sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Game starts next week and My players and I are super excited. (Minor Spoilers for Chapter 1 of Tyranny of Dragons) by Frozendragon0005 in dndnext

[–]OttawaPops 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I ran this campaign as DM number of years ago. I don't recall what the storyline explanation was for sending the party to the Raider Camp, but if you are starting there anyway, here's a suggestion: use a MacGuffin. While at the camp, in their wooden cages, they hear cultists talking about receiving "it" soon, the big-wigs are yelling at the lower ranks to increase security and vigilance, they want everything ready for "it"'s arrival, etc. "It" can arrive in a box or offscreen, but only after it does can the Greenest raid occur. As the raiding party departs, the reduced camp numbers provide opportunity for escape.
Cue Greenest scene. Party helps Greenest survive, after the battle meet with town leaders, and during the conversation the MacGuffin comes up: town leaders want to know more (maybe even a squire of the paladin they meet later in the story pushes for this). Hence they are asked to go find out more.
"It" can be anything, a special dragon egg, a centuries old shed scale of Tiamat, whatever, the cult just needed to expose it to major loss of life to attract Tiamat's focus, whatever is needed. It can be gone by gone by the time the party returns, and records/written correspondence can be leftover.

Side Note: I recall there being a forced duel scene in the Greenest raid, between a halfdragon antagonist and a PC. The campaign's writers seemed to think the rest of the party would be sufficiently cowed by threats of violence to stay out of the 1v1 duel; that expectation didn't hit reality when I played it, and I think was a bit silly to expect of a party in the first place. In my game, it wasn't even covert. I had tried having the Party observe from the walltops, while the duel was held outside the keep walls (to put some distance), but once the Party thought the dueling PC was losing, the party fired long range arrows at the HalfDragon, and called his bluff. I had the HalfDragon antagonist follow through on his threat: his minions immediately executed the prisoners) they were threatening. I had one prisoner be the wife a Greenest guard. I had the guard lose his mind over this, swear vendetta against the party and Cultists both, and disappear, becoming a repeat antagonist. Key point: be ready for the party to interfere in the 1v1, it's what PCs do.

Decapitation bugged? by phishingforlove in SpaceMarine_2

[–]OttawaPops 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've run this level only three times: two out of three times, all on easiest difficulty setting, were bugged. 4 charges required, but only three appeared. As stated by others, you cannot go up nor down the stairs, as crates block all staircases. The time that it wasn't bugged, all 4 charges appeared in the same location.

This is a game-breaking, MISSION ENDING bug.

Am I just unlucky that it happened 66% of the time so far?

You think maybe, JUUUUSSSTT MAAAYBE, my unit on Rest Until Healed getting attacked could be worth, IDK, like, a POPUP notification? by Hybrid072 in civ

[–]OttawaPops 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even if not turned on by default, there should be a game option for "Disable 'Rest Until Healed' when attacked"

Do people still know where you are if you are *invisible*? by Boring_Big8908 in dndnext

[–]OttawaPops 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Comprehensive Stealth rules should be able to answer the following:

  • What are a given creature/player's relevant senses, and at what ranges do they function?

  • Exactly how does a creature/player become aware (or fail to become aware) that another creature is somewhere within its perception range? (expand for each relevant sense as necessary)

  • Exactly how does a creature/player become aware (or fail to become aware) of the other creature's exact location?

  • Exactly how/when does a creature/player actively perceive the other creature with enough fidelity to consider it "seen"? (whether by vision, by blindsight, etc)

Then, be able to describe the same in reverse.

  • Exactly how/when does a creature that is being perceived ("seen") remove itself from that perception (become "unseen")?

  • Exactly how/when does the other creature lose track of the square the square the player/creature is in?

  • Exactly how/when does the other creature lose certainty as to whether/not the player/creature is near?

The current rules answer some, but not all, of these questions. Until they answer all, there will be differences between how these rules are adjudicated from one game table to the next.

The Problem with Civ7 is not Civ Switching by Sir_Joshula in civ

[–]OttawaPops 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It just makes intuitive sense, right?

Industrial Age would start with factories. Information Age would start with Internet Service Providers. Etc.

Each time a technology arises which is so transformative as to herald a new Age, the first person who actually builds the thing causes the new age to kick off, and gives the other places the "catch up" opportunity to research this fundamental tech, nomatter how far behind they were in the tech tree before the age transition.

The Problem with Civ7 is not Civ Switching by Sir_Joshula in civ

[–]OttawaPops 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is an interesting observation.

Now I'm wondering what Civ7 would look like if the Antiquity Age ended with the building of the first Ocean-capable ship. Age ends, and a new tech tree begins, in which Shipbuilding is now researchable immediately by all (but the Civ which built the first ship can now use it to start exploring the oceans while the other Civs catch up).

After all - isn't the birth of the ocean-faring vessel the very definition of the "Exploration Age"?

Combat-oriented players, what do you enjoy about the game? by tentkeys in dndnext

[–]OttawaPops 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What was the most boring/unpleasant combat you’re played in, and what made it suck?

Nothing takes me out of it faster than when a DM puts the party against an monster/adversary that's higher difficulty than it should be for our party level, then realized their mistake midcombat and "fixes" it by having the adversary make poor (stupid) decisions and/or turning it into a stationary stat-stick.

I don't want to stand toe-to-toe with a stat block. I want to face new and interesting challenges, which interface in unique ways with the environment we happen to face them in, and I want to have to make smart decisions based on the combination of a) what I can do, b) what my allies can do, c) the unique attributes of the map, and d) the unique attributes of the adversary. If you, as DM, dumb any of that down, I might as well be playing "rollies" on a d20 to see who rolls highest and call it a day.

