see how that could possibly be unclear. The "Cthulu Mythos" is not actually a mythos. It's a fictional cosmology, sure. But it's origins aren't unknown.

BESW

02:26

@WesleyObenshain Ahah! Now we have a definition of myth: "stories of unknown origin."

Wesley Obenshain

Actually we already had a definition of myth: relating to, based on, or appearing in myths, which was my point: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
synonyms: folk tale, folk story, legend, tale, story, fable, saga, mythos, lore, folklore, mythology More
traditional stories or legends collectively.
"the heroes of Greek myth"
2.
a widely held but false belief or idea.

BESW

...which kinda drops out a lot of things which are traditionally considered mythical, doesn't it? Are we talking "unknown authorship?" because then anything going back far enough becomes mythical. Or something else unknown?

Wesley Obenshain

Neither D&D nor Cthulu are "traditional stories" let alone related to early history.

Which is why its relevant the authors are known.

BESW

Yeah, see, that's a definition which you only just specified now.

Wesley Obenshain

That's not my definition. That's the definition.

Which is what I'm getting at.

BESW

02:29

Umm.

Wesley Obenshain

I don't think anyone was confused by "mythology"

They were confused by "classic fantasy"

BESW

Except you've re-directed the definition away from "mythology" (which can include elements of D&D, see definition 3) to defining "myth" which doesn't show up in your question criteria at all.

Arguing from dictionary definitions is a non-starter when the terms in play can mean so many things.

Just talk a little bit more about what you actually want instead of expecting people to go look things up the dictionary and ferret out your intent.

Wesley Obenshain

@BESW except that they really, really can't.

BESW

This is where the "dragons hoard treasure" thing comes in.

I have no idea why you don't think that's relevant to your vision of the apex predator not being dragonlike.

This tells me there's something I'm not understanding which you could explain more clearly.

Wesley Obenshain

Which is fair enough.

The mythological thing, not so much.

mythological: relating to, based on, or appearing in myths or mythology.

BESW

02:32

@WesleyObenshain Circular.

Wesley Obenshain

mythology: a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.

Therefore mythological refers only to myths

Which is not circular

BESW

I saw a lot of problems about the scope of the question's context re: source material. I don't think it's a good idea to rely on one word to clear up that confusion.

Regardless of how clear that word is, we know half the readership will skim right past it and 1/4 of the rest will misinterpret it.

Wesley Obenshain

I understand that. But I disagree with you because the word is not ambiguous. It's like saying I shouldn't say "dog" because someone might think I mean "animal"

BESW

I'm just asking you to say more.

Wesley Obenshain

Okay. I will consider that.

BESW

02:35

Say more about what kind of creature you do want, and what kind of creature you don't.

More talk, less bullet points.

Bullet point criteria tend to attract unstated assumptions through unnecessary concision.

wax eagle

(bullets are for answers...)

Grubermensch

bullets are for guns

Wesley Obenshain

Unbullet-pointed criteria tend to get skipped over

BESW

And bulettes are for D&D.

@WesleyObenshain Then find a happy compromise and be wordy in your bullets.

wax eagle

@BESW was about to suggest this. Bullets don't have to be a single sentence

BESW

02:38

(Also: you haven't said anything about whether the apex predator needs to be intelligent.)

wax eagle

use them like sections if you want to keep them. Short statement, with 2-3 sentences of explanation.

Wesley Obenshain

No. I haven't. Therefore...

wax eagle

@WesleyObenshain (don't leave inferences like that up to the answerer)

Wesley Obenshain

...

wax eagle

that's part of defining your criteria well

if you're going to ask a listy, normally off topic question, you damn well better tightly define the criteria.

Wesley Obenshain

02:40

First; I didn't use the term apex predator anywhere in the meta question

Second; Why would an apex predator have to be intelligent and why would I have to define that it doesn't?

BESW

Would you rather I call it "top dog?" We need something to call it if we're talking about it.

Wesley Obenshain

That's the term I used. Or "dragon-killer" probably works.

BESW

@WesleyObenshain Because you're talking about dragons, and in the RPG context dragons are almost always intelligent so why would you assume the parallel won't get drawn?

As Eagle said, this needs tightly defined criteria to work, and that means limiting assumed implications.

Wesley Obenshain

@BESW I'm not assuming it won't, I just don't care if it does. If someone think that their unintelligent top-dog can beat the dragon they need to justify it.

But the same is true of an intelligent top-dog.

