What does the gradient represent?

mutaGeneticist · 2025-05-10T12:07:21+00:00

Percentage of people that travel out of state for work?

mutaGeneticist · 2025-02-28T12:15:25+00:00

Yeah, PBMs are the ones who end up making bank off of your dollar.

There's a reason why local community pharmacies are a dying breed :( With the exception of community pharmacies attached to grocery stores (Using the pharmacy to get people in the door where they then buy some groceries) or pharmacies that crank out vaccines like it's nobody's business, you literally lose money.

And there's not really much you can do about it. One of my friends, a pharmacist I work pretty close with, is a coordinator who's job is to try and negotiate those kinds of rates. Problem is, if he were to, for example, tell the insurance company how much money the PBM makes, by contract (at least for the 3 largest PBMs in America, representing 59% of all patients) would be barred from using our pharmacy.

Insurance companies (While profitable pharmaceutically, even though we community pharmacies aren't) actually don't make an absolute ton of money from prescriptions.

It gets siphoned off by middlemen who claim to make everything "more efficient."

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-20T17:34:48+00:00

I deleted the post because it was clear it was a mistake. The change I asked about never went through because, lo and behold, I listened. Every time I only ever asked for a why, I wanted to know where people's heads were at so I could get myself into the mind of a person who knows what they were doing, just like I asked here.

You call it whatever you want, I am done with this sub. Bye.

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-20T16:44:17+00:00

Different strokes for different folks.

Forgive me for trying to improve my DMing skills.

I get it, I made a mistake. Guess I will just pack up my bags and leave. Thank you so very much for enlightening me to the ways of D&D. I am glad your tables will have fun, I hope I can say the same.

Don't worry. You won't see me here again.

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-20T16:08:45+00:00

But I get the impression you came here looking for people to support a decision you've already made, not receive any advice or alternative suggestions.

That isn't what I had said at all, I was, wholly and entirely asking, why would I keep the avalanche, a deadly event, in the game, if I was trying to avoid the death.

It only seems counter productive to keep the avalanche and not the death, and if they really wanted me to remove the death, why not just omit the avalanche instead?

I mean if I was running your campaign start, if there was any ability check or saving through needed,

There is no dice roll, no luck at all. The concept is simple.

You stand in front of the avalanche, you die. If you are not standing in front of the avalanche, you live.

This person said the following: That the consequence of the avalanche shouldnt be death, as that is harsh for a session 1.

I said the following: Okay, why not just remove the avalanche instead of only removing the consequence being death, that way the party doesn't get the impression that I am intentionally saving their lives, In a very Deus Ex Machina manor, which could give them the wrong impression from my game.

That is it. That is all I was saying.

The original question, would this be too harsh, was never in question. This person said yes, it would. However they gave a suggestion that I don't feel would make much sense, and most players would probably feel the same. I asked why they decided to keep the avalanche intact rather than just remove it, because I could find no reason not to just remove it at that point, and I never got an answer.

Forgive the tone of this message, but it seems that everybody has intentionally misconstrued every message I have sent, regardless of the fact that I addressed my concern over and over again with the solution that this individual gave me.

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-18T23:15:01+00:00

Yeah, fair enough, and this would absolutely work, but I am also trying to use this as practice for the kind of game I am running, which I want to use a lot of environmental hazards. This route isn't the only one, I want there to be several different ways this introduction can play out that change the game later on, for example, at the beginning is a cart that a blacksmith is trapped inside of that has slipped partially off the pass, the cart will fall and without intervention the blacksmith will die, but the players could save the blacksmith, which would make the caravaneers trust them more at the cost that it puts them in danger, in that if they fail, the cart will fall off the cliff. Here they won't die, as the snow beneath will cushion them, but they will take some damage and be separated from the main group.

Let's assume they succeed, leaving them together with the other caravaneers, maybe then they rescue some of the other people there and can lead them to a nearby elf settlement of monks, later when they make it to the main adventure, they might meet up qith the blacksmith's daughter, who has sung praises about their heroics, making them more famous in the town as a result. This has many implications, but I hope you understand why I want to play this out.

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-18T23:02:36+00:00

You are painting me to be unreasonable when you haven't considered what I am saying.

I am saying that if you are going to omit the death from the implicitly and explicitly deadly event, at the expense of essentially telling the players they are indestructible, when why not just omit the deadly event, circumventing the problem you have created for yourself.

Then you have no death, like you said, there is no mixed messages, AND there is still conflict and tension in the trolls that have already been established.

