Too much fluff, not enough focus on specific mechanics

@Mala er... then I'm afraid, mate, that you're not looking at the right system.

@Mala Why did you ask the Web this, what problem are you solving?

It's like asking why does a hammer not screw bolts in well.

@mxyzplk "Why is this innovative?" has almost nothing to do with D&D. I mean, it's 90% an Apocalypse World question. Then you bring in Dungeon World to address overlap between this approach and OSR.

D&D experience includes tactics, DW includes D&D experience, so....

Alex had a nice quote on this

@Mala You can have tactics in fiction-first play. They're not minis-on-a-grid tactics, in this case. But totally tactics.

also in chat here

@AlexP Appreciate the input but disagree, and splitting those two out is making a mountain (or at least, multiple annoying questions) out of a molehill. I'd rather Mala get a solution to his real problem than a set of "pure questions a bunch of people wanted him to ask."

@Mala are you familiar with the idea of Modus Ponens?

You're suggesting that A implies B, A, therefore B.

So can we get back to what to do with these questions, not interested in AW discussion

@mxyzplk Agreed.

It was not my quote

Mala, why are you asking this?

Do you want to play DW?

@Mala what do you want, what problem are you trying to solve that's driving a question ask

I wil play DW anyway

Do you want to have better arguments of the merits of DW v. all D&D ever?

I want to know.

@Mala that is insufficient for our site. We work best when trying to answer real questions

Yeah. Know what?

The problem I am trying to solve is that after reading DW and lots of discussions, this question is still open.

'real question'

Thanks.

you have several questions with multiple confusing parts. how about you type in right now what your real question is.

Have fun with the hate-on Brian :(

@Mala You mean "I read this text and I don't understand the thing people say I'm supposed to learn by reading it?"

@Mala This is what he means: "You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page."

Look man you have two mods here trying to help you. Get to the point or we're off to other pastures.

What is it you are really trying to ask, does your first question not ask that, and does your second really?

okay...

@Mala OK, lacking further input, I think the first question is the same as the second question. I understand some folks don't want the specific examples in there for some reason; I disagree. You're welcome to edit the existing question some if you'd like, but I am still not sure of the value thereof. Sure, some of the answers seem off topic to you but that's because they are trying to get you to see the different paradigm of AW, and that's fine

@mxyzplk I completely agree.

Move we delete second question, leave first one open, and chat tribe - please reconsider dragging every noob in here and jacking their questions around in a way that may not improve them and definitely may frustrate them.

@mxyzplk Deleting now.

@BrianBallsun-Stanton Thanky sir.

@mxyzplk I do think we did our best to try finding out what he actually wanted to know, and to NOT tell him what he was supposed to be asking.

To amplify @mxyzplk's comment: we're about practical solutions to actual problems. The further away we get from that, the worse things function. Always try to strike at that root.

Much of this seems to be an apples-to-oranges problem asking "why can't oranges be used to make apple juice"

yoz

wow this is still ongoing

I understand you're doing it out of a sense of benificence. But in the mods' opinion chat currently is a negative influence on the site. It bypasses the actual voting and comments and more voting in favor of standard forum practice of "the people with too much time on their hands frame the discussion by shoveling words at people." Basically.

oh, and since I'm here.

If someone's question is closed, that's one thing. But noobs don't know who's who and continually saying "oh come in chat so we can tell you the right way to do things" is not working as we'd like.

@kryan You should know better. Enough with the arguing in comments.

@mxyzplk I think this question was closed. Wasn't it?

@AlexP and then it was reopened by popular acclaim.

Cheers.

It's not just this question. This is just an example of where it goes toxic and confuses/drives off a new site user. Please consider leaving constructive change comments on the questions for voting and actual public discussion. In the rare case someone is super unclear on the topic and needs walkthrough that's one thing, but I think we've gotten a bit meddly to be honest.

The OP was clearly expressing the concern that the answers weren't addressing the question he was trying to ask.

Re-asking the 80% the same question is never the solution to that.

@BESW I think Mx is referring to the conversation about whether the question is well-formed or not in the comments. Which was full of de-facto answers (and, in fact, became d7's pretty good answer).

@mxyzplk Yeah, that was the frustrated result of 3+ hours of failing to communicate. [wry]

And yes, there was a point where chatizens got super-excited about inviting people to do main-site activities in chat, but is it really still a chronic problem?

