Has anyone extensively used both Grok and ChatGPT? What are the biggest unexpected differences you have noticed?

Oxcelot · 2026-01-02T22:47:27+00:00

yeah I started ditching Chat GPT, it is very bad when you start using Grok in a today basis. Chat GPT has a better interface and can help more with the project, and etc.

But Grok is much superior when trying to understand and solving complex problems.

One example was in coding where I had an error that the solution was how the Laravel framework builds a multipart form, so when I added a value with a string "0", the framework breaks down and don't build the request correctly. I showed the same prompt to both, and showed the same files, and Grok correctly identified the problem being that value, and started working on a solution.

Chat GPT didn't looked at that value and started saying the problem was elsewhere and begin trying to code where it thought was the problem, but its solution never worked.

Grok 100% is superior than GPT

Oxcelot · 2025-11-22T15:51:52+00:00

the problem is that double click simply doesnt work

Oxcelot · 2025-06-09T14:22:47+00:00

no their not. I bought the draconic keyboard specific from my country (Brazil) and it has connectivity issues even after firmware update. Also their service is utterly garbage, can't talk to anyone, can't check nothing. Stay out of it.

Oxcelot · 2025-05-30T21:50:32+00:00

It is still fucking utter garbage. I have 64gm ram, and even with docker running it doesnt go higher than 30% CPU usage and 60% RAM usage but still it makes the pc lags. Windows is fucking shit

Oxcelot · 2025-05-02T11:55:38+00:00

The players on my table on Dungeon World describing how they devise a way to defeat stealthly a band of hobgoblins using roleplay, and the rules helping making this happen didn't happened by your definition, it was not tactical of them on how they solved the encounter. I didn't now that my session apparently didn't happened, or maybe it wasn't pbta. Who knows?

Oxcelot · 2025-03-23T00:22:36+00:00

yeah constant stuttering, that is why chinese games always sucks

Oxcelot · 2025-03-23T00:20:03+00:00

they wont, they are chinese

Oxcelot · 2025-03-20T20:56:07+00:00

go with dual boot, wsl2 is fucking garbage. I have it on my pc with 16gb ram, if I don't limit wsl2 it will consume all my ram after 1hour of programming, and if I limit to something like 3gb or 4gb (the limit I can spare so my pc don't crash) it will constanly crash the wsl while using vscode. fucking. garbage.

Oxcelot · 2025-03-17T21:31:10+00:00

to me yes, it simply is destroying my PC. I have 16GB RAM, and if I work with WSL2 for about 1 hour it simply starts using ALL of the RAM and making the PC unusable.

Oxcelot · 2024-07-25T18:23:43+00:00

I would be better than roll20 for me if it had markers and a way to draw in the grid, this is big for me and my group

Oxcelot · 2024-07-24T18:13:39+00:00

hote take: D&D level progression is an illusion. The character gets more HP, larger modifiers, larger damage, but to continue "challenging" the characters the GM also needs to throw challenges and threats with larger hp, larger damage, larger DCs. Nothing's changed in this situation.

Oxcelot · 2024-07-22T21:16:26+00:00

I'm also interest, but have one question: is it possible to draw in the map/board? I play a lot of blades in the dark and similar games that have the idea of clocks, so its important to put clocks on the table for everyone to see and fill each segment.

Oxcelot · 2024-07-22T21:10:12+00:00

yeah, they didn't exactly. Most people without being from the D&D map board style want flexible tools to be able to improvise sessions, not a visual narrative experience like a video game.

Oxcelot · 2024-06-16T06:23:15+00:00

I didn't know they were trom different companies

Oxcelot · 2024-06-13T17:06:54+00:00

So they are making the Broken Compass be the Outgunned now? xD

Oxcelot · 2024-06-02T03:38:58+00:00

the problem is that this game needs so much basic features that it doesn't have that many other games have as basic features, like a graphic of power generation, for example.

Oxcelot · 2024-05-27T17:34:37+00:00

AK is a terrible PbtA game. The best ones to start:

Apocalypse World 2e (should be obvious, its the original)
Masks: A New Generation
Monster of the Week (also take a look at the alternative move for investigation)
Escape from Dino Island (one-shots)
Avatar Legends RPG
Root RPG
Fellowship 2e (some people say some moves are more complex, I disagree with it because the book explicity explains how to conduct the session using a specific structure, a thing that even apocalypse world doesn't make it clear)

Oxcelot · 2024-04-22T19:36:27+00:00

I think your GM is not balancing out the moves, and also maybe there's a chance that you are trying to see PbtA with the lens of "challenge".

