Stack Exchange
log in

SevenSidedDie

 Discussion on question by martixy: Ho…

Imported from a comment discussion on rpg.stackexchange.com/qu...
SevenSidedDie
Dec 7, 2020 18:58
I believe many of the contemporary sources, such as Monte Cook’s old site, and The Gaming Outpost, are lost to time. I’m not sure whether oral history from players who lived through the developments and shift are that useful for answering the question.
 

 Discussion on question by Mindwin: Is…

Imported from a comment discussion on rpg.stackexchange.com/qu...
SevenSidedDie
Aug 19, 2020 10:52
@Mindwin Yeah, that's a reasonable way to go. It's borderline whether that should be done in-place (i.e., by editing this question) or in a fresh question, but I think the cleanup of answers that would necessary if it was done in-place here makes asking it as a fresh question the slightly cleaner option.
SevenSidedDie
Aug 19, 2020 10:52
@Mindwin Do you mind if I take a stab at editing it? I think a) the math-based language of the commutative property is unnecessary and helping sink the question, b) it could use more commitment to the working example.
SevenSidedDie
Aug 19, 2020 10:52
@Mindwin Ah, I see. But there's a reason Main is not Meta: by that reasoning every stats question — every rules question, even — on the site should use the tag. That makes it just a meaninglessly broad tag for practical site management purposes, and we destroy those. How we've decided to use the tag saves it from being meaninglessly broad — restricts it to tagging for the core problem being a literal reading issue. Since that doesn't describe this question or fit the reason it was used, I've removed it.
SevenSidedDie
Aug 19, 2020 10:52
“RAW” as opposed to what? What distinction is that and the tag supposed to be communicating?
 

 Discussion on question by Eternallord…

Imported from a comment discussion on rpg.stackexchange.com/qu...
SevenSidedDie
Nov 18, 2019 17:25
@Eternallord66 Artificially warping questions to hide the real question is damaging to our mission of curating real questions. Being argumentative about something obvious—claiming that you’re not deliberately obfuscating your real question to get it reopened—is mildly insulting to the intelligence of voters.
SevenSidedDie
Nov 18, 2019 17:25
Humans vote on duplicates because humans are smarter than computers and can’t be fooled like that. Sorry, I see a duplicate that’s intentionally confusing because it’s trying to twist out of the duplicate close. The answer is already at the linked question. Not liking the answer doesn’t give a pass on asking a duplicate, especially not in a super contorted way to get around the disliked answer.
SevenSidedDie
Nov 18, 2019 17:25
The edit is just rephrasing the same (duplicate) question to ask if the Fury dice become “weapon dice”, and get the fighting style bonus. It’s hard to understand because it’s trying to obfuscate exactly what it’s asking, to make it less obvious that it’s the same question.
 

 Discussion on answer by JRodge01: I t…

Imported from a comment discussion on rpg.stackexchange.com/qu...
SevenSidedDie
Nov 16, 2019 03:07
Yes. You are not correct about citation standard here. It’s been policy for years. When I was a moderator, a regular and thankless moderation task was reminding people to cite their experience. I think I know the relevante site policy at a very close working level. People have already pointed you to the relevant posts. Insisting on others debating policy with you when you could just go read it yourself, and argue about it on meta—the place for such debates—if you want it different, is unnecessary. No, you won’t get more than “go do your homework before trying to instruct the instructors.”
SevenSidedDie
Nov 16, 2019 03:07
“Use your specific experiences to back up your opinions, as above, or point to some research you’ve done on the web or elsewhere that provides evidence to support your claims. We like you. We want to believe you. But like Wikipedia itself, [citation needed].” You’re right, it doesn’t use the exact characters cite. It’s even stronger, spending a whole article explaining the meaning and importance of citation. No need for chat: this is reinventing a wheel that’s already on meta. Please do review the existing meta discussions about citation expectations at RPG.se or start a new one.
SevenSidedDie
Nov 16, 2019 03:07
To the contrary, it does say to cite. Nebulous “I have experience” is pointless: the point is to provide the reason, from experience, why a solution has been successful, and to show the connection, so that readers can evaluate it for themselves instead of taking it on faith. That’s why Back It Up a.k.a. Good Subjective/Bad Subjective, our local reiterations of it, say to cite experience by providing the goods.
SevenSidedDie
Nov 16, 2019 03:07
@JRodge01 If you think that citation standards should be changed because this isn’t a site about hard science, you should bring that to meta, not the other way around. This has been established, and you’re asking it to be changed.
SevenSidedDie
Nov 16, 2019 03:07
-1 for fobbing them off on another site in the intro: group interpersonal dynamics are firmly on topic and within our expertise. Interpersonal skills are inseparable from the act of playing a roleplaying game and managing a play group.
 

