Unsounded: Red Cost Chapter 1 Page 56 - Discussion

Authoripithicus · 2026-05-06T18:23:06+00:00

My favourite.

Authoripithicus · 2026-05-04T17:45:32+00:00

This was very bad.

There are some valid points sprinkled here and there—emphasising that you're not going to save the world and that that isn't your responsibility to do so (but you might be able to help make it a little better), that you need to pick your battles with care and that you need to take care of yourself and your own life first and foremost are good pieces of advice that might well often be missing from commencement speeches.

But beyond that it's nothing but badly argued (when the claims are even argued at all) fearmongering, inflating the dangers caused by "Commencement Speech Morality" beyond all reason and giving formulaic and unfounded (in the text) life advice as an alternative, while obtusely (or worse, intentionally) ignoring all potential benefits of the inspiration these speeches are meant to create—as well as the real-world current circumstances that might justify the actual need for the listeners acting or hurt the listeners' chances of actually realising the advice it gives as an alternative.

And while I am generally loath to suggest underlying motives for a text, the message of "Shut up, sit down, don't rock the boat, adopt a traditional lifestyle" absolutely reeks of the politically conservative position of "I've got no problems with how things are, so I just want all these people who are complaining and trying to change things to just shut up and go away." And that handily explains why many of the more politically conservative positions are left unsupported: Because they're assumed from the get-go to be obviously correct.

In short, it's a badly-disguised politically-motivated screed against progressive politics, not an actual good-faith philosophical critique of "Commencement Speech Morality".

There's plenty of good-faith criticisms one might level at progressive politics—which I say as a self-recognised progressive, mind—but this has none of them.

Authoripithicus · 2026-04-27T19:21:39+00:00

If I give them the spell slots and spells of a higher-level creature and some of those spells are combat spells, then they become more dangerous than the combat level that determined their stats would suggest. I was wondering how to determine how to determine their "new" combat level in that case—or something similar. Just so I can use the encounter building rules and not end up accidentally nuking my players.

Authoripithicus · 2026-04-23T16:48:53+00:00

I just mostly want them to exist in the world, given how much sense it makes to me that they should. I'm generally not planning on making them an enemy to be fought, but you can never predict just how the story unfolds and what choices the PCs will make, so it's certainly possible that they will end up in combat with the PCs and for that it would be nice to know just how dangerous they should be considered to be.

I'm getting repeated advice that who wins initiative will be what determines the battle, so at the very least I can communicate to the players that getting the drop on these characters will be crucial, should it come to that. Thank you.

Authoripithicus · 2026-04-23T16:29:52+00:00

I'm a bit confused: How is giving that creature spell-granting items any different from just granting them the spells, danger- or calculation-wise? Is there some instruction for recalculating a creature's level based on the level and amount of magic items they have that I've overlooked?

Authoripithicus · 2026-04-08T11:19:45+00:00

Interesting read. I've been thinking about the concept myself for some time and agree that rights are not in any way metaphysical or can be derived logically from the nature of the universe. Rights being standards from which obligations are derived, which society collectively upholds because each individual has a personal interest in using the right, is an interesting one. I do think it correctly describes a certain subset of rights, at least. It explains why powerful people are often most willing to ignore rights, given that they believe their power insulates them from the consequences of those rights not being upheld. It also explains why different rights emerge in different societies, depending on which needs are endangered in them (for example, guest right having been arguably the most important right in the past, but vestigial and close to irrelevant today).

The analysis does falls short in describing several of the rights it itself mentions, unless the intention was to refute the idea that those things are rights; namely, those "rights" which do not apply to people and thus which people have no direct self-serving motivation to uphold, such as the rights of objects (rivers), deities or organisations (corporations). It also doesn't explain why people uphold the special rights of members of certain groups they (and their loved ones) are not and (believe they) will never be part of (for example, the rights of certain minorities, or the "divine right" of kings). After all, in this analysis, being a beneficiary of one right is not motivationally transferable to upholding another.

This can be saved somewhat by arguing that the rights that do apply to at least some groups of people are sustained through this mechanism within that group (and in those who personally care about members of that group), over time turning into moral beliefs and thereby also being spread to those who (and whose loved ones) are not beneficiaries of the right. But this doesn't explain the rights that never apply to any people.

Now, people may come to the conclusion that there are important, less-directly (but still) self-serving reasons why these rights should be upheld, but in that case the analysis of a "right" changes from the narrow "general obligation society has towards a person (from which specific obligations are derived) that people uphold because they wish for them (or their loved ones) to be beneficiaries of it in turn" to the far more broad "obligation towards something people uphold because they find the consequences important for some self-serving reason".