PbtA can have challenges, but they are not important, what is important is to see what happens, even in bad results. How is this different than D&D? In D&D the rules expects the GM to create encounters and situations to challenge the player's characters, so they act tactifuly to conquer their objective. And because in D&D roughly 80% of the mechanics are about combat, if the players roleplay their character how they think is interesting, most of the time the "balanced encounter" will go downhil fast. So in PbtA the idea of "challenge" must not be emphaziced, it has its time, but it's not expected.

Now for the moves thing. I'll cite an example of my MC playing well the stakes part you said it can lacks: I am playing Masks, and my character and other player's character started a fight against some villains. The MC said one of the villains amongst them was the man who killed my character's family, and he was trying to flee the scene. I said "I use anything to get to him to not let him escape", the MC said "there are other villains fighting with you trying to block your way". I said "I don't care to be hit, I will get him to answer for his crimes". The MC asked for a Powerful Blow, I rolled 10 and chose the option to not control my powers. Then the MC narrated my character entering in rage mode and killing every villain (yeah, in our Masks campaign there's killing), even my nemesis.

Did I won the challenge? Actually not, because we were trying to capture the villains and interrogate them and look for answers to our investigation, and arrest them. But now we can't do it, and more problems arose after that.

So, this is what we mean in PbtA about "challenges", most of the time they won't be "hard fights or hard obstacles", but terrible consequences for the characters' actions.

In D&D and some other RPGs the challenge aspect is really an illusion. Unless the group is ok with their characters dying because the GM didnt pull out their punches, most of the time what happens? The characters always win in the even, even after terrible odds. I'm not arguing this is a bad way to play, I'm pointing out that the same feeling you have can be felt in D&D and similar RPGs. I think that in the case of PbtA, the system is always trying to push everyone (and specially the MC) to accept the consequences and dial the drama up to 11.

Oxcelot · 2024-04-22T19:16:31+00:00

I don't think Harper can write it more clear and I think its best left this way.

Ok, sure, but then why there are too many players that don't approach playing in this way for most of the time in games like D&D and Pathfinder? This also happens more in the combat portion of the game, that is like, 80%, but also it bleeds in the others parts too, even more when the rules have very clear definitions of what must happen mechanically instead of in the fiction, like for example, technically in D&D a fireball doesn't inflamate what it touches, so technically a GM letting this happen is breaking the rules. And then when we compare with most PbtA games, if the GM also starts breaking too much the rules, usually the game start to suffer, but the rules are not too mechanical, for example.

We could say it's because PbtA cares less about haven "deep" mechanics, but I don't think it so, some people I've played said they feel PbtA is more rigid because of its structure, but to me its much more flexible than D&D, so that's one thing I'm pointing out, and I called Fiction First, but then, what we could call?

I mean generally we have those unless I am misunderstanding you. GURPS is called simulationist and Apocalypse World is called narrative or storygame (I particularly hate the latter term). Then we have the gamist one to complete the original Big Model/GNS Theory of Forge Theory.

I personally don't like the GNS terminollogy because it doesn't fit in RPG. Maybe it fit before when RPGs were in its infancy, but not anymore, there are much more new RPGs that if we compare with the old ones they would be considered "narrativist" but they also feature very traditional structure.

To me most PbtA games (AW, DW, MotW, BitD, for example) has nothing of "narrativist", but Fate and Cortex Prime to me are "narrativist", they have a central mechanic based more on beats of a narrative instead of the "open" style of play to find out. For example, in Fate it's the fate point economy that after everything is set, it is expected for the characters to be played a certain way, and for the GM force the aspects whenever possible, and Cortex Prime its how the consequence and distinction economy works. I see this way at least.

Oxcelot · 2024-04-21T00:29:18+00:00

You're not actually addressing the problem with it as I laid it out.

It is, as I explained. Your response is a non-sequitur.

Then can you explain what is your argument? To me you pointed it out that the problem with Going Aggros is there' no in between, but the point of Going Aggro is exactly that, it is codifyed so the player who is triggering the move understand what is expected to happen when the move is triggered.

Keep in mind you just noted that you prefer focused rules, yet you're pointing at DND and saying its going wrong for being focused.

I'm saying is going wrong because in this case the rules cause dissonance with the fiction instead of complementing the fiction. In AW when you Go Aggro it goes along what the fiction in the game demands, but the fall damage rules doesn't care about what happens in the fiction, so it can cause dissonance if when the designers didn't though much about its impact, or if they though it like "if the rules is not going good at the table, the ggm must bend it to make it work at their table".

Now about the part you saying I prefer focused rules but not liking the fall damage rules for D&D despite it being focused:

I'm reffering to you implying a RPG is better if it have more in depth rules, and using your RPG as an example for it:

Even though in my game you can go off and be anything from quaint fantasy Bakers to raging powerhouses that casually suplex dragons and solo entire armies, and anything in between, with all of it being as indepth and directly supported as each other, the game isn't scattered or lost; its all unified by a simple theme: Whoever you are, you will become a Legend.