Yes well you need to think about the unintended side effects of "helping" users in this way. This guy feels like he was jacked around for three hours, people that must know what's up argued with him for three hours and told him to do stuff, and then the mods blocked him. Not the happy welcome to the site experience.

Apparently.

Understood. I'm not saying this was handled really well.

But from what I've seen, I think the current chronicness of the issue is a little overstated.

@mxyzplk You're talking about a user with 3k rep an 54 answers on the site, in this case.

If y'all know what he's asking, go answer his damn question in his question. Right?

@AlexP Yeah I'm sure that makes him happier about this. Anyway, I'm out.

Alright... what just happened?

@shatterspike1 Long-ass discussion about this question.

I don't get it. Looks like a fairly decent question with some pretty good answers.

@shatterspike1 The OP didn't feel the answers were actually addressing his concern, and accepted one because he wanted to reward the effort, not because it solved his problem.

Oh. I'm guessing he didn't consider the examples listed good enough to be the thing that makes Dungeon World fit his definition of innovative.

Can we vow never to say "chat tribe" and "chatizen" again? They are... kinda horrible.

@shatterspike1 Going back through the log (I was only kinda half-here for the thing), the biggest gap between the OP's thoughts and the question answers is the tactical aspects of D&D3.5/PF/D&D4.

@AlexP Hmm... It seems like asking "How is an apple more innovative than an orange", in this case, with plenty of room for misunderstanding for everyone.

@shatterspike1 Yeah.

Though, okay, the apple is more innovative than the orange because the orange is based on an older theory of what the rules of a game are supposed to do.

@AlexP Yeah, exactly.

And the answers are answering the question "Why are apples innovative"

I'd actually love an AW discussion not about the question.

I'm actually looking at reading through the rules for it

although maybe I should finish reading Burning Wheel up first

I have mixed feelings about the approach.

On the one hand, I think it's a cool step forward from stake-setting-type games for the reasons I mentioned in my answer a bit.

The way that the game establishes cool stakes instead of making you do it is cool.

But on the other hand I'm really attached to, like, having two swordfights for different stakes.

I'd love to discuss *W, but not today. Have to prep for the game! Panic-panic-panic.

I like the flexibility of "What are good consequences right now?"

Why not play it that way? (I'm working from the assumption this is a book written like Burning Wheel in that it doesn't explain itself so much)

(Truth be told, maybe I'm being a bit cowardly and actually what I like is tightening the screws when the protagonist is riding high but then relaxing them when things are already not going your way?)

@shatterspike1 I mean, you can make "custom moves" on the fly.

It's a different paradigm from happy-time indie stake-setting, though.

In other ways, BW and AW I think might be best friends.

The "fictional positioning" conversation going around everywhere is inspiring me to look at how I establish stuff in the fiction more carefully. And to really embrace that kind of step-by-step "This happens, then this happens, then this happens, therefore now this ought to happen" as, like, the central process of play.

Trying to accomplish things by making them feel right in the fiction, I guess?

@AlexP I dunno, it always seems like the brightest moments are when a campaign goes flying off the rails in some weird, beautiful... thing

@shatterspike1 That's what I'm talking about, though. You start the ball rolling and then it snowballs. But it's, like, natural. I came to confront him. I'm angry. I have a thing on my character sheet that says "Always keep a knife on you." OH CRAP HE IS DEAD!

I'm learning to play up that progression more in play. Rather than cut quicker to what the core conflict might be. And the benefit is that sometimes you discover the core conflict isn't.

I guess like think about a BW linked test but without necessarily rolling each step.

I don't have the clearest words for this right now.

Hmm... weirdly enough, (am I guessing this right?) it seems like this process is all about enforcing the whole rising action-climax-falling action and story expectations.

Like everything is made to go smoothly, as expected from a story.

Am I in the ballpark here?

I'm thinking on a smaller scale here. Like the way we establish that I have an advantage to a roll in BW is because I previously narrated doing a thing that earns it.

@AlexP Ok, then I'm a bit lost.

Lemme start over.

So, before AW and the game-design conversation about it...

I played BW like some of the Forge-y stake-setting systems I'd seen before it.