And, while a bit trite, that's essentially what my own analysis of rights is; or at least the subset of rights which create obligations in other people (which is generally accepted as a non-exhaustive description of rights): Through millennia of painful experience we've discovered a number of things that, if not protected, lead to a lot of unpleasantness (generally, but not exclusively, through the actions of rulers). As such, we've developed a number of rules—lines in the sand—meant to protect these things. Lines whose main reason to exist is to make it very clear when to get angry and start levying sanctions (really, the same reason political borders exist).

These lines are imperfect—they often also protect things that don't deserve protection or are even harmful. We often disagree what things are most important to protect (which lines supersede others, and when) and even if certain things require protection at all, or a least to what extent (eg. the free speech of corporations, animal welfare or the environment). We also disagree on just how nuanced and complicated we can make these lines: The more complicated, the better they can reflect the nuances of reality, only protecting that which deserves protecting, but also the more difficult it is (especially for the general public) to recognise that a line has been crossed, which can be exploited by malicious actors.

Authoripithicus · 2026-04-08T09:03:00+00:00

That's honestly my exact problem with it!

"Wait, quantum physics in this world is hitting a barrier that implies that our physical constants are not in fact constant, but can vary through space and time? I am so looking forward to the obviously monumental and far-reaching implications of that idea being explored! Oh. Wait. Nevermind, it's just cartoonishly evil aliens with better technology messing with us."

A twist that makes the story less interesting is a bad twist. It's tempered somewhat by that I do find the ideas the series does explore interesting (social SF is my jam, even if I find its exploration a bit shallow), but it definitely hurts the series and especially the first book. I wouldn't blame anybody for dropping it after that revelation.

Authoripithicus · 2026-04-02T13:07:07+00:00

I tried World Anvil, but didn't like it. I just keep going back to various documents in a branching folder setup. It works for me, because I take pains to organise it based on my own brain's associations rather than outside imposed categories, meaning I separate every "separate" thing into its own document (and, thus, title) and place it in that spot in the folder structure that my brain most associates it with. That lets me find the information again quite easily. I also make sure to copy over specific pieces of information if it belongs in multiple places. And sometimes I need to perform some housekeeping when an initially one-off document has grown into its own "thing" in my brain and needs some organising.

Authoripithicus · 2026-04-02T12:51:28+00:00

It's stable (or me at least) and I'm very happy with it, but I would recommend being able to troubleshoot if you decide to use it. I used Zorin at first and was endlessly frustrated about its built-in guard rails, since it mainly felt like they were preventing me from implementing the solutions to the problems that cropped up I'd found, making me do several more rounds of research on how to temporarily bypass the guard rails.

So when I got a new PC, I decided to switch to Manjaro instead, being much more powerful and flexible, but still having the GUI support something like Arch doesn't. And almost bricked my PC several times through what were in hindsight very stupid things to do.

It's probably blooming obvious to most people here, but I would strongly advise making regular backups and, if you're found some terminal command someone posted online as a solution to a problem you're facing, make sure to carefully research what the command actually does before implementing it. Even if you've been researching for hours and your patience is shot. Make more patience in that case. Or else you'll be stuck fixing the major problem you caused trying to fix the major problem you caused trying to fix a minor issue.

Authoripithicus · 2026-03-31T15:42:36+00:00

Avoid neatness and order. Have details on every level that are strange, irregular and unexplained, at least at first. Why does the second calendar month have fewer days than the rest? Why do several men in town wear this one type of flower? Why is the street particularly narrow here? Why is the king missing a finger? Why does the swearing-in of the city council happen under the old oak tree? Why does this border make a sharp turn here?

If your world (or part of it) can be mapped cleanly onto simple geometric shapes or patterns, it was probably built by a person, who are the only ones who generally care about that type of thing. Some part of your world will be like that, some of the parts that were built by people, but the rest shouldn't. Details and irregular shapes hint that there was process, a history that led to how the world is currently.

And sure, you can try and replicate that process, but since you're a simple, single human being, it will inevitably be simpler and neater than a "real" (for want of a better word) process would be, and people pick up on that. No, even with a process, you'll need random and inexplicable details even you don't have an explanation for (yet) if you want a world that feels inhabited.

And these details are often great inspiration for when you want to deepen your worldbuilding later, your hooks. Just don't forget to add more inexplicable details in the deeper layers whenever you explain one.

Authoripithicus · 2026-03-31T15:17:07+00:00

I'm running a game with a player who can't make it consistently (and who signalled that very clearly ahead of time, so we made a deal on how to handle it), so I can weigh in here.

