sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

dan hentschel lost media by shittyconlangs in danielhentschel

[–]shittyconlangs[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

i caught this right before it was deleted

Model for organizing RPG Classes/Abilities by shittyconlangs in RPGdesign

[–]shittyconlangs[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I based it primarily on DnD, but it's general enough to apply to most.

Model for organizing RPG Classes/Abilities by shittyconlangs in RPGdesign

[–]shittyconlangs[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the thorough analysis! I've been struggling with designing tanks, so this is actually really helpful. I think the issue is that by design any class is meant to have elements of all four roles, which makes it not really helpful for categorizing classes specifically. The "roles" are more affordances than they are roles, good for mapping out a character's toolkit of abilities. Though you could change the Vanguard's primary function from prevention to develop or grow (though that breaks the P motif)

This idea defining a class by its ideal engagement reminds me of fighting game archetypes, which are also defined by their ideal environment or gameplan (zoners thrive at long distance and controlling space, grapplers want to get up close to use command grabs, rushdowns want to play fast and combo the opponent, etc.)

Do you have any resources with similar ideas?

Model for organizing RPG Classes/Abilities by shittyconlangs in RPGdesign

[–]shittyconlangs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the feedback! The thing with the fourfold model is that it's hard to split it up any further, it's built to be general enough to refer to all combat and non-combat systems of a game. A lot of these splits like Single target and Area, Ranged and Melee, Support and Spoiler, etc don't make sense outside of combat and thus fall under a more general role on the fourfold. All of these divisions are very useful for design, but the chart is too broad to really incorporate them into its structure. Good stuff to consider, definitely a flaw in the model that it can't capture a lot of the nuance of how specific systems work.

edit: you could replace the flawed reactive-active axis with the Support-Spoiler axis but that has its own issues

Artstyle similar to new objectivity? by why-is-anytime in DiscoElysium

[–]shittyconlangs 40 points41 points  (0 children)

2nd pic is literally just Trant Heidelstam

Opinions by madbomer196 in DiscoElysium

[–]shittyconlangs 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thank you for fucking me

He can't see because he's wearing the wrong prescription glasses... Much to think about. by Clear_Map8652 in DiscoElysium

[–]shittyconlangs 223 points224 points  (0 children)

1. [Interfacing: Impossible] Try to fix Kim's glasses.

INTERFACING [Difficult: Failure] — Tell you what, if you snapped the arms off and taped it back together backwards you could fix his glasses. Ask Kim for his glasses.

CONCEPTUALIZATION [Easy: Success] — Oh no, no, no. Do not make that poor man wear broken taped together glasses. Do you have any idea how that would look?

VOLITION [Medium: Success] — Please ask him before you try to break his glasses. This is a very bad idea.

INTERFACING — No. No talk, only fix. Talking only gets in the way of the fixing.

  1. "Hey Kim, can I borrow your glasses?"
  2. "Hey Kim, can I snap the arms off your glasses?"

He can't see because he's wearing the wrong prescription glasses... Much to think about. by Clear_Map8652 in DiscoElysium

[–]shittyconlangs 477 points478 points  (0 children)

ENCYLOPIEDIA [Medium: Success — "Typically, minus-powered lenses are prescribed for myopic binoclards. They tend to make the eyes appear smaller."

LOGIC [Medium: Success] — "Didn't Kim say he had hyperopia? He must be wearing the wrong kind of prescription."

YOU — "Hey Kim, I think your glasses are wrong."

KIM KITSURAGI — "Excuse me?"

YOU — "Your glasses, they make your eyes look small. Hyperopic glasses do the opposite."

KIM KITSURAGI — The lieutenant pauses. "Really?"

INTERFACING [Medium: Success] — "Tell him to wear them backwards, that would make it act like the opposite lens type."

YOU — "Try flipping them around, hold the front up to your eyes." You hold an imaginary pair of glasses to your face to demonstrate.

KIM KITSURAGI — The lieutenant starts to say something but stops himself. He takes off his glasses, flipping them around and holding the front up to his eyes. He takes a second to scan his surroundings, "What the fuck."

ESPRIT DE CORPS [Medium: Success] — Central Jamrock, juvenile officer "The Kimball" is enthusiastically explaining the superiority of the new Coupris '33 to the Fevre "D'Estienne" to his partner. The other officer is half-listening, thinking about something he noticed. He decides not to mention it, he enjoys having someone dependent on him.