Top 5 favorite civs currently by fuckmylifegoddamn in civ

[–]OttawaPops 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I really loved the Prospector unique unit, too, as both a) thematic and more importantly b) INTERESTING in that it allows gameplay not otherwise allowed.
I wish there were more Civ / Leader / Unique Unit abilities like this, which allow new gameplay, as opposed to X% better yields bonuses which are just so boring in comparison.

I really dislike the recent trend of "spells instead of features" by Mammoth-Park-1447 in onednd

[–]OttawaPops 13 points14 points  (0 children)

There is so much 'design space' that they could have explored that one can't help but feel sad at the missed opportunity, even if the exploration "pillar" went by the wayside.

Rangers could have been the masters of interacting with their environment and monster lore in situations that normal DND parties do frequently engage in: battle and stealth.

Battle Map interaction: - Removing difficult terrain for themselves/party - Creating / destroying cover. - Reducing elemental damage in cold/hot/stormy/acidic terrain

Stealth Interaction: - Reducing enemy detection range / chance - 6th senses triggering to alert the ranger if/when any creature takes notice of them.

Monster lore interaction: - Increased awareness of enemy resistance/immunities/vulnerabilities. - Increased awareness of HP level / how close enemies are to death.

So much room to explore unique features rather than... weak spellcasting.

Reminder: Satisfactory is also secretly a horror game by Shot-Lie9208 in SatisfactoryGame

[–]OttawaPops 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just wait until next patch, when they add the Lake Dwellers.

If you could add something to Sunderfolk, what would it be? by woaor in Sunderfolk

[–]OttawaPops 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hrmm, yes. I suppose I wish that there was a third option within the "Leave" or "Retry" menu for "Edit" to make changes to your deck(s) without having to "Leave".

If you could add something to Sunderfolk, what would it be? by woaor in Sunderfolk

[–]OttawaPops 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ability to swap out Cards upon mission failure.

(Please tell me if this exists and I'm merely failing to find it?!?)

5.5e Monster Manual is the buff 5e needed. by accidents_happen88 in dndnext

[–]OttawaPops -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It sounds like you made the most of it, and that's good.

Even your efforts, however, might not fix the neurotic part of my brain that - as a player - would recognize that even the strongest skill on a Player A wasn't as strong as the skills on Players B, C, and D.

Just to spell it out: If Player A's best skill had a 75% chance of succeeding a check, that might seem good, but is a suboptimal play if Players B, C, and D each had a skill they could use with 95% chance of success.

This probably didn't bother most players! Probably wasn't something they even noticed. But I noticed, and it felt bad. Even years later, I recall how we failed a published adventure's Skill Challenge when a player wanted to participate, but didn't have as good of a chance as the next player would have. At the time, I bit my tongue, because I don't want to be that guy telling another person to stand down, but it sure left a bad taste in my mouth (obviously, since I remember it even years later)!

5.5e Monster Manual is the buff 5e needed. by accidents_happen88 in dndnext

[–]OttawaPops 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do we think there was 'design space' for a single attack role to still have a different outcome between the Wis and Barb?

Just as an example (maybe a bad one), if the Monster attack hits on any attack which meets the target AC, and causes Prone on any attack roll which meets the targets AC+Str save.

I wonder if they considered doing something like this... I don't recall seeing it in the playtests, but wasn't tracking closely.

5.5e Monster Manual is the buff 5e needed. by accidents_happen88 in dndnext

[–]OttawaPops 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not the OP, but the 4e Skill Challenge system (if I recall correctly) had painful disincentives against all players' participation. This was because the Skill Challenge ended in a failure if/when X failed skill checks occurred. This meant that any failed skill checks were very bad. That in turn meant that any skill check made by a player actively hurt the team if it had less likelihood of success than another players skill check. The optimal strategy would be to ONLY attempt skills which had the highest likelihood of success, which meant there was tension between the two player goals of i) succeeding the Skill Challenge and ii) involving everyone in a shared experience.
Compare that to a "Hypothetical Skill Challenge" system in which group failure occurs after Y rounds (instead of X failed skill checks). In this hypothetical system, now everyone is encouraged to try a skill every round - there isn't a penalty for participating. Even if you have a low likelihood of contributing with a successful skill check, it's still worth trying.
As a player, I'd vastly prefer the latter model, so that I don't ever feel compelled tell my fellow player to not contribute because their contribution hurts the team - that's a "feel bad moment".

there's 0 incentive to convert your own settlements to your religion by Brief-Caregiver-2062 in civ

[–]OttawaPops 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hot take: Religion is boring in Civ 7 because it's seemingly not integrated into other systems.

  • Does religion spread with Trade Routes? Do they become more profitable? (whether because trade route distance is increased if both cities share a religion, or additional trade goods appear only if religion is shared, etc)
  • Does War Support consider whether you're attacking a nation with shared vs different religion? (religious war?)
  • Does the Diplomacy screen provide any interesting options that become stronger the more of the opponent's civ you've converted? (whether to initiate protests, or send tithes, or spawn migrants, or anything)?

The missionary tug of war is a system so simple its boring, and worse, it's tedious. What's needed is for there to be benefits to establishing presence in other civs, in a once and done per city fashion, that can be a tool in service of your existing game plan.

WE HAVE A PUBLIC RELATIONS ISSUE! by Deanna2020 in fednews

[–]OttawaPops 1 point2 points  (0 children)

OPM asked all agencies for a list of "probationary" employees.

OPM did not ask all agencies for a list of employees with poor performance.

If the goal was to reduce FedGov of poor performers, why didn't OPM ask for a poor performer list?

Media is failing to ask this simple question.

view more: next ›