So, I say I want to do a thing. That's the conflict. We narrate, roll, narrate. Stuff happens.

Now I think AW is making me look at BW's resolution a bit different. Because AW is like, "When this happens in the story, the mechanics come out, and then this happens next."

So I pay more attention to the antecedents of my character's actions. I want to do X so I put myself in that situation.

It's the same mechanically, intent-and-task.

Not necessarily rolling more, either.

But I'm focusing on making task "make sense" more, I think. I can do this because here's what's happening. So that's why this task is on the table.

Whereas before my/our temptation was "Is this task BS? If not, let's just go with it."

@AlexP "Say yes or roll dice? (Or say no if they try to shoot down the sun)"

Which one a few occasions led to confusing/anticlimactic "Okay, wait, how did that just happen?"

@shatterspike1 Like, this sequence of events speaks to me. A lot of little "yeses" that build towards "Okay, now here's the big thing that is happening!" Instead of just saying "I will do the ritual thanks to X, Y, Z."

I think that's kind of the spirit of Apocalypse World. Narrate being able to hit someone on the head and then we'll roll for hitting them on the head.

Or, okay, like this: my old approach is "I want to poison this guy. Can we make that a Stealth conflict? If I win, I get to poison him?"

My new approach is more like "I want to poison this guy. If I Stealth into the kitchen, can we Say Yes to the follow-on task of poisoning his food?"

@AlexP That makes sense to me, approaching it like that.

Yeah, so I'm learning to do that more, and I think my BW play is better as a result.

In a completely unrelated question about BW, what's the point of making the player take the first trait on a lifepath?

It's not a big change but things seem to click better. I think that's kinda the intent of Intent and Task.

@shatterspike1 Hmm. In most cases, it's another version of "This is what this teaches you."

Consider a trait like Sea Legs or Tonsured, at least.

Peddler has "Blank Stare" as their required trait, though, is what I'm thinking of specifically

Yeah.

My advice is to try it and vote it off in the first trait cycle if it doesn't fit.

Some of them are also kinda "mini-reputations." You may not be a Thug or a Rabble Rouser but everyone thinks you are.

@AlexP If it doesn't fit, why would it be on the sheet in the first place though? I mean, if it does fit, by all means put it on the sheet, but if it doesn't, why not just remove a trait point and leave the spot blank?

Or hold a trait-vote session before the first game session

@shatterspike1 Well, the design of the LP system is to make you take stuff you didn't necessarily want.

Consider the humility traits for sorcerers.

@mxyzplk when you and Brian arrived in here to ask him what he was trying to ask, or what problem he was trying to solve, you didn't get a straightforward or decisive answer at all

That is what's required to complete your apprenticeship, whether you like it or not.

for the 3 hours others were chatting with him in here, I think they had the same experience

@AlexP Ah, alright. I have to ask these questions here since BW doesn't tend to explain itself so much.

when I was here that was also my experience

so, the entire thing was kind of broken down.

@shatterspike1 So, I think some LPs do this better than others. I find it useful to consider a classic example of when it does work (for certain definitions, including mine):

How do I make a badass assassin in Burning Wheel?

You play him until he becomes one. It's like a koan.

Sure. And also... in D&D I could make a character who was raised from birth to be a cool assassin. Ditto in Fate.

In Burning Wheel, my closest lifepath is... Desperate Killer?

Maybe some of the Death Cult stuff if you use that. Though then you're going through being a lousy Cultist or a slave or whatever to get there.

Also, may be helpful: I think there are 2-3 Peddler lifepaths in different settings. Peasant and Village, for instance. Different on purpose. It can be useful to focus on one if you like it more than another.

Alright... so why does the lifepath system force us to take things we don't necessarily want, outside of an attempt to reproduce life in a fantasy feudal society?

Well, it's trying to discourage characters that are "complete," like you said.

Hmm...

I feel like BW as written isn't a system meant for the likes of fiddly me

Well, depends how you fiddle.

It's good for my fiddling.

I will confess that I'm not likely to make a beekeeper with it or whatever.

(That's probably more for Mouse Guard, where bees, if anything, are likely to be overpowered.)

Well, let's say I want a guy who was born in Town, Became an Apprentice, broke some laws and became a Rogue Wizard, and then joined a Group of Bandits

An apprentice like a wizard or an apprentice like a blacksmith?