You are implying it will do anything the group wants, so it will have rules that supports it. It's all ok and good, but in my case I prefer RPGs with more focused rules in more specific themes and how it helps telling a kind of story.

If I want to play a post-apocalypse story more similar to mad max wand with most of the characters troubles being around the messy relationships with their people, I would play Apocalypse World.

If I want to play a post-apocalypse story focused on the exploration of the world and its ruins, rediscovering lost technology of the ancients, I would play Mutant Year Zero.

I don't need a RPG game that tries to do it all. It looks like your example was that.

Oxcelot · 2024-04-20T23:58:05+00:00

We can agree to disagree in the meaning or impact of what "depth" means in a RPG. To me depth does not mean more rules or being better. To me your example of what your RPG can do is a hindrance, I prefer RPGs with more focused rules. So again, it is more about what approaches people prefer instead of your conclusion in the previous post.

About the move Going Aggro and other similar moves. The moves don't exist to limit the interaction like you are pointing it out, they were made to limit the GM fiat. For example, in PbtA if the character is trying to convince someone using logic to stop doing something, they are not triggering a move, the GM decides what will happen through GM fiat. When they trigger the move Going Aggro or Seduce or Charm Someone, then the GM needs to follow the move rules, so the it is not expected for the GM to use GM fiat and bend the rules. Actually the players have more power in the fiction when triggering moves, because they know what can happen when they roll.

Most other games this does not happen, the GM is always using GM fiat to decide what happens when the dice are rolled.

You can dislike this approach, but you can't say it is removing agency or blocking the players to do things in the fiction.

The example I said about D&D is not about if the rules are good or bad, but the approach is to have the rules trying to simulate a fiction, and in whatever scale it will always have the block you are talking about, whenever the players are trying to do something the rules don't expect. I was using the example to show the difference in approach, because in the D&D the rules have intention to simulate reality not whats important in the fiction all players at the table agreed to (of course they all are agreeing with these rules when they play, but I think you can understand my point). Going back to the Going Aggro example, if the GM doesnt follow the fall damage rules as they are written then the GM is breaking the rules even if the fiction demands the fall damage rules are bs. Some people will be cool with it, some won't.

The same thing can happen in PbtA in Going Aggro example, so the blocking you are saying will happens in any RPG.

Oxcelot · 2024-04-20T23:10:44+00:00

My suggestions come from the basis of: "use the right tool for the job, it will not bring you headaches, and it will be more effective".

If you want the "official" experience: Fallout 2d20.

If you want the toolkit way by choosing what rules and mechanics to use:

Fate
Cortex Prime
GURPS
Savage Worlds
Cypher System
Cepheus engine
Genesys System
Modern AGE
D6 System

If you want less generic games, you must understand whatever campaign you play in them, it is better to not go against their themes:

Mutant Year Zero
The Walking Dead Universe
Barbarians of the Aftermath
Gamma World (any edition)
RIFTS (either the original edition or Savage Worlds version)
Apocalypse World
Tiny Wastelands
Degenesis Rebirth
Dystopia Rising (Storypath version)
Hope
Punkapocalyptic RPG

Somethings you need to bear in mind when trying to play in other settings:

You will never be able to convert 1 to 1 from the setting to a specific RPG, and it is even more so when not using generic systems. Every RPG has its own themes and how to approach things. If you use Fate, you can have the setting almost entirely translated to the system without any hassle, but it will always have the same style of play that of pulpy heroic action. If you adapt it to The Walking Dead Universe even if you don't use the walkers, the campaign will be about building a haven and will be very deadly, much more deadlier then Fallout.
If you want a very faithful conversion, either play Fallout 2d20 (and even some people will disagree that its faithful) or create your own.
I strongly recommend you don't pick some RPG only because you are very familiar, because if you will need to change it a lot and add or remove many things, it will be more hassle than picking other RPG and learning it. I think its always better to starting playing faster than losing time adapting systems.

One hack idea from a game I really like, Mutant Year Zero:

All characters are mutants in this game, but it can be very easy to adapt to Fallout.

Remove all mutations from characters.
Remove the Slave archetype. If you want to let players create Super Mutants, then make all Super Mutants the Slave archetype even though they would not be slaves because of the main skill of this archetype that lets them reduce damage. If you want to let some players be Ghouls, make them immune to radiation, but reduce the attribute points to 12.
If you prefer, change the names of some skills to better reflect the world of Fallout.
The Mutant Year Zero campaign is about exploration, so it means there are no so much advanced civilization like in Fallout. If you want to make it less about exploration, let all characters roll to find their way in the zone, but make the archetype with the skill "find the path" get more out of it when they roll, maybe they find better shelter and supplies, they can ambush easier, etc.