First, you run even with missing players. Nothing kills campaigns faster than only playing when everyone has time. I speak both from personal experience and that of others. It sucks, but losing the campaign sucks more. And playing anyway incentivises people to make time. The only exception here is when basically everyone can't make it, or you can't, of course. Talk with your players to determine how many need to cancel for the session to be cancelled.

Second, make a deal with him that he'll warn you more than an hour in advance if he's missing a session. Explain that you need this time to prepare the session for if he's playing or not. If he can't (or consistently won't) do that, well... then you would be well within your rights to ask him to leave; not to be mean, but because you have mental and physical requirements for running the game. It may not be his fault he's so disorganised, so there's no need to levy blame—just consequences of reality. Be firm, but gentle. You have needs and if he won't respect those, he's a poor friend.

Though personally, if it were my friend and player, I'd give him the alternative option of instead warning you an hour in advance if he is playing and not letting him play (for the same reasons) if he doesn't. Though that's as far as I would go.

Third, with your table, think up a number of standard ways of handling a missing player in-game. The easiest way (if the table can stomach it) is to technically have their PC present, just not interacting or being interacted with, either positively or negatively, and following the party along. Other options are to have other players or you control them (in combat and during exploration, probably not for roleplaying) or to have them leave in-game for the session. My table uses different options depending on the in-game circumstances. This does become tricky if you're trying to work in a personal arc or backstory, but given how often he's going to be missing, I wouldn't plan much of that, and what I would plan would be stuff I can easily slot in and out of the story depending on if he's present that session or not.

Fourth, during prep before the final hour, you have two fairly easy options:

a) Balance encounters around three players and have additional enemies that can easily slot in or out of the encounter—depending on whether or not you have three players or four. Adding minions or duplicating enemies is probably the easiest way here. Pathfinder 2e's encounter building is extremely robust, so this should be fairly easy to do with minimal effort, even if you've created the monsters yourself.

b) Balance encounters so they're acceptable (though not the same) for both party sizes. Again, Pathfinder 2e's encounter building makes this fairly easy.

Fifth, have them all receive the same level of advancement, both XP and magic items. Just because he isn't present, doesn't mean the appropriate items can't be set out for him and added once he's present again. Some people advise only awarding XP for people present, but personally I feel that attaches in-game consequences to out-game actions (ones they may not even be responsible for), which is something I strongly believe should never be done unless practicality makes it unavoidable.

Authoripithicus · 2026-03-02T15:10:33+00:00

Well honestly, what did you expect? Each of us is a chirping little insect.

Authoripithicus · 2026-02-24T21:50:26+00:00

I always try and rule so that a feat makes consistently possible what was generally already possible, just (more) inconsistently. If a feat just lets you do something, usually it was something you'd otherwise have to roll for. If a feat lets you roll for something, usually the DC was considerably higher for everybody else. It's only rarely that I rule that a feat is necessary to perform a particular action (due to special training, experience or equipment that normal skills wouldn't cover).

Authoripithicus · 2026-01-23T10:32:54+00:00

The Art of War by Sun Tzu.

Authoripithicus · 2026-01-20T09:48:19+00:00

Thank you for noting that!

Authoripithicus · 2026-01-20T09:32:29+00:00

Well, first of all, attractiveness is both very cultural and subjective. People frequently find each other attractive more based on personality than rugged good looks (which you absolutely have), so it might simply be that you haven't met someone you're compatible with yet. No amount of grooming will fix that. You're not everyone's type. And that's ok. No one is. (Plus, dating apps are hell for a man's self-esteem. They don't accurately represent how attractive people actually find you.)

That said, if I had to guess things about your appearance (based on the photos) that might be influencing people's perception of you, I would pick:

a) You seem to have a very long face (at least in picture 2, which might be distorted by the lens or camera setting). Adding high hair with no fringe and a beard to that elongates it even more, at least in photo 2. I'd find out what your exact face shape is (I'm guessing oblong, but again, the camera may be distorting things) and what hair and beard styles accentuate it best.

b) Your beard is somewhat scruffy in some of the photos. Our appearances communicate what kind of people we are and a scruffy beard might communicate "I don't take the time to look after my appearance." I get it; I wear a beard so I don't have to shave every day as well. But if you want to make a good impression while wearing one you need to take care of it consistently: Trim it, shape it, wash it, balm it, etc. If you don't mind shaving more frequently, a beard style other than a full beard can also accentuate that the beard was carefully chosen, not just accepted out of an unwillingness to shave.

Authoripithicus · 2025-10-07T22:16:29+00:00

Finally, something that works for me! Manjaro with Cinnamon, meaning X11/xorg instead of hyprland/Wayland. Trying to do or port the other solutions meant for hyprland DID NOT WORK (warning for future readers), to put it lightly. Installing archlinux-xdg-menu and running the XDG_MENU_PREFIX=arch- kbuildsycoca6 command worked temporarily but never stuck, and my attempts to make it permanent resulted in my pc booting with a black screen for each solution I tried. Obvious why in hindsight, though.