I'm not sure that guy should have the trait "Extremely Respectful of One's Betters"

(Wizard's Apprentice)

ah

So, one way of looking at it is that it's something you've learned to do, even if it's not your first impulse.

Alright, it's a skill. Ok.

Whether you liked it or not.

Ok, that's a good way of looking at it.

I'd encourage you to keep it and see where it goes. And you'll lose it quickly enough if the answer is nowhere.

Consider, like, a Village Guard with Thug as a character trait.

Hmm... now I'm wondering why none of this was explained in the book

would have saved a lot of trouble

@shatterspike1 I think the only system I've ever found where I didn't feel that way at least once was RFS.

Maybe you're really a nice guy. But you know how to not be. It comes with the job. Maybe you even struggle with that a bit, the times you've roughed up a neighbor who broke the rules too much.

@BESW RFS?

@shatterspike1 Roll for Shoes

@AlexP Alright. Or you even picked up how to act Thuggish from the rest of the Guards.

Yeah.

The first two trait votes are a big deal, in my experience.

@BESW Ah. I don't think I've ever felt it quite as strongly as I have with BW, and for some of the systems I have felt it with (Anima: Beyond Fantasy, for one), I can clearly spot how to improve it and how it's a hearkening back to some older game.

The first one tends to winnow traits that just don't fit and you don't have much to do with. The second one tends to be when picking up traits in play really clicks.

@AlexP I also think it might be helpful to have been explained as "backstory for people who like to develop their characters in play, unneccessary for people who have a pretty good idea of where they're headed"

@shatterspike1 But where you're headed starts with where you are. That's what the LPs are about.

Also, very important lifepath trick to know:

An example knight: Born Noble -> Page -> Squire -> Knight.

But!

A young knight: Born Noble -> Page -> Squire.

You have just been knighted. Just now. Take a trait or buy gear that fits or whatever. Boom.

See, the lifepath thing makes sense, my problem is solely with the ill-fitting character traits, which you have helpfully explained to me

Some of them you might want to change. Especially if it's for your own settings. I think I've done that all of once so far.

@BESW I don't think I've felt that way with a lot of the systems Stolze helped write, mostly because so much of the text in them is advice or setting.

And twice with skills. My wife was annoyed that Young Lady was missing something obvious.

@shatterspike1 I dunno, I still can't really make sense of how you're supposed to handle where people are in battle with Reign. The best I can do is try to retrofit Fate/SotC or Riddle of Steel/BW approaches on top of it.

I have a love/hate relationship with systems that give advice.

On the one hand, communicating clear experience goals is crucial.

On the other hand, so much RPG advice doesn't do that at all.

I think it's very hard to encode, like, all the details of why things work the way they do.

Without making it hard to focus on just using the things that have been designed.

D&D's GM advice frequently reaches the point where I'd rather have to figure it out on my own than wade through the muck of bad ideas to get the bits that are worthwhile.

That's why I like forums, blogs, &c. for that kind of thing. Not play advice per se but, like, the extras above and beyond play advice.

"Why does this work this way?"

Though good mechanics should at least make you understand what the point is on some instinctive level, maybe.

@BESW I still have passionate hatred for "Deep-Immersion Storytelling" in the 3.5 DMG. Talk to shopkeepers! Never roll dice! Sophisticated storyteller is you!

Sigh.

Last thoughts before I head out: Most games also aren't given the whole apprehension to houseruling that a game like BW does, which I think is the primary source of my issues with it, which is what makes its lack of advice doubly annoying for someone who loves to houserule games without fear

anyway, I'm out. Night.

[amused]

@shatterspike1 What's funny is you can houserule and hack the heck out of it if you know what parts are hackable and which parts aren't.

That takes some learning.

Ursula Vernon understands that 3 tweets is the correct size for starting a conversation.

That witch/warlock question has me thinking about in-game vs metagame terminology again.

In D&D 3.5, the name of a mechanic and what it is called in-game may or may not be separated; the rules wobble about which is expected. In 4e, it's clear that the name of a mechanic is pure table-level convention and doesn't have anything to do with its in-game description.

In DitV and Fate, the name of a thing often actually is its mechanic, and may be referred to as such in the game world.

