Back around 2010 or so, I discovered that if you had a physical PC game that was also in Steam’s store, you could type in the serial number on the game box and it would register and add it to your Steam library.
WAIT WHAT.
Does this happen even if the game wasn’t on Steam at time of purchase so long as it has a Steam version now? Because that would be amazing.
I’m frankly rather concerned about the idea of crowdsourcing or voting on “reliability”, because - let’s be honest here - Lemmy’s population can have highly skewed perspectives on what constitutes “accurate”, “unbiased”, or “reliable” reporting of events. I’m concerned that opening this to influence by users’ preconceived notions would result in a reinforced echo chamber, where only sources which already agree with their perspectives are listed as “accurate”. It’d effectively turning this into a bias bot rather than a bias fact checking bot.
Aggregating from a number of rigorous, widely-accepted, and outside sources would seem to be a more suitable solution, although I can’t comment on how much programming it would take to produce an aggregate result. Perhaps just briefly listing results from a number of fact checkers?
Economic points are limited to plans gestures about taxes. Nothing about tackling corporate-induced inflation / shrinkflation.
Nothing about supporting workers’ rights and aiding labor organizations.
Nothing about building a stronger regulatory framework and tackling loophole use by corporations and ultrawealthy.
Nothing here on continuing to support US allies and build international partnerships.
I recognize none of these are exactly keystone domestic culture war issues, and also all more or less reflect where she stood on Biden’s major pushes. But I’m still disappointed these all go unmentioned.
I am tinkering with something similar right now, with the elf-equivalents being virtually illegal outside the borders of their own empire.
So, here’s what I would suggest you consider:
First, discuss it with your players and make sure you’re not going to piss any of them off by doing this. If any of them were planning on playing said race, make sure they’re okay with the impact on their play style.
Consider the storytelling conflicts you want to explore with this. What encounters do you want to put your players through, and why? What themes are you looking to explore?
Consider the larger impact on other parts of your world. Try to make this more than a point that exists in isolation and a vacuum.
Sencha is an absolute beast! A gorgeous one, though.
Welp. Since Hasbro overall seems intent on running its properties into the ground, I have little doubt the next one will continue the cycle of enshittification. I’d love to be wrong, but I doubt it.
Yeah, I’m going to be in agreement with your friend.
It’s also worth noting that even within “inorganic” species, there might be stark differences in their internal composition (and thus view of themselves). Are these an animate silicon crystal, or a “robot person”? The former might think of themselves as “the solid”, in contrast to liquid-containing non-silicon life.
They might also (in either case) use a name which reflects their local name for whatever the dominant element or feature is their makeup, similar to how we refer to Earthly life as “cellular” life because it’s made of cells. That said, “Mechanoids” as a foreign nickname or slur might be a fun thing.
Yawns are when your perfectly little cuddly ball of soft opens its mouth and reveals a dozen chisels of death.
(And then goes right back to being cute.)
So, this is a bit of a “depending on the group & situation” thing.
Fudging HP is definitely a thing DMs (myself included) do. However, with an experienced group who can get a sense for how much HP is typical for mobs at a given level, and if the amount of damage done is quite clearly far enough that he ought to be dead, it can be hard to add HP without “showing the finger on the scales” - at which point the illusion breaks and it becomes “un-fun”.
Look at the number of faiths in the world today. Look at the number of sub-groups under each of those faiths - Sunni, Shia, Sufi and Salafi Muslims. The three branches of Buddhism. The almost innumerable smaller faiths that exist in the shadows of the handful of massive ones. Consider how the implementation and legal rights of those faiths exist between various governments, sometimes even in the same region.
Now advance all that a couple hundred years in the future.
Add several dozen star systems and thousands of space stations, many of which could modestly-sized region on their own. Now think about how many faiths and interpretations there likely are out there.
That is the answer. It’s nigh-impossible to count the views on it. Legally speaking, the UNHA’s view is more that both mysticism and non-mysticism are permitted, so long as it doesn’t prove harmful to onesself or another person. (The definition of “harmful” is, of course, subject to near constant legal interpretation.)