 Discussion on question by Jordan: Are…

Imported from a comment discussion on rpg.stackexchange.com/qu...
SevenSidedDie
Nov 14, 2019 18:17
All these clarifications should be getting edited into the relevant location in the question post. Also mind that comments aren’t for discussion, so if discussion is your goal in posting, you’ll want to post on a discussion forum instead of or as well as here.
 

 Discussion on answer by KRyan: What d…

Imported from a comment discussion on rpg.stackexchange.com/qu...
SevenSidedDie
Oct 19, 2019 14:46
This answer is great. The only addition I can think of is some comment on the Sage Advice attempt to define the term, and how/whether that matters to the meaning in practice winthin/without D&D 5e. I don’t think it’s necessary, but it might be worth considering if it would be useful to add.
 

 Discussion on question by Roger Mungo…

Imported from a comment discussion on rpg.stackexchange.com/qu...
SevenSidedDie
Sep 3, 2019 15:55
Much as I sympathise with the desire to focus the question, I think its original form was okay. It might only be answerable by a few people, and it might rely on an expert realising that getting into the weeds with the infinite variations of customisation possible in each system isn’t necessary, but I think that’s what makes for good answers, rather than for needing to close-and-narrow the question.
 

 Discussion on question by JasIll: Los…

Imported from a comment discussion on rpg.stackexchange.com/qu...
SevenSidedDie
Aug 6, 2019 05:53
I've dumped all the information hidden down here in the comments into the question. Jason, please review the question to see if it is still asking something useful. In particular, you might need to weed out some of the information so that it's only asking one question, since your goals for visiting this site seem to have shifted over the course of the comments.
 

 Discussion on answer by SevenSidedDie…

Imported from a comment discussion on rpg.stackexchange.com/qu...
SevenSidedDie
Jul 17, 2019 16:37
@PeterCordes Faster than light is on the table because magic. Whether D&D obeys relativity isn’t relevant because that section is about if there’s a real-world speed. At the end I get much less precise and realistic because I’m just pointing out that going to extreme speeds probably doesn’t help. The point isn’t a precise physics presentation, it’s making a point about extremes still not helping… and to throw some interesting links at the non-physicists. The physics aren’t the text’s audience. :)
SevenSidedDie
Jul 17, 2019 16:33
@Cœur That doesn’t lead to invisibility, it leads the brain to switch from processing them as still images to processing them as motion. The brain/eye doesn’t have an upper speed limit on detecting motion because all it needs are sufficient photons, and speed doesn’t change how many photons a moving object reflects to the eye because light is so much faster. As the links in the post explain, to be undetected you need fewer photons and/or much lower contrast with the background.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 17, 2019 10:04
@PeterCordes It’s more the implications than the mechanics that I’m fuzzy on. But this isn’t physics.se, so I’m touching the physics only as much as it’s needed for the local RPG context and idiom.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 17, 2019 10:04
@PeterCordes I’m fuzzy enough on the details, and it’s already quite far out on a tangent, that I thought I’d leave precision as an exercise for the reader.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 17, 2019 10:04
@ReginaldBlue In the last paragraph. :)
SevenSidedDie
Jul 17, 2019 10:04
@Blueriver Yep. I discarded a tangent about red/blue-shifting and what things theoretically might look like when moving greater than c because it’s very theoretical, because it’s not my strong point, because in context the question is about mostly lateral movement relative to a viewer, and because thatwhole section is already a large tangent itself. :)
 