There's a game dev thought about this which isn't quite formulating coherently, about your choice of how to relate meta terms within-game nomenclature and what it means from a design perspective, what effect it has on the game.

I make new traits in Burning Wheel by taking mechanics from existing ones. It's definitely the "new" names on my character sheet (with a reference to the "original" name if it's a mechanically big thing I'll just look up in the book).

I really don't like when the mechanics aren't just directly following from the fiction, these days.

@BESW me too :)

@BESW one of the answers mentions "what will you say if you're in a zone of truth and someone asks what your class is?" and I wondered whether people in the world would even know what a class is. It's an out-of-game concept, but is it also an in-world one?

@JonathanHobbs I rejoice in never having to think about a question like this ever again.

@JonathanHobbs In most games, "rogue" means something a lot more specific than it means in the real world.

Of course, in many games it's also synonymous with "rouge."

"Unruly vagrant."

"Rogue" in the world of D&D implies a skill set not associated with real-life rogues.

"Rogue" as a general term is a description of attitude--dishonest, unprincipled--rather than being proficient with a set of skills associated with specific behaviours.

New, more accurate name: "stabsneak."

Hmm. I like this.

Stabsneak, stabbeef, stabhippy, stabwitch...

Stabsneak, smashbeef, spellgod, and healbot. Or Spellgod and godgod, in 3rd Edition.

Heh.

> In an Atomic Robo game I ran last year, one of the PCs wanted to search a missing scientist’s bedroom to try to find something useful. At that point, I had no idea what that would be, and the player wasn’t forthcoming with a suggestion, so I just wrote “Something Useful” on an index card. Later on it turned out to be a hard drive, I believe.

Also:

> “silent advanced play” — where you extrapolate a rule into a situation where the spirit of the rule totally works, doesn’t break any of the economy, user interface, or emotional resonance points, and helps the game speed along.

@BESW i see and like what you did there

Ursula Vernon is now having a Twitter conversation about "different kinds of fantasy cattle bred for specific armor use."

@BESW Meatshield. (Nobody is enthusiastic about joining this profession and anyone who actually claims to have joined it is going to have their sensibilities called into question)

@BESW i don't understand why there's a special term for this, or why the term is 'silent advanced play' really.

@JonathanHobbs I'm not sure either; it's from comments so there's not a lot of context.

But I do think there's a good reason for it to have an actual term.

Many people playing in rigid games and rigid groups don't think it should be done.

It's a different approach to the RAW/RAI issue, really, an approach that I hope is better positioned for productive discussion.

In this case, it's a matter of trusting the people at your table at least as much as you trust the developers of the game.

A rigid rules-exactly-as-presented approach usually means that the only people you trust to make the game work are the ones who wrote it. From a literary POV, it's the idea that only the writer has the authority to expand on the text.

It often stems from respect for the intellectual integrity of the author's work, but I think there's a bit of a fallacy in extending that courtesy to the developers of the game at the expense of the people who are playing it: playing an RPG is not parallel to reading a book.

If a parallel with authorial authority can be drawn, it should cast the players of the game as the equivalent of the team which adapts a book into a film: you should respect the original work, but you're casting it in your own context and need to feel that you have the authority to modify what is necessary to do so.

A thing of beauty, highly relevant to the world of fantasy fiction/gaming and its often-terrible track record of "historically accurate" erasure: MedievalPOC blog.

Interesting. I wish for more commentary.

[snerk] "Sir Morien." Subtle.

...okay, the kerning on the all-caps titles of these posts is driving me nuts.

Yeesh, you're right. I'm not as font-sensitive as some (though I've had some training), but that kerning is terrible.

I actually had to select the text to see if there's a space between some of the characters.

But typographical issues notwithstanding, this is a good site for some medieval feel for our Ars Magica group.

Good Morning.

Hi!

Whats up?

I am home! Which is great! I have not had a very good day :D but now the work day is over

i am dying to ask a question on a 3 line program in java

but does this chat room allow me that power?

I would ask if StackOverflow's chat room wouldn't be a better place, but I've seen StackOverflow's chat rooms, and they're not very friendly. :)

thats the reason

i have asked, but i didnot get any clear answers , talking to them is lyk .. being on a time lap, after a few minutes , they stop paying attention...

