insurgenRat

Thanks, that's a lot to think about. We currently use an oled computer monitor as a TV (hooked up to a pi) and it's beautiful but there are limits on screen size and it's crazy expensive (you're paying for stupid fast refresh rates and the Gamer(TM) markup)

our house is very bright during the day, lots of glass in sunny Australia, so it's probably not a great candidate for a projector generally but it does have me thinking about one in the bedroom for late night movies. Probably a lot cheaper and neater than another absurd monitor.

How dark do rooms need to be for them to work? Are there issues with shared spaces where someone might want a well lit workspace?

This doesn't really apply because harm to a pedestrian during an impact isn't a linear scale.

There are sharp decreases in fatalities and permanent injuries, particularly to children who are often the ones hit in neighbourhood streets, below about 30 km/h so there's a strong incentive to have drivers travelling at speeds no higher than that to avoid child murder and maiming due to inattention.

Below those speeds, and given that people do often belatedly apply the brakes when they're driving recklessly there is a much weaker case for further reduction in speed limits. At least until car geometry changes again to make them even deadlier /shrug shrug

But I'm an insecure person. I speak maybe 100 words aloud a week outside of gaming.

It's not easy to enforce rules without confience, much easier to build consensus than be a dictator

I'm not experienced at all! I'm dming my first campaign at the moment. I did play as a teenager in the 2000s but that was pathfinder which worked quite differently.

It does ask more of players, and it wont work with a group that doesn't have the confidence to ask meta questions about the game but you can definitely foster that! when disputes come up there are multiple ways of handling things, I haven't had any bad ones but 2 come to mind.

In one I didn't adequately communicate to the players the threat of a foe and they felt frustrated, we just rewound time and tried again after a brief chat about non combat options. In another I just asked a player what they thought was fair and they ended up coming up with something reasonable.

I think there's a harmful view that ttrpgs are like a meal the GM cooks and delivers to the players which they either enjoy or not rather than a collaboratory effort of mutual play. Players should add to scenes etc (e.g. "Is there/could there be a window we could jump from?"), be part of adjudication when it wont kill pacing or during tricky situations.

Like all play it requires trust, but that's true in modern DnD too with all sorts of broken interpretations of rules and zany magic items etc. All games where players and DMs are adversaries break down.

I was like 12 but it was funny as shit. I think now a lot of the humour might fall flat now the zeitgeist has moved on but that storming of the beach against the teddybears still cracks me up remembering it.

Yep you can! Just make sure you don't work on it plugged in and be careful around any capacitors if you've run it recently. They can hold charge

Ok so we can take that stance. I would disagree that these are useful semantics because of the case I mentioned where I feel like adding a turret to a sandcaste is something meaningfully distinct from reducing a sandcastle to a pile of sand, walking 100 meters down the beach, and making a new one with the turret.

Do you disagree that this is meaningfully distinct? If you do would you feel that it's equivalent to do those two things? That you feel the same way about them?

If you agree that it's meaningfully distinct then why insist on framing it in the same concepts instead of using the concept of change?

You're gonna have to start by pinning down terminology a bit.

Change is a term often used which I think most people would feel is a usefully distinct word for example if I said: said:

• "I created a sandcastle"
• "I changed a sandcastle"
• "I destroyed a sandcastle"

I think those would mean something different to most people despite all reductively applying to the literal rearrangement of a pile of sand.

So the obvious potential confusion here is in the case where I changed a sandcastle how would you decribe it? adding a turret could be taken as destroying the old one and creating a new one but it seems strange to me to argue for the throwing out of change as a concept since what I did seems meaningfully different from smashing a sandcastle, walking 100 meters, and building a new one.

So could you elaborate on what you take creation and destruction to entail?

I might be misunderstanding but what you're talking about is basically just failures of a DM.

DMing osr style games requires being more than a simple automaton applying the rules. The systems are simple to allow you to spend your energy elsewhere. I'll use OSE as an example as that's what I'm currently DMing.

Let's take perception. Firstly if something matters from a fun perspective it should be obvious. For example, if overcoming a trap is fun then the overcoming should involve play, not dice rolls which are there to abstract over tedious or uncertain play. For example a large magical fire blocking the corridor requires no perception but will involve a lot of experimentation to find a way past.

Or if we are wanting a perception roll like event: Lets say players are stuck and have no ideas for finding a secret door they think is likely there. Who are the characters? not their stats who are they? Ok someone was a farmer prior? huh ok. Give them a clue to follow like "hey Jake the farmer, you notice the air in this room smells familiar, there's a maddening scent of petrichor which has no place on a dry stone chamber like this one" see what happens. Alternative if Jake asks for a clue ask Jake to describe some way in which who he is applies to the context and set an ability check for a true or false clue. Suddenly a lack of rules is freedom for players to build up their character mythos on the fly.

Likewise for player skill stuff. No reason a player needs to narrate a conversation anymore than swing an actual sword. If a player asks me if they can make an impassioned arguement based on legal precedent, a sense of justice, and the illegitimacy of a ruler who cannot protect their vassels to the King's guard then they make such an argument as appropriate to their character's level of skill.

Kinda! I am a bit overloaded atm. Never finished elden ring due to an arthritis flare, absorbed with persona 5 atm, haven't played disco Elysium yet either.

Trying to find more time for non gaming hobbies and even so a new update for oxygen not included just game out!

There's been a glut of excellent games lately. Even stuff like Dave the diver is pretty absorbing. I'm keen to give it a go eventually though! after mechwarrior 5 proved too sloggy I've been a bit starved of mech games, so much so I'll settle for weeb samuri suit shit ;p (I kid I kid it's very silly aesthetically but we all squeeled with glee at the Pacific rim rocket punch)

I'm glad it's not multiplayer so I can enjoy it at my leisure.

The definition privileges action, which is why vegan philosophy is generally fine with stuff like foxes hunting birds but not humans hunting foxes to save birds.

Taking action to depress ants to save others would go against the ethos as defined:

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."