 Discussion on answer by mattdm: How c…

Imported from a comment discussion on rpg.stackexchange.com/qu...
SevenSidedDie
Jul 15, 2019 20:14
@mattdm It’s not that they’re secret, it’s that people reliably ignore the help, tour, and the instructions on the Ask page. People tend to assume that this is a forum and that they already know how forums work, and then are surprised when it doesn’t.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 15, 2019 20:14
@Antistrophy This is a collaboratively edited and curated database of answers to questions, kind of like how Wikipedia works. You can always edit your own answer again to make it better though! See this for how editing works here.
 

 Discussion between SevenSidedDie and …

Imported from a comment discussion on rpg.meta.stackexchange.c...
SevenSidedDie
Jul 4, 2019 19:35
@T.Sar It’s probably premature to delete it. It was already starting to gather reopen votes. It’s usually best to give the open-close voting cycles plenty of time to settle instead.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 16:21
Similarly, the RPG publishing industry isn’t engaged in studying GMs for hire. That’s not normal market research.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 16:20
@T.Sar There can be. But many things can be studied about the RPG community without the studying-activity itself being in our scope. Studying the large scale trends of GMs-for-hire is prima facia not done by players during or preparing for their personal games. That our main scope. We also add game designers and activities of the RPG industry. Studying erotic behaviour in tabletop games isn’t something game designers or publishing industry members do.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 16:15
Why would WotC have any interest in GMs-for-hire? There’s no financial incentive for them to spend money on that research, and legally they probably want no connection.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 16:00
I think that kind of large-scale study will never be done from within the RPG industry. The resources aren’t there. So it’s outside our industry scope. If it’s done, it’ll be by someone outside the RPG industry, for personal or scientific reasons. Even if they’re an RPG player themself, social science research is outside of the activity of play or prep, so it’s not in the personal scope of the site either.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 15:49
Its also good to keep in mind that questions from the early days of the site are rarely good examples of what’s on or off topic.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 15:48
That’s part of why I don’t support that question. I wouldn’t vote to close it, but I wouldn’t vote to reopen it either.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 15:38
@T.Sar I do think they’re part of the industry. What I see though is that analyzing the large-scale trends of their segment isn’t something the industry is doing.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 15:37
@T.Sar Well, it looks like the consensus doesn’t agree with me, so my analysis might be wrong.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 15:35
Yeah, and I don’t know how to improve that. An academic approach to topic seems necessary to keep the site healthy, but aiming for fair and sustainable doesn’t make it feel any better when specific questions are the casualty.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 15:31
That’s part of why on meta I usually focus on figuring out underlying principles to make these decisions by. The open/close votes on the main site can’t ever be perfect, and that’s okay (an unavoidable), but it means we can’t decide topic based only on past examples. That would lead to infinite topic scope creep. Looking at decision principles means we can figure out what should or shouldn’t be open based on looking at our agreed-on site scope, and use that to change how questions are handled.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 14:45
(We can tell that there is a line somewhere, since a rare few dice odds questions do get closed for topic reasons.)
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 14:43
I think the far extremes of dice odds questions shouldn’t be on topic, but it’s very hard to draw the line. So since dice odds questions are in general on-topic, and drawing a cut-off line is hard, in practice more question get accepted than I think should be. This has a positive effect in not closing on-topic questions near the edge, at the cost of not closing questions past that edge. So though I think extreme dice odds Qs should be off topic, eliminating them wouldn’t be much benefit.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 14:37