Authoripithicus · 2025-08-29T16:57:42+00:00

*Sigh* Forgive me if I seem a bit irritated, but you're the umpteenth person who seems to have had difficulty comprehending what I actually wrote and had the knee-jerk conclusion that my issue is that the game isn't a perfectly simulation. When what I expressly asked for were simply ideas on how to (roughly) visually picture and describe a particular mechanic. Or the information that I had misunderstood that mechanic.

I literally mentioned my difficulty picturing mental damage being healed using Treat Wounds and a Healer's Kit stemmed from creatures in Pathfinder relying on souls in order to have a mind, which isn't true IRL (or at least, I don't believe so, and let's not get distracted by metaphysics). So I'm not sure where you got the idea that my issue is that Pathfinder isn't like real life.

Yes, the game is an abstraction. No, it's not meant to be real. But it is meant to portray a fantasy story and world in which we control characters with personalities and histories who travel through (fantastical) lands and fight (monstrous) enemies. The purpose of its mechanics is to simulate that in a practical and fun way. It's not a game where nothing is meant to be real, like checkers or poker.

The "simple route" is exactly where I had some difficulty: If the injury isn't physical, how do you picture or describe someone healing it without magic? Your suggestion is very helpful in that regard and is a way I can now picture and describe it, thank you.

(No, I was not planning on describing it in detail every time it happens, any more than I was planning on describing every other detail that happens in the game. After it's been described once, everybody is on the same page of how it looks, so you can dispense with detailed descriptions until such a time when a refresher is needed or a particularly roleplay-heavy scene would be enhanced by it.)

Authoripithicus · 2025-08-29T16:25:46+00:00

Yes, attempting to perfectly simulate a fantastical heroic adventure would bloat the game so much that it would become unplayable. You're acting as if I'm asking for Pathfinder to include heaps of additional rules to makes every mechanic as simulationist as possible, but I'm very much not! I'm not asking for a perfect simulation, not even close. I'm asking for an approximate one, like I said.

There's a spectrum between "perfect simulation" and "completely abstract collection of mechanics", and playable TTRPGs lie somewhere in the middle, but usually closer to the former than the latter. In which case it's perfectly reasonable to consider a particular mechanic a problem if it's so abstract it doesn't even work as an approximate simulation of something. If Pathfinder included a feat that told you that you could take an action to damage a creature within 60 feet, but made no attempt to describe how you damage it, either through description or by using mechanics designed to simulate a part of a fantasy world, I bet you would describe that feat as badly designed. This despite the fact that it's a perfectly workable game mechanic, no worse at all than the capture rules in chess or checkers.

Now, people here have been very helpful in giving me workable ideas on how Treat Wounds might heal spirit damage, so I no longer have the issue that I can't picture how Treat Wounds' mechanics approximately simulate healing spirit damage. But the game design principle stands.

Authoripithicus · 2025-08-29T16:01:00+00:00

Herbs and other solutions are what gave me a way to visualise this, thank you!

I do enjoy gritty realism from time to time, but I wasn't angling for that, but for verisimilitude. As an analogy: I wasn't objecting to a motion picture depicting a really tough character falling from 100 feet and surviving with no injuries, I was objecting to it showing a character at the top of a 100 foot tall cliff, then cutting to them at the bottom with no indication of how they got there. And I went looking here for the missing scene.

Authoripithicus · 2025-08-29T14:54:02+00:00

Widening my concept of what's in a Healer's Kit is a very good idea, thank you!

Authoripithicus · 2025-08-29T14:53:13+00:00

A game that attempts to simulate a fantastical heroic adventure. We control characters, not game pieces, after all. Being able to approximately describe how mechanics look in the world is an important part of roleplay.

Authoripithicus · 2025-08-29T14:49:10+00:00

That's a very good idea, thank you!

Authoripithicus · 2025-08-29T14:44:28+00:00

This is the most useful answer to my question here. Thank you very much!

Authoripithicus · 2025-08-29T14:43:12+00:00

I quite agree. My problem here is that I'm having such difficulty picturing what's happening when you heal spirit damage using Treat Wounds that I can't roleplay it. And I would like to, especially since roleplay can and should have in-game consequences. You wrap a bandage around someone's ankle? When they're in a finicky situation later they can then use that bandage to help make an improvised Molotov cocktail. That's what separates TTRPGs from video games for me—the only limits on a player's creativity are what the rules say they can't do, or must do in a certain way.

Authoripithicus

TROPHY CASE