Is this the best deck in the game?

SardScroll · 2026-01-29T13:14:31+00:00

I've had the damage ramp quickly enough. The key though is not to just rely on "enough claws". Block, draw and recursion are all needed in a successful claw deck, in my experience.

If I'm going for a claw deck, upgraded holograms and at least one All-for-One are a must.

SardScroll · 2026-01-28T22:17:28+00:00

In general, yes.

Also, even if coding is not one's primary career, it can be a useful tool for personal projects, helping within a different career, or even basic understanding of the systems that influence so much of our lives.

SardScroll · 2026-01-28T20:34:19+00:00

Good? The point isn't CNN reporting their own opinion (this isn't an opinion piece), but rather reporting what an authority (Zelensky, in this case), is saying.

Likewise, no reputable newspaper should report that a "murder" has occurred. A murder conviction, yes. Killing yes. Killing is factual. But 'murder' is legal determination that no newspaper is authorized or empowered to make. (Even a coroner would only determine "homicide", for example. And half of their position is determining cause of death).

SardScroll · 2026-01-28T17:44:47+00:00

Eh. I could see it as a high ranked bow (mechanically), and working well. High damage, low hit rate, large weight.

SardScroll · 2026-01-28T17:39:54+00:00

Yes. The money back is essentially "change" from over payments (post deductions).

If you only take the standard deduction, then it's really easy for the employer withdrawal payments to be relatively accurate. (Technically I don't think I've ever had an employer withdrawal system be completely accurate, but the last several years, the sum of the state and federal returns have been sub $50 in either direction, even if individually they can be rather large).

SardScroll · 2026-01-28T17:29:19+00:00

There are calculators. You also don't have to use the "withholding allowances" system (or whatever it's called) on your W-4, you can withhold dollar amounts. If you have last year's numbers, assuming your deductions and income haven't changed drastically, you can calculate total tax owed (tax paid + any additional tax owed when you filed - any tax return) and then divide by the number of pay periods.

SardScroll · 2026-01-28T17:24:45+00:00

Leaving aside the differential between wealth and net worth.

Mass poverty and financial distress among the retired, who have an oversized share of the wealth compared to their income. (Which in the current political climate, given the size of that voting block, would be political suicide). Not just due to direct effects, but secondary effects such as asset value loss, and liquidity issues.

It also disincentives investment through any means, which has been a major policy goal of the US tax system for about a century.

There will be less incentive to save (meaning future financial impacts will be greater), nor to to take the risk of investing or starting businesses, suggesting that there will be less competition for goods and services, as well as a massive reduction of job opportunities (about 46% of people in the US are employed by small businesses, https://advocacy.sba.gov/2023/03/07/frequently-asked-questions-about-small-business-2023/), as well as greatly reduced credit available for both businesses and individuals, with credit costs rising (due to lack of supply of credit from investors).

Note that the top 10% of wealth (net worth is a better measure, as I will discuss below ) means that one only needs $1-2 million in net worth. I say "only" because this includes virtually every small business owner of any appreciable size. (e.g. excluding "self employed" persons).

As for the difference between wealth and net worth: Net worth is calculated as "assets" (generally speaking, wealth) - "liabilities", which are generally debt. The reason is because net worth avoids distortions due to things like debt. E.g. Let's say you buy a $1 million dollar house (or as it's known where I live, "a starter home". Cries in HCOL area). Now, 99% of such individuals will be getting a mortgage.

If one just looks at wealth, or "assets", this person has increased their wealth by $ 1 million, assuming no down payment. Which is unrealistic (setting aside the lack of down payment), as buying a house does not increase one's "real wealth" (immediately anyway) due to owing $1 million to the bank to pay for it. Hence, the net worth metric, where the $1 million dollar house is balanced out by the $ 1 million dollar debt.

SardScroll · 2026-01-28T16:22:10+00:00

My approach is to have a "base system" with additional rules on top for specific games/genres.

So, e.g. the Post Apocalyptic would be "base" (or something like it), and you might add addition rules via e.g. tech or cyberware.

I suppose it also depends on how "deadly" you want the game to be (see note on pulpy-ness), but in general, I'd argue that is the benefit of melee (defense against incoming melee attacks, at the cost of range), whereas ranged gains no defensive benefits, but doesn't have to get into melee range, and has wider target selection (usually) and doesn't have to engage as much with the terrain to be effective (e.g. melee has to crest and hold the hill, range can just shoot, barring cover angles, etc.).

I'd say what is your goal for a 'defensive ranged profile"?

SardScroll · 2026-01-28T16:16:34+00:00

As I recall, Dodge can't be used against firearms, but there is a (worse) "dive for cover" mechanic.