Timezones Huzzah! :)

The Python Chat room is very nice and friendly (where I also lurk)

@blackbee You're welcome to ask, but I for one am helpless to answer. Some of our other denizens might be better equipped than I, though.

It's not on topic,but we've never been stopped by that.

Basically, "on topic" here is what the people in the room want to talk about. So give it a shot.

@jonathanhobbs Any thoughts on the boost clarification?

@BESW Boost? Like from Fate?

@BESW i like the unnamed boost thing but i had not gotten into boosts enough to be 100% confused and conflicted

@BESW wait. that's just a tiny little section on page 58 they rewrote, right?

Yup. More like "expanded upon," really.

I was most confused about not being able to compel a boost.

I'd been thinking of them as full aspects with a unique removal trigger.

programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/225162/… i had no other choice, i am stuck for more than a day now

I think one major thing I'm getting from this is that boosts will often fall away of their own accord without mechanics-originated prompting.

@BESW Nice.

@blackbee I don't think Programmers.SE is the right site for this, as it deals with specific code and implementation, which is SO's domain. Also, it's usually encouraged to include code directly instead of linking to pastebin. Both because pastebin links can rot, and because you're asking people to work harder for your question, which always reduces the chance of getting answers.

@blackbee Flagging the message is not the right answer to a wrong posting!

In my last game with Trogdor, I had an NPC roll to overcome a boost which Trogdor was hoping to take advantage of.

@Blem Huh? I flagged it.

@JonathanHobbs why?

@Blem spam / irrelevant advertising

this is an RPG room, no connection to programming topics

With my new understanding, I would have had the NPC do something more interesting and had the boost just fall away after Trogdor's next turn.

@JonathanHobbs It was posted after he explicitly asked if he could ask about it.

(and when I flagged it I didn't see his earlier 3 messages)

Ah.

@BESW oh, yeah. I'm getting that too.

Actually that is the big thing for me.

They go on to say that boosts are not aspects, just compels invokes.

@JonathanHobbs no ?

So a boost is only a compel an invoke lying temporarily in wait.

"Just remember that a boost isn’t a full, “grown up” aspect—you can’t compel with it, use it as permission for extras, pay a fate point to invoke it again, or other things that manipulate aspects or that aspects affect."

:)

> The bit above combines both views, which again is how many things in Core came about. It solves Lenny’s “naming it helps people” and my “leaving it unnamed helps people” bits by making the not-naming optional and explaining both virtues. It also removes the “it’s kind of an aspect” confusion — it’s an invocation, not an aspect, which is a subtle but crucial distinction.

^ that bit + me using the wrong word

Yes. That bit is great.

But that is how I had been playing with it all along...

@BESW Taught me that.

So... Now I am confused.

How would he have taught me that if he only now learned it himself?

I'm a magically incompetent time traveler.

Here's the thing, I think: I was thinking of boosts as invocations with the power to generate aspects to cling to

i was thinking of boosts as aspects that go away.

i.e. they justify something and all o' that

but nobody should ever have to overcome them, it seems: narratively you can just do something which makes it irrelevant, but it should at least affect your immediately following actions and stay there for them.

Now I'm going to think of them like this, and see how it flies.

i didnot understand what you wanted to say to me.. @Blem

A boost is two free shifts of influence.

@blackbee It was for @JonathanHobbs about your post, it dose not matter

I sometimes like to use boosts immediately. Like the "off-balance" example, and have the target roll an athletic overcome against 2 to see if he doesn't fall.

@InbarRose You can do that?

ew... well, i got my first negative vote on my first question... feeling great this profyl seems kindof haunted...

Trogdor and I often do something other than create a free invoke when a boost becomes available.

@JonathanHobbs You are using your boost up - it's like an invocation, its a 2 shift effect and the target still rolls against it... why not?