And I've been rather explicit on the need to justify the reasoning but if you think there's a way I can be more clear about it I'd be quite happy to listen.

Do you at least understand what I'm saying? Because it's hard to tell if I need to explain more or if we're just disagreeing. Which is probably why it sounds like "push back"

BESW

I'm not even sure what you're explaining anymore. It's kind of all over the place.

I'm honestly still hung up on a fundamental issue I've been trying to figure out how to ask.

Wesley Obenshain

02:46

Okay.

BESW

"What's a dragon?" If you need answers to explain how a proposed top dog will beat the dragon out of top spot in an environment, "dragon" is going to have to get more clearly defined.

Wesley Obenshain

Fair enough.

That's kind of why I'm defining a dragon.

doppelgreener

I'm gonna leave a meta answer about the dragon thing

Wesley Obenshain

Sure

BESW

Some dragons are sea serpents; others are peaceful serpent guardians or advisors; some have multiple heads and grow them back like hydras!

Some are magical and intelligent, others are just super-strong beasts.

Wesley Obenshain

02:49

I do understand what you're saying. Like I said, that's why i'm trying to define what we mean by dragon.

doppelgreener

Actually, @BESW, since you've had a lot to say on the matter already: would you mind compiling it into an answer?

wax eagle

you might want to read: blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/gorilla-vs-shark

BESW

@WesleyObenshain But I don't see that. I see you defining what dragon-like qualities you don't want to see in a top dog, which is a roundabout way to go and has very little to do with what dragon qualities the top dog must overcome.

Wesley Obenshain

The problem is that certain things are very dragon-y but aren't technically dragons in a mythological sense but still fit the mold. Other things are kind of dragon-y but aren't really dragons at all. So how do you include one but not the other.

doppelgreener

for the record, probably the best way of saying "not like a dragon" is just saying: "here, these are dragons, have some examples. don't post stuff that's obviously like these, or intended to be these." And leave it to people to be able to use their brains to determine: "Am I posting a dragon? Yes I am."

wax eagle

02:50

cuz um...this is almost literally that....

doppelgreener

Then someone is free to post Quetzacotl, who isn't a dragon, or a bat-thing with a breath weapon, which isn't a dragon but has claws and teeth and flies and has a breath weapon, and will not post stuff that is obviously a dragon but bypasses the technical criteria.

BESW

Also, I have serious reservations about making this a "who can beat up dragons" question rather than a worldbuilding "what can I put in place of dragons in my setting" question.

Wesley Obenshain

Well, that's kind of my point with abiguity. Personally I consider quetzacotl to be a dragon. I'm sure other people do to.

BESW

@waxeagle Yar. The original idea was a little less so.

wax eagle

@BESW yeah, the apex pred question has potential. It just needs to be more tightly defined

Wesley Obenshain

02:52

So if we don't provide clear criteria people are just going to apply their "best judgement" and we end up with the exact same problem.

wax eagle

(and ask for a comprehensive answer rather than a bunch of single species ones

doppelgreener

@WesleyObenshain Oh, right. Yes, he might be, I had FF8's Quetzacoatl in my mind.

^ definitely not a dragon

Wesley Obenshain

@doppelgreener Agreed.

@waxeagle See this move it from "just for fun" into an actual question which entirely defeats the point.

BESW

Quetzalcoatl has many forms.

Wesley Obenshain

@BESW Also true, but only one of those forms meets the criteria I specified and might be considered a dragon. So you can see why I went with criteria instead of "you know what a dragon is".

wax eagle

02:55

@WesleyObenshain just for fun, should not be in our vocabulary tbh

fun can be had within the rules...there really is no need to make exceptions

BESW

(Wikipedia mentions it as a being with a "dragon-like aspect" in the Big List Of Dragons but doesn't mention it on the Dragon page proper. I say Quetzcoatl isn't a dragon because he's a frikkin' GOD.)

wax eagle

I'd much, much, rather get a good within bounds question than purposely tailor one to be out of bounds and allowed

doppelgreener

@WesleyObenshain but 'dragon' is pretty ill-defined, other than a particular kind of serpenty thing which we'll know when we see it. it has specific traits, but a lot of other creatures share those traits.

Wesley Obenshain

@waxeagle That one's on you. You can always make a Meta post about killing the tag but the community has already decided it should exist and the rules by which they should be created (pre-approval in meta). Trying to provide a "right answer" isn't the same kind of fun as trying to provide a "good, creative answer"

doppelgreener

rather than "you know what a dragon is", we can say: "a dragon is this kind of thing: {list several examples}".