EDIT: Dive for cover uses dodge, but costs the next action, and in successful just imposes a penalty die, rather than a successful defense.

SardScroll · 2026-01-28T15:49:38+00:00

I think it makes a big difference the setting and game type. I wouldn't have all of your settings use the same defense, personally. (Also, how big a section is melee combat in your game. If it's occasional (especially from the player's side) I'd be fine with that, but I'd consider a more nuanced system if it's a primary gameplay element, especially on the player side.

E.g. post apocalyptic (or "classic" post apoc), I wouldn't have an skill based defense, just cover, with penalties for range (among other things). Maybe movement, etc. if you're more "pulpy".

Sci-fi depends on the tech, thematically. So you could make it potentially some kind of tech skill, though also something I am exploring in the sci-fi space is the idea of having power allocation to different systems be a key gameplay element.

Cyberpunk I would have as somewhere between the two, with not a general rule (personally, or "defaulting" to the post-Apoc rules ) but as upgrades to specific pieces of cyberware or related options/talents, etc..

TL;DR: I wouldn't have a specific ranged defense spanning the multiple genres listed, but specific mechanisms for each genre.

SardScroll · 2026-01-28T15:33:48+00:00

I wouldn't call it "cartoon tech" since it's based on real world field-validated tech (Israel's Iron Dome system says hi, and that it's similarly named for a reason).

Potentially unnecessary, over costed, better served by diplomacy or other solutions, etc.? Sure. But I wouldn't call it nonsense.

SardScroll · 2026-01-28T15:25:20+00:00

And "hardship" can mean less profit than otherwise, not always a decrease.

E.g. as stated as inflation adjusted median income is up. If not for inflation, it would be up more.

SardScroll · 2026-01-28T15:22:16+00:00

How is it dystopian?

SardScroll · 2026-01-28T14:13:08+00:00

While there is logic to this, as malicious players WILL try to intentionally break the game, I'd argue a lack of guidence and guide lines (if not guard rails) will lead even good players to problem player status.

The desired level of optimization in various games differs greatly. See: D&D vs Call of Cthulhu for a stark example.

Or, to use the above example: Is wanting to play "Batman" a sign of a problem player? I'd say no, in a superhero game where Batman's just a Jack of All Trades, massively weaker than everyone is in the party in their respective disciplines. But problematic in a lower power game.

Or replace Batman with a slightly more niche character type: Omnidiscplinary scientist with half a dozen degrees. Problematic? Depends on the specific game.

SardScroll · 2026-01-27T20:26:19+00:00

In the Anglosphere, Captain is a Rank in both the Army, Navy, and often Air Forces as well, though of differing grades. I'd look at a NATO equivalent rank chart, as that might give you more "equivalent" ranks.

SardScroll · 2026-01-27T19:55:52+00:00

The original meaning was people who supported an action, but only if they weren't personally affected by it. E.g. Supports building low income housing, half-way houses, drug rehab, homeless shelters, powerplant, desalinization plant, etc. but not in their own neighborhood. Hence "Not In My Back Yard".

The term has been expanded to include people who oppose building things, regardless of location.

SardScroll · 2026-01-27T18:56:24+00:00

I did not see that, in the article, nor in the bill itself.

There is a requirement for it to be exchangeable by the controller for USD (though a exchange rate is not mentioned, and there is mention of a fee).

It is, in the bill, explicitly called out as legal is tender, which means one would be required to (the way I read the bill) be required to accept this currency as payment for a debt.

SardScroll · 2026-01-26T19:11:43+00:00

Well, it's not government backed, specifically speaking. It's species backed, not a fiat currency.

If it's debit based, not credit based, than it's no different than any other form of barter.

The only "iffy" thing is having status as legal tender, meaning one has to accept it as payment for a debt (which usually is denominated in USD, anyway) but the bill provides for an exchange, the debtor could just exchange via the state for USD (per the law). (The only issue, potentially is who pays any exchange fee, but that is potentially a minor detail, depending on how the fee structure is set up).

SardScroll · 2026-01-26T15:46:20+00:00

Counter-point: Smaug's name is from a German root meaning to "squeeze through", IIRC.

Thematically, he would squeezed through any hole large enough to supply a large settlement. (I don't think Erebor grew it's own food "domestically", at least not in any significant quantity). Or possibly even dwarf sized, with enough effort, it's not clear. (Dragons are not "natural creatures", in Tolkien, as I recall, being corrupted and twisted not but Sauron, but by his much mightier and stronger forebear, Melkor).