This is exactly why single chunky bosses drive me nuts. I once watched a rogue annihilate a major chapter boss with a single opportunity attack and some very lucky rolls.
Going to echo the prior comment. But here’s my thoughts:
Was there a “session zero” in which the group’s expectations for the campaign and interactions were laid out? If not, it may be a good idea to pause and have this. Sometimes groups who are familiar with each other skip this because they “know each other”, but it can still be good on a campaign-by-campaign basis.
When you discuss it with them, try to start by determining why the DM is acting this way: Since it sounds like the DM likes firmly heroic characters, is this just what they find ‘cool’ or do they actually object to playing / having grey-er characters in their party or campaign? (Same kind of applies to the cleric’s player - are they just “playing the character”, or is this what the player feels is right?)
Ask if there’s been any miscommunications involved. The thing that sticks out as odd to me here, is that the DM clearly seemed to be urging you towards combat with stereotypically evil enemies in these scenarios… but views you initiating combat as “evil”? It’s possible something is getting lost in translation.
Since you and the rogue are both clearly enjoying less cut-and-dry characters, express that this isn’t just you-versus-them. Or you-versus-cleric-player. Broadly, try to avoid turning this into an argument between people.
This will fluctuate a bit depending on how roleplay-heavy your group is, but consider asking if this could be dealt with in-character. Is the cleric open to having a crisis of faith over working with such “tainted” people? Are you okay with your character sometimes being held back by other party members when they’d like to be proactive, so long as their view isn’t changed?
It’s called the double ear mutation! It’s a known recessive gene that appears in some cats.
Gaming “journalism” can’t afford outright say “company deliberately tries to hide enshittification of their game” aloud. Might lose that access to selective early copies for review!
Really glad I’m not the first to come here and say this. We’re “firing” programs now? Come on.
This is the problem I have as well. With a group new to D&D, it’s not so bad - they’re likely to take creatures which are cool, but not necessarily stealthiest or most situationally-fitting. It’s okay to have the bandit ask “…wait, why is a raven this far into a giant underground mine?”
Then you have the veteran players who have invisible, indefinite, sometimes incorporeal familiars… the most egregious was one who would cast through his nigh-undetectable familiar, making many encounters moot as the familiar could just ping down stuff without ever being spotted in return.
I feel like this is one of those rules that’s only really necessary if you have a player who cheeses it like that. If a player discovers it and uses it in moderation, well, that’s less likely to break things. If you have a player who builds their character to exploit it…
That is a good firm look of “Man, I want attention, but I am far too lazy to ask for it. So I’m just going to flop, because I know you’re a big sucker for it, aren’t you?”
Here’s my thoughts from when I ran GoSM:
Ghosts isn’t really a campaign. It’s a really un-connected series of individual mini-dungeon crawls. In particular, if you were hoping for a focus to be on the three factions within Saltmarsh itself, I will warn you that almost none of the modules have anything to do with that. The leadership divisions in Saltmarsh are just kind of there to help DMs build on their own homebrew stuff. Despite much being made of the Sea Princes, they’re more or less unmentioned in the rest of the campaign, as are the other two factions.
Notably, the modules’ antagonists break down into two major categories:
In my case, I decided I liked undead as a final antagonist better than an Aboleth. The entire thing became a plot by Orcus - my ultimate BBEG - to drown and slaughter everything in the Saltmarsh region. Everyone else - Syrgaul Tammeraut, the Aboleth S’gothgah, the Sahuagin - were either intentionally or unintentionally working towards Orcus’ goals, some being duped into doing so. This required some reskinning - the generic evil cult in ‘Isle of the Abbey’ and the Lolth priest in ‘Salvage Operation’ became Orcus worshippers.
In your case, if you want to focus on the three factions of Saltmarsh, I think you could go two ways:
In either case, the political side of Saltmarsh is relatively undeveloped, giving you lots of room to work in, but also lots of work to do if that’s what you want.