Now you’re starting to engage with the domain this answer lives in. Okay. So I don’t think the RPG-centric test applies to help us decide this kind of question’s topicality: the two problems I outline above aren’t fixed by something being RPG-centric. For example, a question about the casting process behind the old D&D cartoon wouldn’t be on-topic: though it passes the RPG-centric test, it fails the experts test and the inside-industry test I outline above. That’s properly a topic for TV experts, not us. I think this is similar: RPG-centric, but not in our expertise, nor in the RPG industry.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 14:37
Still not right. Right now you’re angry and just yelling the same things over and over again at me. Come back when you’ve spent some time reading the existing writing about campaign research — when you’re actually thinking about categories instead of just what you want to hear. Trust me, the campaign research issue is very similar to this one, and studying it will give you real ammunition that might change my mind. Yelling at me with knee-jerk replies isn’t going to get anywhere.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 14:37
Incorrect. That’s not why campaign research is off topic.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 14:37
Here’s an exercise for thought: why are campaign research questions off topic, if they “relate to RPGs”?
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 14:37
So you’re saying that giving a detailed exegesis of the ontology of the category that we use to divide on and off topic here is “arbitrary”; that a careful practice of the normal way we decide topic scope here is “arbitrary”. And also saying that there is a bias against your questions personally. I understand you’re frustrated, but you’re moving into conspiracy theory and angry yelling now. I’d like to stay in wonky policy examination instead, so I won’t be following your lead.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 14:37
@T.Sar 1) RPG industry 2) game mechanic odds 3) game mechanic odds 4) playing RPGs & something the industry may have surveyed (but I personally find that question borderline and would not support it in a vote to reopen).
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 14:37
Yes, you fail to see the difference. I think we’ve already solidly established that you think researching GMs-for-here is on topic, haven’t we? I see a difference and I’ve articulated it above. You’re not engaging with the substance of what I wrote, just objecting to its conclusion, but my conclusion doesn’t change without showing me where my reasons for it are flawed. Throwing examples at me just lets me consider them through the tests I proposed, which are already based on our history of topic discussions and what consensus has allowed on the site, so most open questions likely already pass.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 14:37
To the contrary, those are central to the RPG hobby. That’s why they’ll never be declared off topic. I understand it’s frustrating, but I do think the same principles that makes those on topic makes this off topic. It’s not personal, it’s trying to be truest to the site’s purpose.
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 14:37
@T.Sar Then set aside my misplaced enthusiasm, which I’ve removed any mention of from the answer. It remains that social science of any kind is not our expertise, and is not being done within our topic scope of [playing RPGs] + [activities of RPG publishers].
SevenSidedDie
Jul 3, 2019 14:37
@T.Sar Cool, social scientists are starting to study RPG players! The point remains that social science is not our topic, and our membership isn’t expert in doing or locating social science even if we are its target.
 

 Discussion on question by Tyler Gubal…

Imported from a comment discussion on rpg.stackexchange.com/qu...
SevenSidedDie
Jun 27, 2019 19:28
I think it’s unnecessary and even harmful to limit this question in one system tag. Yes, system is useful context to know for answerers so that misunderstandings are avoided, but the question isn’t about D&D 5e. It’s about GM techniques of narration. Games without GMs are already excluded by tags like [gm-techniques]. For perspective, a lot of users with deep narrative experience actively avoid D&D questions because they drown out the problems they have relevant experience with. Ironically, [dnd-5e] robs this of a segment of its natural audience.
 

 TRPG General Chat

Main chat room for tabletop role-playing games. Anyone can ask...
6
SevenSidedDie
Jun 11, 2019 15:09
@vicky_molokh Attack is better on a naïve analysis, in all the BW style subsystems. It’s strictly better in isolation. But foreknowledge of maneuvers is powerful and someone who consistently chooses Attack will get wrecked by an opponent who knows that and exploits it.