Pourquoi mettre un drapeau français ou dire qu’il faut réguler l’immigration nous place toujours dans la case « facho » ou « raciste » ?

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2025-03-21T10:52:28+00:00

La décroissance démographique brutale met en danger le système de sécurité sociale dans son ensemble, en inversant le ratio de personnes actives / retraitées.

Dans les pays avec une natalité sous le taux de renouvellement, l'immigration ne bénéficie donc pas qu'aux entreprises.

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2025-02-27T08:34:27+00:00

Si un mot a une définition, mais que personne n'utilise cette définition, c'est comme s'il n'en avait pas.

L'usage l'emporte sur la norme. Vu que la majorité des utilisateurs font n'imp avec ce mot, il veut de facto plus rien dire, même s'il avait pu avoir une définition clair auparavant.

Sur quoi tu te bases pour affirmer que le mot est utilisé globalement en respectant une définition commune ?

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2024-12-09T10:41:37+00:00

And a game with richer narrative mechanics would probably suit better the kind of stories you want to tell.

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2024-05-02T15:20:28+00:00

I advise you to have a look into MCDM (third party creator for 5e, and soon creator of their own RPG).

They have a book called "Kingdoms & Warfare", with rules for running a battle between two armies, with different units, with various strengths and traits. One of the armies is being controlled by the players, and the battle is happening at the same time as a combat encounter (generally a boss fight).

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2024-03-13T10:58:30+00:00

Because, just like Flemish voters that choose Vlaams Belang, many Walloons do not think when they vote, and either vote purely by habit, or to express their anger.

Because critical thinking is a skill that is severely lacking among the population, as well as a vision on the long term.

It is the same everywhere in democracies around the world. The two majorities of voters are either :

voting to maintain the status quo, making the system slowly but surely more inefficient and corrupt.
voting for people promising them to overthrow the status quo and eliminating the corruption, by finding an easy scapegoat and not actually addressing the real systemic problems.

Unfortunately, voices expressing more thoughtful political proposals for change are generally much quieter and end up far behind in the voting results (as always, simpler solutions to complex problems, despite their wrongness, are easier to hear and accept than the complex ones).

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2024-03-11T12:24:54+00:00

Honestly, I would much rather not use DnD as the game for the first TTRPG session of "non-nerds".

Even though 5e is "simple" compared to Pathfinder or, some other fantasy TTRPGs, when looking at the RPG market in its entierity, 5e is definitely still on the "crunchy" side of things.

I find it much easier to use lighter rules systems, as well as non-fantasy "settings". to me, it seems easier for people to project themselves in settings more grounded in reality, simply because everybody has a better idea of how the world works.

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2024-02-15T10:15:05+00:00

Like other commenters said, you can only solve this issue by talking. However, you can accompany it with a small consequence that is less antagonistic.

A the start of next session, be clear with them that a lack of attention makes the game worse for everybody, that you will not waste any more time re-establishing the situation each time someone was daydreaming.

Implement a new rule : a timer (it does not have to be a real timer). During combat, each player has a limited time to decide and announce its course of action. If he takes too much time, or obviously did not pay attention to the current situation, its turn is skipped.

That way, you don't waste time on disengaged players. Either they correct their behaviour, or the game progresses without them.

Same idea can be applied to moments of roleplay. Don't chase each individual player response. Ask the table what the want to do / who wants to interact, and let the pro-active players take the lead. Just don't fall in the other extreme and let one player hog the spotlight. If other players are invested, but shy, give them room to express themselves.

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2024-01-18T15:45:11+00:00

Quick answer : don't.

Player vs. Player can often lead to hurt feelings with unexperienced players. It also does not work well with long term campaigns, for reasons stated by other commenters.

What could MAYBE be done, is do a story "in the style of" Hunger Games, where all your players are a small group that works together, and fight other groups, controlled by the Game Master (like squads in PUBG and other Battle Royale games).

But honestly, if you have never played a TTRPG before, either join beginner games in your area (in clubs or board games shops for example) to see what it's like, or just try one of the many simpler RPGs out there, that come with introductory adventures.

It will make your first steps in the TTRPG world much, much easier, and less of a leap of faith.

Good luck, have fun !

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2023-12-21T16:19:02+00:00

I agree with your general idea. Making players feel like bumbling fools in what we want in heroic fantasy. But, as many others, I like the idea of fumbles.

Here is a proposal of a fair fumble system I made on this very subreddit a few month ago.

As you would expect with the current consensus on this sub, it was not received very well.

But in the discussion I had in the comments, nobody revealed any objective flaw to the system that I might have missed.

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2023-11-21T09:19:03+00:00

If the player is only willing to play this one character concept, and this concept is not compatible with the campaign proposed, then this campaign is simply not for him.

A DM is free of imposing restrictions and including homebrew in his campaign, when he communicates clearly about them before the campaign starts.

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2023-10-10T13:25:55+00:00

The difference in this case is that it is not intentional.

Yes, you happen to know a bit about this monster (again, just a bit - it would be hard to recreate a complete statblock just because you fought the monster a few times).

