mapsmonstersamazing

[mapsmonstersamazing]

It bears repeating how much of an anomaly the WotC D&D occupation with providing "balanced" encounters to the extent where every edge characters can gain over their opposition needs to be somehow accounted for in game balance. D&D is multiple different games, but the most stark internal division is between the TSR and WotC eras, where the previous one was not built around the expectation of encounters that need to be overcome in a specific way to "progress" and characters and their opposition were never really thought to be balanced.

Encounter balance only really became a goal with WotC D&D and even though it was at first and still is pretty much all over the place, there very much is an underlying philosophy of designing encounters to account for the party's capabilities and, on a character level, every possible edge characters might gain being accounted for. This was the clearest in 4e (a game explicitly built around these assumptions), but it very clearly informs the design of 3e and 5e: characters can't just go and make friends with a wolf, man. You gotta spend character-building resources on your character so that they may gain the Animal Companion feature and thus have permission to have a wolf. The wolf animal companion is placed on the same level as an extra sneak attack dice or a bonus feat or a new daily allotment of spells, and by this point you should see what I mean by the balance being kind of all over the place.

And as stated, that type of approach to game design is actually anomalous when you consider it within the context of RPGs as a whole. Sure, D&D has a disproportionate effect on perceptions of RPGs, and since there are many new designers coming in with expectations created by WotC D&D that type of design is becoming more and more common. And D&D's biggest competitor, Pathfinder, also very much subscribes to that philosophy of game design.

In Mythras a character can just join a Shamanic cult and learn the skills necessary to practice Shamanism and bind a predator spirit they have befriended into a wolf to thus gain a spirit companion who now has a corporeal form, and none of that requires the expenditure of character resources that need to be somehow balanced on a budget, nor does it somehow affect considerations of encounter balance. It's an edge that the character gained because they did the thing in the fiction. The only expenditure required was for the character to do it, and the time and resources it took for them to do it.

And most trad RPGs are balanced more along the lines of Mythras than they are of D&D.

[mapsmonstersamazing]

Indie ttrpg designers

We seem to be back in the “dnd sucks why don’t you just play Other Games (yours)” and I have a single question for you in return

Do I get to roll a d20?

Because I like the d20

That shape pleases me

I do not wish to roll a random amount of d6s or d8s or any of them other fuckers

I wish to roll the d20 because icosahedrons please me

I will also accept d12 but the other shapes all have less mouthfeel so if that’s what your game’s based on, it is not for me

I’d also prefer more than four stats but I’m not gonna lie it is the shape of the math rocks so like

Rec your d20 based indie ttrpgs friends cuz every single one I’ve opened is them little cube fuckers or the double pyramid and I Require Round

[mapsmonstersamazing]

Finished a thing!

[mapsmonstersamazing]

something I don’t get about the disability metaphor is that for eureka monsters obviously it harms another person to eat them. the help a disabled person needs doesn’t actively harm or kill another person. Maybe it’s a difference in perspectives that cannot be resolved

(What I’m about to write could potentially sound very fucked up at first so I’m going to need to trust everyone to read the whole thing before forming an opinion.)

Also this message and response references these two posts.

Eureka’s stance on disabled people is that they (including myself writing this) are, or at least can often be, burdens.

Disabled people often require more resources to live than they are able to “give back,” which, in our capitalist and artificial-scarcity-based economy, is just about the worst thing a person can do.

Anti-ableism sentiment often focuses on the idea that “disabled people aren’t burdens, that they’re just as good and capable as everyone else,” but if they were, they wouldn’t be “disabled” would they? When you say stuff like that, you’re conceding that a person’s worth is determined by how capable they are at doing work, and then having to bend over backwards to justify thinking that a person without arms is just as valuable as a person with arms. Eureka is asking you to decouple a person’s value from how much net resources they can produce.

Often times also, the resources that real disabled people consume are human resources, and those human resources are very much capable of suffering for it. Nurses are overworked, around-the-clock care is absolutely physically and mentally exhausting, people who have to care for their elderly or otherwise disabled relatives on top of their regular jobs don’t get to have social lives or hobbies, etc.

To this end, we wrote the monsters in Eureka to be unquestionably people who “cause damage” to society by literally eating up human resources, because they have to to live, they have no other choice unless they want to just die. Your friend is gone from your life because he has to spend all his free time caring for his comatose wife after a freak car accident. Your friend is gone from your life because a vampire randomly ate him.

And then Eureka forces you to look at these people as people, and make up your mind as to whether they have value and a right to prologue their own existence. We can’t force you to agree that they do, but if you think they don’t, then you’ll have to make that argument looking at an intelligent person with a life rather than a pure hypothetical or statistics on a chart.

There are some monsters in Eureka where, if the economy or societal structures were changed, they would stop being such severe drains on resources and could exist harmlessly within society, and there are some monsters where no imaginable amount of societal change would solve the problems they cause. This is true of disabled people IRL as well. Some of them would require no further assistance with living if certain things about society changed, and others would still require a massive amount of human resources.

And even when it’s not necessarily human resources, the extra resources that disabled people need also cause huge energy expenditure and create huge amounts of plastic waste, which are things that contribute to global warming and pollution, which do have significant harmful effects on everyone’s lives. Despite this, they are still “worth it” to keep around.

As for actively causing harm, that happens too. I randomly scrolled past this post after we got this message and saved it so I could link it here.

This person and their family had to cause a big stink in a restaurant just to get an accommodation that they needed, and to us reading it from their perspective, we’re obviously on their side, but I can assure you that the overworked staff at that restaurant didn’t see it that way. They saw the disabled person as an aggressive Karen whom they would never in a million years want to have to provide customer service to. The disabled person & family had to get aggressive, and ruin the staff’s day, to get what they needed. That’s actively causing harm - harm we all agreed was justified to cause - but harm nonetheless.