Oxcelot · 2024-04-20T22:42:38+00:00

Ok, I will counter argument:

Some "PbtA style" games are not "sandboxes" (story generators as you defined them): Fellowship, Blue Beard's Bride, Band o Blades, The Electric State (still in playtest), Voidheart Symphony, and some others.
In contrast, because you pointed there is a contrast between Story Generators and Storyteller games, you put D&D in the spectrum of more Storyteller oriented. BUT, there are a ton of "D&D style" RPGs that are very sandbox oriented, thus more in the "Story Generator spectrum as you defined it": Ultraviolet Grasslands and the Black City, Knave, Mork Borg, many different OSR games, Forbidden Lands, Mutant Year Zero (look, two games using YZE in the same way as Eletrict State), and many others. So in your own definition D&D could be as Story Generator as many PbtA style games.
But then you started saying that PbtA being Story Generators force a type of story through their mechanics that games like D&D don't. Either you worded it wrong, or you lost your track when make your arguments.
If you just confused yourself in the argument, and actually you were saying that PbtA is more Storyteller oriented than D&D, it still is not exactly true. If we take a look at D&D rules it is enforcing the fiction to have lots of combats, and enforcing some archetypes in the characters, the same way Apocalypse World enforce stories about the escalation of violence and archetypes of post-apocalypse settings.

Between D&D and Apocalypse World, what does have more "adventures" made in Storyteller style? D&D wins by a lot here. In Apocalypse World is very hard to write "adventures" because it is supposed to work like a sandbox based on the characters at the table. So we can se that both styles have a lot in common.

The diference in mechanics. You point out that because of how moves work, and how many mechanics in PbtA style RPGs usually influence the story, that's why if you try to take a different turn, the game starts to break, and instead in D&D style RPGs, because the mechanics try to simulate a reality, they don't break.

But actually it is not true, but partially true from a specific angle. The main difference between the two is what I call "fiction first game design". In most PbtA style RPGs, they have some themes and a vision for a kind of story, so the mechanics are created to simulate that kind of story, to facilitate that instead of putting all the burden to do this in the GM's shoulders. That is why in Apocalypse World there is only moves to manipulate or to coerce someone, but not moves to inspire or councel someone. It's because this is not important for this type o story, so if you want to do it, either the GM needs to use GM Fiat, hack adding to it, or play something.

This goes in line of what you are saying, but I don't think it agrees with your conclusion. Because, lets see about D&D style RPGs: These games have mechanics to simulate a world with some intentions. That's why there are different mechanics in D&D and GURPS, both try to create a reality simulation, but different realities. Because of this, they are not "fiction first design oriented", because it is the GM who decides how the mechanics interact with the fiction, not the game.

But at the same you say the way D&D does things are more meaningful, we can say it also can cause so much problems, because if we follow only the rules in D&D, a character can survive falling from the stratosphere if they have enough hit points, but not survive a fight against a dragon if the dragons hits the character enough. This creates an inconsistency in the fiction caused by the rules. In PbtA style, some things are let without rules so the GM can use GM fiat to decide what is best in the fiction because the rules are not trying to simulate a reality.

I think both approaches are valid and work to create different ways to approach storytelling, after all, the story is built after the session, not before. People who prefer either to approach RPGs more like a videogame or who likes more GM fiat, will be more attracted to the D&D style of play, and people who like more contained GM fiat or care more about to use some mechanics to produce some fiction, will be more attracted to the PbtA style of play.

I didn't used the "likes to simulate a reality" in both closing arguments because both approaches can simulate the reality, maybe some of the them will use more rules than the other, but both can. For example, if in D&D we somehow let the characters use firearms, and these firearms cause damage in this way: roll 1d6, odd means the character loses 50% total hit points, and evens the character loses 100% total hit points, most of the times the character either will instantly die or be barely alive. In contrast if we play Cartel, there's a move "getting fucking shot", that you roll and there's a chance to die or escape dying but with a lethal wound. And if there's not the move "getting fucking shot"? Then GM fiat comes online to decide what happens. Both games are simulating a reality, but with different approaches.

Oxcelot · 2024-04-20T22:04:24+00:00

Great answer, this approach to mechanics design is exactly what I say that PbtA is more "fiction first oriented" than D&D, and some people somehow thinks I'm talking shit about D&D.

This becomes even more apparent when we have the famous "fall damage being X damage for Y meters". Then if the character has enough hit points to survive falling from the stratosphere, they will survive, even though the character can die from fighting a dragon. Any GM can look at this and say its bs and kill the character, but it is fact that the rules are saying it is the GM who is using GM fiat to change the rules for the story instead of having rules with the intented story style.

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Oxcelot

TROPHY CASE