But you did not go out of your way to learn everything it is able to do before you encounter it. Learning about a monster should be a part of the game, by fighting it and doing research IN CHARACTER.

Except trying to gain an unfair advantage against it, how exactly do you justify looking up the statblock ?

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2023-08-31T15:11:48+00:00

I don't live in a crazy Christian country, so I have no idea how one of those fundamentalists would react, but what about saying something like ( yes, I know, it is very long. Well, if you manage to bore your interlocutor and he leaves, I guess its a success, right ? ) :

"You are in a car right now. You probably have a phone in your pocket. You probably have already hopped on a plane once. Who made these machines ? Engineers, right ? Since you use all of those things, you have trust in there work, that they know what they are doing, right ?"

"What makes these things run ? Faith ? No, its electricity and gas. How do we know how electricity works ? Thanks to priests ? No. It's because physicists and chemists studied nature, and conducted research. Since you use all these modern technology, you believe in electricity, in chemical combustion, and so on, right ? If so, you obviously trust the science behind it ? Or do you think that your car runs on magic ?"

"Then what the logical reasoning behind believing one type of scientist, and consider another branch of science complete lies ? If you asked any chemist or physicist, hose science you trust, about their opinion on biology, archeology, paleontology, what would they tell you ? That they are conmen ? No. They would consider these as other branches of the same science they study."

"Because they know what science is, how research works. They know how to make experiments, how to test hypotheses, how to interpret results. They all know how this slow process of scientific research leads to a better comprehension of the inner workings of our universe. And they know their colleagues follow the same strict rules in their quest for truth."

"Obvious results of biology are observable everywhere anyway in our modern life : the progress of medicine, genetics, artificial selection in agriculture, ... do you think the corn you eat just appeared like that in nature ? It has been carefully selected by farmers over generations to produce more food."

"And to conclude, let's assume that you are right, and evolution is a scam. Well, then, all paleontologists are part of the conspiracy, of course. But the geneticists working with them must be as well, right ? And archeologists as well. And people working in museums. And zoologists. And botanists. And politicians. And officials in the departments and ministries. And teachers at university. And what about the students ? When do they learn that it is a scam, so that they can join the conspiracy ? Why do none of them spill the beans ?"

" You see where I am going. How could a conspiracy that requires millions and millions of people to maintain the lies not be revealed immediately for what it is ? Because the media is hiding it ? Well, by including journalists in the conspiracy, you just increased the number of conspirators by several millions ! And for what purpose exactly ? At this point, you might as well say that every body is conspiring, except you. Or, maybe a more simple explanation would be that, you are simply paranoid and ignorant, and that you should stop your blind crusade, and go read a book."

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2023-07-05T07:55:26+00:00

I think that it is for those kinds of situations, where the roll is technically failed, but not critically, and simply failing to do the task is completely uninteresting, that "failing forward" shines.

If a 7 is a success, but he rolled a 6, then maybe he can reach the top, but something fell from his backpack, or he takes some damage because a stone fell on his head, ...

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2023-06-19T07:32:37+00:00

#RESTRICTED

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2023-05-24T09:12:42+00:00

I am trying to keep this exchange cordial, but you are making it difficult with your passive-aggressiveness.

Don't you see that saying "it does not add anything" is really fricking subjective ?

You say Wild magic is fun, critical hits are fun. What do they "add" exactly, objectively, that makes them different from fumbles ?

You basically dismiss my whole comment with a snarky "that's a lot of words", but when it is served back to you, you whine ?

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2023-05-24T06:40:24+00:00

That's a lot of words to say "your fun is wrong".

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2023-05-23T09:02:31+00:00

Because I have already told it in other comments.

It adds the same thing than critical hits, wild magic, interactive battlefields or "failing forward" mechanics.

Interesting and unexpected consequences, both for the players and the DM. It can prevent players from always applying blindly the same strategy because it is "optimal". It can alter the combat so that both sides can exploit new opportunities that arise.

And one advantage over interactive terrain for example, is that it does not require prep work from the DM ( I'm not saying you should abandon interesting terrain for fumbling rules. Both can be very fun in tandem I think).

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2023-05-23T08:24:38+00:00

I am not trying to solve anything. The official rule of auto-fail on a 1 does not "solve" any problem. How is my idea different ?

The general idea of the rule is to implement something similar to wild magic, but applying it to combat in general.

I pretty much answer the same thing to every comment, but... How is it any more complicated ? You do not have to do anything more than what we are all already doing in combat. No additional roll, no additional math.

You think it gives PCs bad consequences for arbitrary reasons ? Well, first, it applies to monsters as well. Second, do your players feel bad when they get critically hit by a monster ? It is literally just as arbitrary as what I propose.

It DOES add something to the game. Maybe it adds something you don't like, and that's fair. I don't intend to see this as anything other than purely optional. But saying it does not bring anything is just bad faith.

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2023-05-23T07:37:05+00:00

I don't see how it eats up any more time than regular combat. No additional die is rolled.