BESW

02:58

I think a Grootslang's more dragony than Quetzalcoatl, myself.

Wesley Obenshain

@doppelgreener I see that as the same problem, TBH...

doppelgreener

@WesleyObenshain nevertheless, list of dragon-y traits won't really do because there are dragons that don't fit and non-dragons that do

maybe just saying "this is what i mean by a dragon" won't do, but we do need better

Wesley Obenshain

@doppelgreener I'm not sure there are dragons that don't fit. I'm sure there are non-dragons that do fit, but in some sense wouldn't the fact that the fit make them dragon enough? I dunno... I'm trying to avoid confusion more than I'm trying to actually define "dragon".

If someone can help get me closer while still being unambiguous, I'm all for it.

BESW

@WesleyObenshain here's the problem, though; you have to define "dragon." For two reasons: first, because you want non-dragon answers; second, because you need to define the "dragon-shaped hole" in the setting that the answers need to fill.

Wesley Obenshain

@BESW Okay? I think that's what I've been saying...

BESW

03:02

So at the very least, we need to define what role dragons HAVE in a setting in order to get answers about how non-dragons can fill that role.

There's... honestly nothing about that.

"top of the metaphorical food chain," "superior to a dragon," "top dog," none of that defines the role clearly enough to be useful.

What's the food chain a metaphor for, at the very least?

Wesley Obenshain

@BESW Okay. That point I can see.

BESW

I'm working on a meta answer which will show how I'd try to frame the question within my own definitions and criteria, with a step-by-step walkthrough on how I arrive at it.

doppelgreener

The apex life form question was more or less: "super scary powerful creature nobody messed with who wields an awful lot of political and physical power."

BESW

Your new version says nothing about political power, for example.

Wesley Obenshain

@BESW True. I didn't necessarily want political power to be relevant. Political power is one way to be superior, but there are others.

Which is why I wanted to define a new question instead of just editing the old one.

BESW

03:05

And therein lies the problem, I think.

By being so vastly vague in defining the method in which a dragon dominates its environment, the question is unable to talk meaningfully about the creatures which might take a dragon's place.

Since that place is "any kind of powerful influence over other creatures."

Wesley Obenshain

Well, sure, but it's that kind of vagueness that allows for creativity.

BESW

My version is going to determine that only intelligent creatures can be truly dominant in a setting which assumes intelligent humanoids.

Wesley Obenshain

I would think.

BESW

(Otherwise we'll outthink the beasts, no matter how powerful the beasts are.)

doppelgreener

@WesleyObenshain and gorilla vs shark

in a different way though

Wesley Obenshain

03:08

@doppelgreener I swear this site really does hate fun. -_-

BESW

@WesleyObenshain Disagree. Vagueness begets open-ended speculation and vague answers. Narrow criteria forces creativity in order to work within those constraints. It's a pretty well established truism among creative communities.

doppelgreener

see the gorilla vs shark link waxeagle posted: we could argue over whether a gorilla or shark would win. but then we get into... in what situation? are they on land, or in the sea? does the gorilla have scuba equipment? does the shark get to use wheels or a jetpack to compensate for its lack of land movement? are there trees around, or is the land flat?

in this case, it'd be: okay, but does it have to be superior through influence over people? does it just have to be amazingly powerful, like a Lich? does it have to be a ravenous frightening predator?

we'd have a lot of answers that are good under radically different assumptions

BESW

We generally put forth the most creative effort when we can't just use whatever comes to our minds first.

doppelgreener

indeed, there's various authors and concept artists who will attest (and have attested) that more or less, creativity can be inversely proportional to freedom. the more limited you are in what you can produce, the more creative you suddenly get, whereas if you can do anything, creativity is difficult.

i've personally experienced that to be true frequently, in various mediums

Grubermensch

@WesleyObenshain If your definition of "fun" is open-ended noodling around with an idea (which is totally legitimate), it's not what this site is for. You don't drive a car across the ocean.

Wesley Obenshain

03:14

Anyway, to the point of all this - saying "this doesn't work" is not nearly as useful as actually offering alternatives so, as @doppelgreener suggested, I would actually appreciate it if you posted answers summarizing what you think needs changed and what it needs changed to.

Then we can actually debate which version is better rather than just what does and doesn't work about the current version.

