TTRPG enthusiast and lifelong DM. Very gay 🏳️‍🌈.

“Yes, yes. Aim for the sun. That way if you miss, at least your arrow will fall far away, and the person it kills will likely be someone you don’t know.”

- Hoid

  • 0 Posts
  • 10 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle

  • I feel like you’ve made a lot of assertions that don’t make a lot of sense when compared to the real world. I agree that WotC is nothing like they used to be, have been gutted by Hasbro, and 5e is a pretty stale and lame example of a TTRPG. That doesn’t make it any less easy to learn or homebrew. The starter sets and basic adventures were simple enough for my mother, a teacher, who has absolutely no TTRPG experience, to run a game with her 5th grade students, who were perfectly capable of handling the premade characters and simple module. The game has a very easy entry point, and even when approaching the full ruleset, isn’t hard to understand when actually reading the books (especially the new ones, all their other major flaws aside), which more people do than you’re suggesting. New players get excited, the PHB is easy enough to follow with interesting art and ideas, and you really don’t even need the DMG to run a successful game, though the frameworks it sets up can make your life easier.

    There is a reason other than branding that DnD remains as incredibly popular as it is, as no matter how many streamers play it and how much sponsorship money DnD beyond gives out, if new players enticed to try the game couldn’t get the hang of it pretty quickly, they wouldn’t stick around. Are there better systems for modularity and ease of play? Obviously. But that doesn’t make those things untrue for 5e. The million Kickstarter projects with homebrew should be examples enough. You keep asserting that “no one plays 5e as designed,” which is technically true if you define that as only using rules strictly in the books, but really misses the point. People are using the classes and mechanics put into the game, and a great deal of official optional rules have become ubiquitous in every game. Popular house rules get added on, and people make up their own mechanics, because it’s a TTRPG, and that’s true for any of them.

    Obviously there aren’t great sources that aren’t anecdotal, but a quick glance around LFG posts, LGS events, and online DnD specific communities should be enough to show that people are indeed playing the game “as intended,” and home brewing to their heart’s content. The reputation you claim 5e has simply doesn’t exist to the casual player. You’re totally right, in that this is how most dedicated TTRPG communities see the game, but to the casual player (which is most of them), 5e is what the cool streamers play. They watch it, think “Hm, that doesn’t look so hard,” grab a book and run with it. I’ve seen this happen repeatedly with friends that have never played a TTRPG in their life. They don’t know about WotC’s past, they don’t know about the company being gutted, and they don’t know about the designers abandoning a lost cause. All they know DnD as is the default TTRPG (which it shouldn’t be), and pick it up, finding it easy enough to play and homebrew.



  • I don’t fully disagree with you, but you’re just wrong about the area of effect shapes. The rules are very defined on how to represent and find spheres, cylinders, lines, cubes, cones, etc. The new 5.5 rules make it even more defined. The game is absolutely designed to be played as written, because it’s braindead easy compared to most systems, which is basically all 5e has going for it: easy to learn and run, easy to homebrew. Every DnD 5e game I’ve played has followed the rules, not just for areas, but most mechanics, especially when using actual battle maps. Theater of the mind gets a bit more loosely goosey. Every group has their own house rules, but the game is definitely meant to be played, and it is. It almost seems weird to even make that claim, because a quick trip to a LGS or playing in a few local groups would tell you otherwise. Everyone wants to be Critical Role or Dimension 20.


  • University of Minnesota

    usdakotawar.org

    The 38 hangings were far from the worst of the Dakota genocide. Lincoln’s role was one of reducing cruelty while still punishing those guilty of massacres of civilians. Originally, hundreds of men were going to be hanged, but Lincoln commuted the sentences of all but the worst offenders. Unfortunately, two of the hanged men were innocent, and it’s unclear how the mistake was made. Far worse was the banning of Dakota people from Minnesota and the internment in camps, leading to widespread death by disease, though these were the actions of the Minnesota government.

    There are very legitimate criticism to be had of Lincoln, like being the sitting president as one of the states committed genocide, or the appeasement tactics to slaveowners before civil war became inevitable. I do not think this one makes sense to be top of the list, as by all accounts Lincoln was attempting to reduce cruelty where possible and yet still punish mass murderers.

    For a bit of additional background, the Dakota war, during the Dakota genocide, was an uprising of some Dakota, attacking anyone of white or “mixed-blood” descent. The state of Minnesota had broken numerous treaties and continued to seize land from the Dakota people, leading some to fight back. However, the massacring of civilians and anyone of non-pure blood is evil, and many Dakota who did not join the rebellion rescued hostages and helped resist wholesale slaughter. The Minnesota government is absolutely at fault for the conditions leading to and the execution of the Dakota genocide, but the rebels chose to commit racially motivated massacres of non-military targets. This does not make the later retaliation justified, but it does explain the hangings.

    As for number two, I cannot speak to the other commenter’s beliefs or intentions, though I do not believe women were combatants in the Dakota war.

    Note: Some historians object to the term Dakota war, as only a small faction joined the conflict, while a much greater number did not. I’m using the term as the consensus name for the conflict, not out of belief that it is accurate.


  • America is not a fascist state. Elements of fascism are baked into the system and continue to creep out of the woodwork, but let’s not wear our the significance of fascism by equating the modern United States to Nazi Germany. Hyperbole at best.

    And yes, police are a serious problem in the U.S., but Trump wants to give them total leeway and freedom to enact “one day of violence” and just take out political dissidents and undesirables. They are just not the same and acting like they are is delusional at best and intentionally muddying the water at worst.



  • The choice cannot be so single issue. Donald Trump is doing everything he can to subvert the election process, and will try to upend it entirely if he can. Harris is a disappointing choice at best, downright revolting at worst, but she respects the election process. Under Harris, I have a chance to continue voting third party in local elections and trying to change the system. Under Trump, not only is my life and the life of many other Americans in danger, but this may very well be the last time I ever get to vote.

    The choice cannot be so black and white. The Democrats have always been neo-libs that are okay with bombing third world countries for imperialist reasons. However, in this election, they’re the ones we have the best chance of voting again under and continuing to try to change the system. I will not be so short sighted as to believe the average American is going to do anything but vote Biden or Harris, so making an ideological stand is doing nothing but wasting my opportunity to stop total fascism from removing the ability to make this country better in the future.

    Even if I believed Trump and Harris would be identical on the issue of Gaza, when I strongly believe Trump will accelerate the genocide, I still have to vote Harris in order to retain the ability to vote in the future and secure the current (distasteful) state of our democracy so it can be improved in the future.