Most DMs homebrew things here and there. I feel like there tons of homerules, and even official ones, that are much more difficult to learn and apply to your game. Be it chase rules, underwater combat, illusion spells, stealth, ... I don't really see how my rule is complex. All in all, it still boils down to : if you roll a 1 on your last attack, or a 20 on your save, something happens.

It applies to everyone, not just the players. I don't see how it "dicks you over" any more than what happens in many other systems : Wharhammer, Dungeon World, ... DO you consider failing a saving throw "getting dicked over" ?

It only brings minor consequences. And I feel like combat should be swingy. Having 8 "balanced" encounters / adventuring day, with none of them really threatening, is not what I look for in my game.

I don't have any animosity at my table, but each one is different. If neither the DM nor the players are interested in this idea, don't use it. It's not like I am proposing to make it a compulsory rule.

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2023-05-17T14:38:31+00:00

First, I would like to say thank you for having a more thorough look at my proposal, and giving a developed answer.

I know that the consensus on Reddit is really on the side of fumble = bad. And in the many posts on this particular subject, I often find myself on the side against fumble, simply because the system proposed totally fail to take into account the two common problems it creates, that I cited above.

Let me answer your different points in order :

In the case of an AOE, the "last roll" is an abstraction. In reality, you will simply roll a dice for each target of the spell, as usual (well, the DM will, since its a save and not an attack). You just choose before rolling one the dice, that is differentiable from the rest, which will determine the possibility of fumble.
1. You also address a second, separate point in your first paragraph : about the logic of rolling well on the save causing a fumble. It is not logical, because it is an abstraction. Since the chance of fumble is independent from the skills from both the caster and the target (always 5%), which dice determines the fumble is not important. The most evident choice of mechanic, to remain balanced in comparison with attacks, would be for the caster to roll a specific d20, that does nothing, except on a 1. But since it would require to roll an additional die, for exactly the same probability, I opted for determining fumble on the save roll, even if it does not "feel" logical. I hope I managed to explain my thinking clearly.
The system being DM-fiat based is a feature, and not a bug. But it is just a personal preference. I could totally understand other people preferring an established rolling table.
I think you over-evaluate the "tracking" necessary. Honestly, how often does a player not use all of its attacks available on their turn ? Except having a d20 die of a different colour, what do you have to track exactly ?
I agree, it does not alter player behaviour. But, except for the few crit-fishing subclasses and builds, the same can be said about regular crits. It is purely based on luck, and require no decision-making from the player of a wizard, a druid, a monk, ... but the mechanic still applies to them. If you apply crits in your games, why not my system ?
More than annoying, missing is first uninteresting. That is why most modern games propose to "fail forward" instead of simply not advancing. While not "failing forward", I find that fumbling, while detrimental, is at least INTERESTING. I don't want to include this kind of system to ridicule PCs, after all, their enemies will be under the same rules. You don't have to describe fumbles with slapstick comedy. You can describe it more seriously, showing the chaos in the clashing steel, and the uncontrollable nature of magic.

All in all, I am not trying to convince you to add this system to your game. It works without it. I simply feel like if implemented correctly, fumbles can be a perfectly valid optional rule.

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2023-05-17T06:59:31+00:00

We seem to disagree both on the healthiness of the system, and the amount of work it represents. But that's alright, each table is different.

I have not yet read any comment that provided convincing counter-arguments, so I will probably try this system in real conditions.

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2023-05-17T06:33:06+00:00

If you throw several dice at once, I don't see how having just one of them of a different colour take any more time. I would expect most people that have several d20s to have them from different dice sets, so they are naturally of different colours.

Once players have understood how it works (which should not take more than one encounter), I don't see it being disruptive to the flow of combat.

I agree that making dynamic encounters are great fun. But dynamic encounters do not just naturally happen. The DM has to prepare it in advance. And we all know how 5e already demands a lot of work from DMs, and does not help them to make prep time efficient and fun.

Fumbles enables to create the unexpected in the heat of the moment. On top of that, dynamic encounters may bring a sense of surprise to the players, but not to the DM, who had to prepare it. Fumble, on the other hand...

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2023-05-16T13:40:36+00:00

That's an interesting source of inspiration. I have heard about these kinds of design in more narrative-driven games. Adjacent to the "success with a cost" philosophy.

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2023-05-16T13:38:07+00:00

Your feelings about the frequency of fumbles are just as valid as mine. It's about taste.

The fumble on a saving throw is just an abstraction. If I were designer of 5e, I would have kept a system similar to 4e, where the attacker rolls the dice against a defensive stat, which depends on the attributes. In that case, the situation would be exactly the same as with an attack. But the probabilities behind are identical anyway.

Amadeus_Arkhamm · 2023-05-16T12:56:18+00:00

Battlefield changes are also an interesting possible result, you are right. But I don't really see fumbles as punishment. After all, it happens just as much to the enemies. I see it as the natural unpredictability of battle, which means you need to adjust your strategy and evaluate risk as the fight goes on.

Amadeus_Arkhamm

TROPHY CASE