@blackbee it's not written all that clearly, but it's also on Programmer's where it might not belong

if you have a little free time, then could you mind, editing the question. I have issues with clarity .. of the questions i ask... i faced similar situations at SO and was ultimately rejected frm asking any questions at all

@blackbee trying to evade a question ban is a bad idea (you'll probably just get into further ones)

no atleast i get an idea of how to frame my questions..

i mean , whats the point of punishing if the convict doesnot know what to rectify to

@blackbee ideally, you go and read the link you were given in the "we're not accepting questions from your account" and it tells you what to do - you need to work on improving the quality of your posts. Ultimately though, question and answer bans aren't about punishing you or making you learn a lesson - they're about helping keep some sort of minimum level of quality on sites, and that includes question-banning or answer-banning users who consistently post poorly enough to get banned.

ok..

also please be aware that SO is a super confused place. Many people will ask for pastebins, others will ask for stuff to be in the body of your question. It might differ depending on what tag you're in. (really, though, you need to have a short complete code example in the body of your question, because links expire)

well, i deleted the question.

you did at least make it clearer I think

Aw, man! I wanted to know how to become a "werewolve".

Plural, "werewolven."

Oh, not Werewolvi? I've been writing my Twilight Fan-Fiction all wrong.

Werewolvīrōrum

This is an appropriate opportunity to re-link Where Oh Werewolf.

@besw, dude that guy yesterday, did you guys ever work anything out>?

Not really, no.

Huh.

Indeed, a good reason.

sadness

he seemed unable to comprehend that most people would say from a narrative/type of game perspective that dungeonworld and D&D are similar even if he disagrees

he set it up as his opinions needing to be disproved vs. needing to prove them

I thank you for trying to work with him/explain the differences

Dungeon World is trying very hard to be all the techniques actually required to play B/X or AD&D or whatever in a fulfilling way bundled up in a cool system that runs way smoother than the original inspirational material.

I can see why it's hard for D&D3/4 people to wrap their heads around, at times.

I'm just going to roll back to Sword Guy, Stealing Guy, Healing Guy, Fireball Guy.

Good morning

@MadMAxJr You forgot "Shooty Guy"

@alexp but I am exactly that person a 4e die hard fan but I was instantly converted

it still took a big paradigm shift for me to play dungeonworld correctly @alexp

I and my friends were using moves like they were 4e power cards vs. telling the story and I as the GM saying what to roll for what

I think the way to get converted from D&D4 is to realize how much stuff you can do in one session.

Howdy all

Just rewatched Human Nature and I finally noticed the Sydney Verity reference.

@alexp EXACTLY!

@JoshuaAslanSmith Indeed

I love 4e for the battles and choices but I cant play with my home group with it anyway because they care too mucha bout the absolute right choice for every situation

battles just grind on because theyre too caught up with it

I have literally used a boggle timer to force it along

they also care too much about magic items

whereas I always prefered to use inherent bonuses for 4e

I can just about tolerate 4e as a player, but I couldn't even consider running it as a GM. It just goes against my style of game in so many ways.

I just want to put a system on the table that doesn't immediately divide my group into for/against X system

I just get impatient as GM, Im running multiple monsters with different powers and abilities and I'm tacking conditions and damage on them and im tracking the overall init order and you cant handle 1 character?

4e I love but it makes me angry because when I was a player I payed attention all the time so when my round came I could make my moves fast but nobody else did and as gm its even worse

I've had a few (public, store run) games where I swear some of the monsters were parked in player seats across from me...

the disparity between player investment and GM investment makes 4e a slog for as a gm

especially when I get critiqued against our original DM who while able to just improvise also imported some bad 3.5isms and was really bad about creating battles that werent huge slogs (he used a lot of soldiers and brutes). So they think its simple but I actually make balanced combats and yeah the story is gonna be a little railroad to get to that combat

anyway enough griping

how is everyone?

'Balanced'. Some day I might figure out that word.

great question

Rather amusingly, a good deal of my villains become this by accident!

And for my next evil scheme.. Wasps with levels of Barbarian.

@MadMAxJr Sounds evil

lol

the rule of 3 seems to be very popular on rpg.se

Are there feats that revolve around only healing and not dealing any damage?

probably not ones that specifically say if you dont deal damage

just more opportunity cost of specing toward healing instead of damage

Chat is quiet today.

were hunting rabbitz

And I'm dealing with a non-stop torrent of idiocy.

@MadMAxJr Hellwasps with levels of Barbarian.

@ProfessorCaptainLokiCaprion Do you work in IT?

Suddenly my Twitter feed is full of concrete.

@BESW Paragon Hellwasp Worm that Walks of Legend.... with levels of Barbarian

Don't make it them angry. You wouldn't like it them when it's they're angry.