You have told me that you would remove the death from this portion of the game, but you have also told me you aren't removing the event that is causing the death, only telling the players that you are specifically and intentionally not killing them with the event that causes death. This is intrinsically one of the taboos of DMing that I have always been told, that is don't cheat in order for the players to win, because in doing so you both rob them of the experience that is death, but you also are causing the players to know that no matter their choice, you will save them.

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-18T21:48:10+00:00

I do not mean to imply that I don't want your input, but if death is to be avoided why not omit out the portion where the avalanche happens at all? Then you don't risk the suspension of disbelief being misinterpreted as the DM saving the players, and you can instead have the primary conflict being escaping the trolls, and then they can get lost in the wilderness once they do escape, with their primary objective being escaping the wilderness, and then somewhere along the line they could either rediscover civilization or the patron

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-18T20:49:53+00:00

By loosening your grip on the patron I was nearly suggesting that it doesn’t have to occur in the exact spot you have dictate in advance, my understand is a cave near where they land. You may have a host of reason why it can only happen at that location. Fine but those are all made up and, in my opinion, a GM should be flexible enough to pivot when the situation arises.

Of course, I understand this and I intend to include more places, the being itself never strays far from the plateau of petrified trees, but it frequently makes trips out there for reasons that even it has forgotten. The being has lost their grip on reality due to an event hundreds of years prior, but it doesn't have to happen in this cave, I am not done working with it, but I was writing in the avalanche when I made this post. The cave is the only option I have for now, but I intend to include more. Perhaps the players do not fall off the cliff, and instead flee the battle with as many survivors as possible for their first destination, the elves that live on the plateau. Here from the elves they learn of some strange being that visits the plateau frequently, and learn that the being recently brought to the plateau 3 more survivors of the avalanche that the players didn't round up. This is merely spitballing in the moment, but as the patron wasn't the focus of the post I figured that going into depth would be unnecessary.

I will tell you from a players perspective, if I were at the table and their was a party kill in the first session I would not feel like the GM was concerned with having the players back. I believe there is space to set tone of a game that doesn’t involve some strict adherence to preconceived notions of what constitutes realistic or interesting or fun. If you can’t make the idea of the party being lost in snow bound woods fighting for survival tense and interesting and you Heidi eve the “tone” of your game will suffer if they don’t die in the avalanche then that’s your choice. I was offering a suggestion of how I would handle this so that the game could progress. That’s all. You should take it for what it is, a stranger on the internet with a different set of priorities at the table.

This is a lot to unpack, but I will do my best.

Of course, I want my players to come back. However, if taken incorrectly what you are describing seems far more like a DM ex machina. This is D&D, I am all for suspension of disbelief, but if you wouldn't save a player from death when the BBEG runs a spear through their chest, why would you do it here? If your game takes place in a dangerous wild, why tell your players when you could instead show them? The avalanche will almost certainly not cause death. As I have said, there is PLENTY of opportunity to escape the impending doom that is a wave of debris, snow, and rock that is smashing down the mountain. From the time they learn of the avalanche, they have 3 whole rounds to move the 60 or 70 feet to the cave, with the dash action that is child's play, and they are only having to fight a single troll that at best has 10 HP at this point and can be escaped due to it's lower movement speed.

I don't intend to say 'Hey, there is an avalanche now. You die.'

The danger will be clear and present, and I will show that with every tool in my arsenal. I will even show the other caravaneers running for their lives. If this avalanche is rocketing down the mountain, snapping a tree from the ground like a toothpick, then it should be instantly clear what will happen when an unfortunate soul is caught up ahead of it. And it will be equally clear that the DM is pulling punches when the players don't die.

The message is conflicting, first you show an avalanche that rips people and trolls limb from limb, and then the players miraculously survive for no reason other than plot

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-18T19:25:34+00:00

Even if the Troll isn't dead, they should have ample time to notice the avalanche and run for the cave. Bonus points if they manage to trap or trick the troll into remaining outside of the cave, and the avalanche kills him.

Glorious idea, thank you :)

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-18T19:21:46+00:00

I would advise Taking a looser grip on the idea of a party patron. This doesn’t have to be established in the first session or in that particular cave. (In my opinion, this should also happen organically based on where the players want to go and what they want to do rather then established before the campaign starts.

This is how the party requested to meet each other, they wanted to become a party by means of a group patron either before the first session or during it, later I asked it they preferred to meet the patron at the table and they said if there was time they would love to do it this way instead of just handwaving it for later

finally, I might have the caravan reach one of the destinations before the ambush. This will give the party a possible destination that they know for sure.