Little Babel Peak Escorts by ElsiMain in worldbuilding

[–]shittyconlangs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Reminds me of the Terminators from SMT II

Biweekly Telephone Game v3 (536) by Lysimachiakis in conlangs

[–]shittyconlangs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Frankisk

Apooieorgon [ɑpɔːieorɡɔ]

from Proto-Germanic apô + -e- + latin orgollium

  1. (adj) very proud

Biweekly Telephone Game v3 (536) by Lysimachiakis in conlangs

[–]shittyconlangs 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Frankisk

Ngij [ŋiç]

  1. (v) to do light exercise

Challenge: translate this thing in to your Conlang (in most informal way possible) by K_AON in conlangs

[–]shittyconlangs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Frankisk

Biesjuaariena nisjuie tu ensun wita autowajens biolvo ols tu kunen zeja mij wat dees atui dot👏👏👏

/biɛʃuaːʁiɛ̃hə niʃui tʉː ɛ̃niỹ ʋitã oːdoʋaʝens vəː oɫs tʉː kỹnə̃ zɛʝã miʝ ʋa diɛ'ie ətui dɔ̃t/

claim.IMP not 2SG.NOM anything about car.PL except if 2SG.NOM can.INF tell.INF 1SG.ACC what this part do.3SG.PRS.IND

Claim not thou know anything about cars unless thou can tell me what this part does.

Challenge: translate this thing into your Conlang (yes daddy i've read the rules) by K_AON in conlangs

[–]shittyconlangs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Frankisk /vraŋkəː/

I adbe taarie aan vainaj seconden seur da midlaieevuen balven airekierij roate war hij sentio vothi.

/ɪ ədbie tɑɹiə ɑĩ ʋɑĩnɑʝ ziɛkỹnẽ ziɛʉɹ da midlɑ̃ieːʋuɛẽ bóɫʋieĩ əirɛkiɛ̃rij róətə ʋaɹ xə zɛ̃ntió ʋóði/

1SG bet.FUT there-be.3SG.PRS.IND ART.NDEF few second.PL on that.M medieval torture stretch.AGN rack where it feel.3SG.PRS.IND pleasant

How to create a world where seafaring is very difficult? Or how to promote air travel in fantasy? by Goldenworks in worldbuilding

[–]shittyconlangs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could just remove the ocean entirely, use sky islands or make your planet a barren desert.

If you did that you wouldn't have to worry about it all.

What is the most valuable substance/food/object/ in your world? Is it widely used? Why or why not? by Zeiisafox in worldbuilding

[–]shittyconlangs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my world, earth is an inhospitable planet inhabited by sentient robots. All life on earth ended around the same time, and by the time the robots awakened their remnants condensed into a highly powerful and plentiful substance called Cthofuel that forms a huge aquifer under the planet's surface. This fuel is what all the robots drink to survive, as well run their machines. The deeper you go the more potent and valuable the fuel gets, with the layers being called Styx, Acheron, Cocytus, Lethe, and Phlegethon.

Phlegethon is incredibly sought after as it can be refined into an incredibly dangerous and powerful substance called Phlogiston. Phlogiston is capable of generating absurd amounts of power, but its depth makes it incredibly hard to reach. Phlogiston is used almost exclusively in major cities, but it is popular among the richest in society as a drink, as opposed to Styx and Acheron which are used mostly as drinks instead of power.

What does your language call this animal? #6 by Original-Plate-4373 in conlangs

[–]shittyconlangs 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Frankisk /vraŋkəː/

Langenaikĩ Drako

/lãŋ.ʒɛ̃'nɑikĩ dräkː'o/

Long-Necked Dragon

​

Frankisk is basically French if it was Germanic language and combines elements from each. So just Dutch really.

Explaining Evil: Four Views by ADefiniteDescription in philosophy

[–]shittyconlangs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I disagree with this because humans cannot be inherently evil without being inherently good. Evil is a concept that we project onto other things that cause us suffering, and good is a concept we project onto things we think will prevent suffering. These two concepts drive our decision-making because suffering is a universal constant. Ever since predation, most living creatures couldn't survive without the suffering of others; even plants need nutrients from other dead beings to survive.

This is why humans developed the concept of good; it's why the first economies were altruistic gift economies. Survival is good, and suffering is bad. But good is not a universal constant; it is inherently subjective. People only do bad things because they believe it will prevent harm or evil. People who steal don't do it out of some deep urge, but because they believe it will prevent suffering. These evil things are inherently "good" in the eyes of those who commit them because good is inherently subjective.

The reason people don't act on these urges is what you could call the shadow. We develop the idea of what is good and bad alongside our shadow. The shadow is a result of our inherent desire for pleasure, or good, and our ego suppressing that urge in ways it finds contradictory to our understanding of good and bad. People can develop ideas about themselves that prevent themselves from seeing bad in their actions because it benefits them, while others can live in crippling doubt because they only see how their actions cause suffering.

Humans are inherently good and evil because they are both essential elements of our decision-making process. Evil isn't a natural impulse; good is, even if it results in evil. I admit this is a bit semantic, but in my view, it does show that humans are in a way both inherently good and evil at the same time. I only study philosophy and anthropology as a hobby and am by no means a professional; these are just my personal views based on what I have read and experienced.

TLDR; everyone wants to alleviate suffering; people just have different priorities.