Plastic straws aren’t that big of a deal for global pollution, but even if they were, the point is that this person still would have needed a straw. It doesn’t line up one-to-one, because metaphors rarely do, but a vampire asking if they can drink someone’s blood, and being told No, may find themselves in much the same position. (And if you bring up that some people find vampires really sexy, you’re missing the point. “I would give them a straw if they had sex with me.” is not actually a great thing to announce about yourself.)

I can also come up with an example from my own life. I personally am very sensitive to noise and noise pollution. If there’s music playing at a public space, I usually can’t handle it. (Earplugs don’t work for other reasons I won’t get into - plus, if I just deafen myself to all sound, how can I socialize with anyone in this public space?)

If I want to exist in this space, I will have to actively cause harm to everyone there, or else stop existing in that space. I will have to go up to whoever is responsible and ask them to turn off the music, actively taking it away from everyone else who was enjoying it. I have to take action to ruin their good time if I want to exist in that space at all, and they might, very understandably, be pissed off at me for doing that. Because, like I said in this other post, the people that monsters eat do have a right to prevent themselves from being eaten by monsters. We aren't proposing that the solution is everyone has to line up to be mauled to death by monsters or else they're a bad person.

Who has a greater right to enjoy themselves in that space? That’s the kind of question that Eureka poses, and makes you consider both sides as human being rather than denoting one as just an ontologically evil villain to be destroyed.

We actually don't know of perfect solutions to all the problems presented by the existance of monsters in Eureka, we just know that "exterminate all people who are parasites and burdens to society" ain't it.

[mapsmonstersamazing]

YouTube video essay with a click bait title like "Reading this book could REVOLUTIONIZE your D&D game" and it's just a review of the Player's Handbook

[mapsmonstersamazing]

Girls with swords are great but there aren't enough girls with flanged maces or morning stars to go around. Give me a woman who does bludgeoning damage

[mapsmonstersamazing]

Anyway I'm occasionally reminded of that weird TikTok I once heard of where some guy was like "haha wait til BG3 players try real D&D and have to learn how it actually works" and his example scenario was a player asking "what interactables are there in this room?" and the guy making the video was all smug like "not so fast, bucko, it don't work like that around here. First you need to make what we like to call an Investigation check. 😏"

And like it's so damn funny to me because like while the player asking which objects in the room are interactable is silly the supposed "right way" to play the game is like. Even more artificial and gamey than any weird straw man of "a player who treats D&D like a video game." It rules. Even when they're trying to be smug about Real Roleplaying D&D players sometimes can't help but reveal a completely bizarre and alien approach to gaming.

[mapsmonstersamazing]

I think the adoption of the "old-school blue" map style as part of the aesthetics of the OSR community is a kinda interesting phenomenon of how the defects of a medium eventually become part of its identity and get replicated even when the medium is not bound by those limitations anymore.

[mapsmonstersamazing]

Here’s how you play Dungeons & Dragons: you are presented with a situation. You have three options.

Do nothing

State an action

Ask a clarifying question about the situation

Riddle me this, dungeoneers: which one of these is “can I roll an Arcana* check?”

*could be any check, really

[mapsmonstersamazing]

What the heck happened somewhere between 2000 and 2014? D&D 3rd Edition was all about "back to the dungeon!" and 4th Edition was most definitely also a dungeon game.

So what happened where players of 5th Edition suddenly seem to abhor the idea of a dungeon?

I think they messed up with the adventures, honestly. You didn't get a bunch of solid dungeon adventures to start your game with like in the previous two editions, so DMs had no example to build from.

[mapsmonstersamazing]

Is there any more stuff about Black Death Rising out there? I can see from your pinned post that it isn't out yet, but it looks extremely like my kind of shit

Here's some links to posts!

hope this helps!

[mapsmonstersamazing]

For weird dice wednesday, I present to you, the dUltimate die.For when you friend forgets their dice and asks to borrow a set.

[mapsmonstersamazing]

OH YEAH LETS GOOOOOOOOOO

HELL YEAH

[mapsmonstersamazing]

OH YEAH LETS GOOOOOOOOOO

HELL YEAH

[mapsmonstersamazing]

Happy birthday :)

Trick o-

Wait a minute. This can't be right.

ITS ALREADY NOVEMBER 3RD!?!?!

Fuck it. Imma do it anyways

Trick or treat

HALLOWEEN IS OVER IT'S MY BIRTHDAY NOW FUCKOS - paper

[mapsmonstersamazing]

I know that writers of Eureka always talk about "eating people" as a metaphor for people who's needs are difficult/impossible to meet but hear me out, this kind of "hot monster girls eating people" style of gameplay is cornering a market that other games are too cowardly to capitalize off of.

[mapsmonstersamazing]

One of my favorite D&D gags that I ever came up with is part of a oneshot I've run a few times where the party is hired by a young wizard to help clear out a few active security measures in a tower that the wizard inherited from her old teacher.

The first obstacle to be cleared is the re-animated skeletons that the old wizard was using for gardening help. It's a pretty straightforward fight, but during the encounter, players may notice one particular raised bed of herbs that is set back in a corner of the garden by itself.

Upon further investigation, this one raised bed is absolutely shining with magical protections. There are runes carved into the wood of the bed, gemstones inlaid in the top of it, this bed is absolutely protected out the ass... and an arcana check shows that the protections are all pointed inward, attempting to keep what's in there from getting out.

What's growing in that raised bed, you may ask? What is so dangerous that the old wizard felt the need to place all these protections?

Mint.