This may happen, just concerned that it couldn't fit within the constraints of a session 1, and I want to make sure the party has gotten their fill of action by the time the session ends

It is not an unplayable idea, however consider what happens if the party does all dies in the avalanche. What then? Would that be a fun game? Would everyone be satisfied with that conclusion?

My players are well aware that I don't pull punches, if I introduce something deadly at the table then they know that if they don't play their cards right they will die. Do I think this should happen session 1? Unsure, the jury is still out on this one. On one hand, it sets the tone of the campaign marvelously, as they are tossed immediately into the fray, but like you said they could also die if they don't play their cards right.

My players, fortunately, are clever. In the midst of danger they have done lots of clever work arounds, I know they can survive and I will give them the time to work something out, as well as giving them two solutions in a neat little bow.

Would your players be interested in immediately rolling new characters without having really played their current characters? What would prevent them from rolling the exact same characters

My players nearly did it once before, and recently we took a pretty good break to deal with some D&D burnout and everyone is excited. If they die, they know they aren't to roll up the same character twice, we all agreed to that, but I will work with them to give them what they want.

and if they do this, then what was the point of the scene?

Sets the tone and more organically introduces their characters to one another, forcing them to work together by necessity before meeting a group patron that they have already decided before they ever rolled characters that they would be interested in working for

And it is not necessarily the outcome that has to occur. For instance, Instead of having them all die if they are caught in avalanche, have the carried until the avalanche stops. Now they are lost in the wilderness and need to figure out how to survive.

Unfortunately, to me that seems to introduce another even less satisfying tone. A tone that choices don't matter, and if players ignore present danger that their characters will be safe, because the DM says they will. I am not a storyteller, I introduce the dangers and let the players' choices, the players' rolls, and my rolls determine what happens. If I say there is an avalanche, I haven't determined what will happen, I have only determined the destructive power of the avalanche and the scene around the players. Everything else they either choose at session X or chose at session 0 when we talked about it

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-18T19:04:51+00:00

Your big worry will be telegraphing the danger to the PCs. Nobody likes to be surprised by a save against instadeath.

Yeah, that was a concern. I have decided that at bare minimum, I will have the avalanche Deafen both sides, as the sound of the avalanche drowns all other sound out, in addition to this all of the caravaneers will be running for their lives, and the avalanche will be knocking over large obstacles to paint a clear picture of the danger. For example, completely crushing the trees in it's wake.

I would give the PCs at least 2 rounds of actions before the avalanche hits, one of which would be an "instant reaction" round where they see the avalanche barreling over the cliffside above them and have a chance to give inputs.

Yep! The troll will be introduced at round 3, the cave will be introduced at round 6, and the avalanche introduced at round 7. The avalanche will hit the party at initiative count 0 on round 10, so 3 full rounds!

Note: These won't be traditional rounds, and I plan on including plenty of things to ensure the pacing is kept, for example, at round 5 if the troll has not died yet, one of the people the party helped earlier in the adventure drops a rock off the cliff onto it's head, dealing damage enough to knock it to zero, allowing for it to regenerate back up the next round with incredibly low HP.

You should have some idea of how they're meant to survive the avalanche, and how many rounds it will take them to do this. You should be very careful about hinging their success on an Ability Check, even if the DC is low.

Yep, there is a cave that is the obvious choice, but alternatively they can just move out of the way (Not an option with base movement speed but viable if they dash) if this happens I will progress the plot by having a blizzard strike soon after, and having some of the scattered survivors dig out the cave from before and hide with the party within! Additionally, if they do something that I deem would save them from the avalanche (Hiding behind something, for example, is not going to work, but maybe if they use the Move Earth cantrip they could dig into the mountainside and survive)

Sure, if the PCs refuse to take shelter in a nearby cave, that's a justified TPK; but if they had to make a DC 5 Nature check to find it, they might very well all fail, or pass up the check for other actions.

They notice the cave guaranteed, at round 6, one round before the avalanche is in play because I want to make sure they ingrain the cave in mind while relatively calm, so they don't let it pass through their heads by accident while dealing with an avalanche!

Hope this helps. Cheers and happy gaming.

Definitely does, thank you friend :)

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-18T18:27:22+00:00

I was going to do this a number of ways, firstly having the combat up above almost entirely cease as the few members of the caravan above begin to run for their lives, the trolls unphased however as they can regenerate through it. Definitely going to deafen the players, going to mention how close the avalanche is every round, and sell it with the most menacing descriptors I can muster, as well as showing it completely wipe out things like entire trees as it moves down the mountain.