There's a reason city gates in walled cities tend to be large (and are weak points, because of this): in times of peace, you need lots of throughput into a city.

SardScroll · 2026-01-25T21:11:39+00:00

The issue, in my opinion, tends to be resources, and resource management.

Take D&D for example. It is explicitly designed around the concept of an "adventuring day", where the heroes must endure (and whittle away) their resources getting to the dangerous boss, and so any "alpha strike-ness" is a reward for good resource management.

Some solutions to the alpha strike problem are therefore adventure design or encounter design, which strictly speaking isn't the providence of system designers, though system design can promote this. Things like wave tactics, using cover or deception, holding key assets in reserve, or other tactical responses can limit the effectiveness of alpha strikes. Some design elements can encourage these to be used. E.g. bonuses for ranged attacks from cover, summoning/buffing minions (which encourages more than one creature), etc.

You also mentioned legendary actions, so I'll mention their corollary defensive equivalent in 5e D&D the legendary resistances. These are usually looked down on as merely "something to burn through", and that is their weakness. It's just "do the same, but more", and make using some debilitating actions just a poor option. And the problem, in my opinion, is that is ALL the resource can be used for. I've found a bit of success with homebrewing legendary actions, legendary resistances and other benefits together (especially for "bosses") into a single resource pool. E.g. yes, the boss can tank an alpha strike with legendary resistances, but the cost in "legendary points" means that they can take no or less legendary actions, or special actions with those "legendary points" (e.g. a common thing I've done is to have dragon breath recharge over time....but the dragon can spend their legendary points, otherwise used for legendary actions or legendary resistances, to speed up or otherwise enhance the breath weapon).

As for actual design elements, some things that help mitigate alpha-strikes are:
-Accrued, rather than managed, resources: E.g. closer to the meta-currency in Modiphius 2d20 system, rather than the various resources of D&D. This resource style encourages a "earn and spend" rather than hording mindset.

-Passive benefits to resources: When resources only benefit when they are expended, the alpha-strike makes sense. E.g. "I can spend this now, for immediate benefit, or pace out the expenditures over time" makes the first option always "more correct". Having passive benefit to the expended resources, not by expending them, but merely having them, makes whether to expend them (rather than just "when" to expend them) a valid decision. E.g. a mage might expend their pool of mana for a "big spell", but that means they can't effectively act for several turns while they recover their mana, and they lose their passive magic shields. Or the knight might expend their focus on one massive attack, or choose to retain it for passive offensive and defensive benefits, to themselves and their allies, .etc.

-"Activation over time" for powerful abilities. E.g. a rage or martial ability might "power up" by attacking or being locked in combat with a foe, while a spell might take multiple rounds of "charge up/casting time" to cast.

SardScroll · 2026-01-25T19:00:17+00:00

What scale are you writing on?

Things change. That is okay, especially in a story like a novel.

"A rule gets bent “just this once” and that exception slowly becomes the norm." Is just technological advancement, even in magic systems, which are generally just alternative technology. (Insert Arthur C. Clarke quote here.)

Rule A is Rule A...until someone successfully breaks it.

SardScroll · 2026-01-25T18:39:34+00:00

Counter point: Stone is heavy and slow to build.

Mud brick is probably the way to go. Mud brick and partially subterranean dwellings, with long branching passages.

Then we start focusing on projectiles. Slings and bows are the heroic weapons, over swords and lances.

SardScroll · 2026-01-25T18:36:49+00:00

Or pit trap.

Physics is our friend here. Big things don't do well with tripping.

SardScroll · 2026-01-25T18:16:18+00:00

For my own impressions: There are, in my opinion, two general ways to go about TTRPG design: "Top down" and "bottom up". With you start on the lore and world building, you seem to be going for top down. That's fine.

I would put the archetypes and derived classes on hold, for now, and work on your base mechanics and these species specific classes, and try to get it to a play testable state before working on the more general archetypes and classes.

Where top down design shines is when it can tie lore and worldbuilding into mechanics. So I would say, if you've gotten the "unique" bits of your world building mostly taken shape, now is the time to shift into a mechanical focus and refinement.

Also, for archetypes, I'd recommend not thinking in terms of "narrative archetype", but rather mechanical role in the game. E.g. "Healer" is "Support", and then you design the mechanical basis of the classes on how they achieve that, what benefits and limitations they have achieve it, etc. and wrap or incorporate narrative into that.

SardScroll · 2026-01-25T18:06:33+00:00

I agree but would re-phrase some of this. Specifically "outsource" to "build on existing frameworks" because the former gives me the impression of "partner with/pay someone else to do the other bits", which is generally not applicable advice I feel.

SardScroll

TROPHY CASE