BESW

Like I said, I'm working on one. But I started out by saying "here are places you should shore up by explaining yourself more." NEVER "that won't work."

Wesley Obenshain

@BESW True enough. I just happened to disagree with you on one of them (mythological) and I actually accepted your original point on the other.

wax eagle

@WesleyObenshain condensed my thoughts to a meta answer.

Wesley Obenshain

@waxeagle Thanks. I'll look.

@waxeagle Okay, not what I was thinking it was. I'm not really sure what you mean by "invitation to homebrew". It's certainly no more an "invitation to homebrew" than the original question... but y'know; you're entitled to your opinion and we'll have to see how the community feels about it.

wax eagle

"What is your best idea for of a species to take their place" and "Explain what unique combination of natural abilities makes this type of creature superior to a dragon." certianly seems like an invitation to develop new creatures

(also "single best" is a terrible answer format. comprehensive answers are preferred when possible)

Wesley Obenshain

03:33

@waxeagle Yes. I understand it to be an extension of your desire to eliminate the just-for-fun tag. I personally already think this site is too damn restrictive about pretty much everything so obviously I'm going to disagree with you on that. As for your specific objection to my word choice, if you don't cherry pick you'll also see that its supposed to be based on mythology. It's an invitation to list, sure. But that was kind of the whole point.

wax eagle

@WesleyObenshain oh I already lost that battle. The best I can hope for is to limit its use. SE sites are designed to be restrictive, it's a good thing. Sometimes it's annoying, but overall, it works for the better.

re: the homebrew discussion, my read is that you're asking folks to develop new monsters based on mythology, maybe I'm wrong...but how are we determining who wins here? Is it based on some kind of mechanics? math? abilities? who is the referee? can I bribe him?

(and when we get into those questions we're squarely in gorilla v shark territory)

BESW

I'd just like to put this here.

> Following a short-lived fad for pet dragons in the Year of the Withered Turnip, and the inevitable injuries and attendant property damage, dragon breeders set out to create a docile domestic lap-dragon. Unfortunately, reckless inbreeding for the desireable traits of placid temper and a diet other than raw meat resulted in low fertility, while failing to deliver the dragon-breeder's Holy Grail of a dwarf lap-dragon.
Extensive trapping of wild dragons to improve the strain led to the extinction of wild dragons by the Year of the Gibbering Chipmunk, while domestic dragons grew increasingly f…

There are a TON of settings where dragons are utterly incidental, or at least non-influential.

Jane Yolen has a series where dragons are bred for pit-fighting and for their meat.

(Also they're telepathic and their spit is a powerful healing salve; it is Jane Yolen, after all.)

Wesley Obenshain

04:05

@BESW Yeah, but those are usually settings where the dragon itself is fundamentally different. The point of the original question was more "so dragons are pretty badass, but my characters already beat a bunch of them; what I can use to be the dragon now that my dragons are kobolds?"

BESW

@WesleyObenshain Aye, but it means that criteria based on "everyone knows what dragons are like," or "dragons are widely accepted to be X," aren't going to fly well.

Wesley Obenshain

@BESW Agreed.

BESW

I'm putting together my experiment in redesigning the question here, erratically and very draftily.

Wesley Obenshain

@waxeagle You're not wrong but there's also a critical difference. We're not asking "which is better, a shark or a gorilla"; we're asking "What could beat a gorilla and why?" so answering stating the assumption that the conflict takes place in water and that each species is armed only with it's natural abilities (functionally simple tool use vs really sharp teeth and aquatic adaptations) the shark would win is actually pretty definitive because gorilla aren't known to use weapons.

Wesley Obenshain

04:53

I agree that its probably hard to come up with a good way to say "some modifications probably aren't difficult to get people to accept so those are okay" and not be ambiguous. On the other hand, I don't necessarily agree that effectively saying the opposite is the way to go. That's all.

But I don't really have a good alternative. So there's that.

BESW

All I'm saying is "Don't ignore the guidelines unless you can justify it making for a better answer." I'm not singling out intelligence as a particular sticking point, nor am I saying the guidelines must all be followed.

I don't see the problem you're trying to address.

I should be able to use any of the guidelines in that example.

It was very unclear that your problem was with the specific example rather than the general guideline-adherence policy, which is why I kept trying to get you to talk about the policy.

Wesley Obenshain

Okay... I accept that you found it unclear. I personally thought commenting on the specific example indicated that well enough but in this case it was clearly not effective.

Transcript for