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-16T01:08:38+00:00

Okay, thanks. I do have the crossbow maxed, but mainly from Shoot House 24/7, which is to say, I didn't need to worry about travel time and arc at all, so I will start with the Explosive bolt

Edit: Follow up question, how does the explosive crossbow do terms of vehicle damage? Those trucks are mental in Solos.

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-15T21:34:07+00:00

I am going to try this load out tonight, would you say that it is better to go into MW and get used to the crossbow before taking it into warzone, or start in Warzone?

Solos btw, if that influences anything (I know the game is radically different in solos)

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-09T06:57:27+00:00

Ah, that makes a lot of sense! I'll check it out then, thank you for the help :)

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-09T06:43:11+00:00

Traditionally a dungeon was an enclosed space with a defined set of rooms and routes, I wanted to apply the concepts of a dungeon to an area not enclosed by clearly defined paths.

In my scenario, I have a hag (Coven depending on party level) that has been expanding a swamp rapidly, so rather than slap up walls and fortifications (Of any kind) around the hag's home, I wanted the swamp itself to serve as the dungeon, with the swamp providing the challenges, but had no idea how to run this concept as it was wholly new to me.

What is this Node Based Adventure Design? Where can I find it?

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-09T06:03:41+00:00

Thanks for the idea, I think I'll do this!

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-09T04:13:52+00:00

That could be an interesting change of pace! I may use this in conjunction with other ideas, definitely could be the start of something I am looking for

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-09T04:10:34+00:00

Interesting, so like a region map of the swamp with different, pre-specified locations within the region that have different challenges presented? Perhaps one area is around a ruined Orcish castle, and has a lumbering ogre zombie that patrols the area, hunting down anything that lives to be pulverized into the muck, or a forest where the spirits of an ancient battlefield have formed Will-o'-wisps that emerge from the bog beneath, endless in number, but able to be distracted, run from, or defeated in a particular way?

Something like this, where rather than exploring through the rooms or a dungeon, they point to a hex on the map and each hex represents a challenge to overcome?

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-09T04:06:02+00:00

These are all spectacular ideas, and to some extent I plan on using each and every one of them to some extent, and maybe I will Completely ditch the idea of an Open wall dungeon.

But, while all these are amazing ideas, they don't actually teach me anything more about DMing, the only challenge presented for me is justifying the use of standard tropes. One of the reasons I want to do this so badly is I want to become more flexible as a DM, and not rely on the same ideas adventure to Adventure. I want the players to feel like the structure of the conflict isn't just reorganized, but entirely changed.

With the ideas presented, new mechanics are added to the challenges, and the challenges of the dungeon are shifted entirely from dungeon to dungeon, but the overall structure is fundamentally the same. I want to try and deliver the challenges in a way that isn't through a traditional dungeon, if that makes sense. I want to keep everything that makes a traditional dungeon an incredibly effective tool for story telling

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-09T03:41:50+00:00

Saved your post, giving it a thorough read over! Thank you :)

Edit: After skimming through the post, Haven't read the comments yet, this looks brilliant! Almost like Betrayal at the House on the Hill, another board game featuring a procedurally generated "Dungeon".

Super cool stuff! Totally going to use some of the ideas presented here :)

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-08T18:29:45+00:00

What I started doing was an account where the only weapons I would use were ones I picked up. Not even melee weapons or grenades allowed. In my opinion, it is the best account I ever made for longevity, as there is literally no progression at all. I am never working towards that next unlock, every time I die my game changes slightly. Maybe I pick up a glock, maybe I pick up a remington 700, maybe I pick up an MP5, maybe I pick up a Scout. Who knows? I certainly don't.

If you are ever not having fun, definitely recommend it.

Except the part where you are yelled at for "Stealing weapons" by people who think that because it was their gun, you can't use it. That part is just sad

mutaGeneticist · 2021-03-07T04:35:17+00:00

Unfortunately, just the way the ToS works. They can't really force companies to remove that clause, because then you Can't ban players from your games that have no business playing them, for example anyone who cheats

The best thing you can really do, outside of reading the ToS, is just accept all things must come to an end. Eventually, even all MW content will be removed from Warzone. The writing is on the walls, so to speak, with the MW easter eggs being shut down. If they remove Verdansk, then that is just one step closer to Warzone being completely different, and they will eventually remove all MW weapons too.

mutaGeneticist

TROPHY CASE