Відео

Three cheers for ongoing madness~

I haven't bought any games, but I bought dice of course, cheap ones on Shein. And books by Justin Alexander and Tracy Hickman. 2 Shieldice products, NPC Builder and Scenario Builder. And a little indie called The Eight Elements: A Freeform Magic System, which is the most unique magic system I've seen in a long time, even tho it's fairly unrefined, production-wise. I have no practical use for any of these things, but I'm enjoying them anyway.

The last RPG product I bought was indie RPG "Black Star" by Lakeside Games, although I technically bought it last year. Fantastic game, though, and have been using it to run a homebrew Star Wars campaign.

We appreciate the purchase and AP experience Ivan!

Thank you for doing this early in the morning. I gotta get on my answers.

Mordavia rules~

Ive had several bag ends and they all sounds great. If you want that really low sub sound, grab one of their crossovers. They'll take the closed /unported cabs down from around 50hz to 8hz! Biamp heaven!😂

Thanks for recording this, I share your sentiment.

Question: I have a 4 ohm cab and an 8 ohm cab. If I set the MESA to 2 ohms would I damage the amp at all by running both cabs, I realise that my 2 cabs combined would offer a resistance of 2.67 ohms and yet the amp would be expecting 2 ohms. So would the discrepancy be harder or easier on the amp itself ?

Lol just watched he'd this. Good video. I'll have to check out his video and your discussion with him.

Consider that part of the problem is, is that we are exploring just how diverse the hobby is, and that the term role play has long been tossed around as a catch all.

Rock on.

Well, it's better than pop tarts, which was what I thought it said.

Division is to distinguish an enemy. Diversity is to build bridges with discussion.

Having set definitions is divisive, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, take E-Gaming for example, pretty much any competitive game has both the casual and competitive side of it, the division there is actually beneficial, casuals don't want tryhards ruining their fun the same way the experts don't want casuals ruining their game. Of couse our hobby is not a competitive one, but having a clear distinction will end up helping both sides. It is clear that there are people seeking different things when playing RPGs, and helping it be clear will end up benefiting everyone. Either way thanks for sharing your thoughts

I do hope to never come across as divisive, and to always recognize that my way of thought isn't the only way to think. 🙂

Looks like I'm springing for a copy of Hyperborea. 😊

I always like hearing your thoughts on this topic. I think RPG theory models can provide a useful framework as a place to start from when examining one’s preferences and intentions. Knowing these preferences can help identify whether a game or another group of players will be a good fit. I have trouble identifying my own intentions within the strict confines of terms like Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist. I agree there’s a spectrum within each category and these intensions can masquerade as each other. When playing outside of a well-known friend group, I just try to be explicit about the kind of game I like rather than rely on the crutch of a buzzword. For example, my preferences are: story is interesting as a by-product but not the primarily goal, flamboyant and dramatic performances are not my cup of tea, I’m more interested in exploring and investigating imaginary worlds than a character’s psyche - though their in-game perspective does inform my decisions, I’m not interested in character optimization or builds, playing a “suboptimal” character is perfectly acceptable, out-of-character exchanges between the players and the GM is fine as long as it is game-focused and furthers adventuresome play, I prefer combat to be quick and somewhat abstract as opposed to highly mechanical and tactical, random character death isn’t sought after but it isn’t a big deal either, etc. What do these intentions make me? Am I really role-playing? Maybe not, according to some, but I’m okay with that. The more important thing to me is to find others of like mind.

Good video.

Also, how did you find this in print? I'd love to add it to my shelf.

We should get in touch and have this conversation. 😊 Do we share any Discord servers in common? I find that's the easiest way to connect... eventually I'll be forced to get on X (Twitter), but I'm resisting for as long as I can.

One of the corners stones of the RPG hobby is it's diversity; and the challenge to be diverse. I've long said that there's a game for every person who wants to play, one only has to find it.

A common question: "What is role play?" when in should be: "What is role play to you!?"

GNS theory is an informal field of study that attempts to create a unified theory of how role-playing games (RPGs) work. It was developed by Ron Edwards and has been discussed in ttrpg game development circles for decades. The theory focuses on player behavior and suggests that participants organize their interactions around three categories of engagement: Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulation. In the GNS model of RPG design, Simulationism is used for objectiveness and emulation. Per a Google search, for those of us who are just oepning the GNS module.

He's got some good stuff, worth viewing in my opinion.

I have a different POV and have since GNS was a thing, then later decried by it's own creators (while still continually referencing it), before eventually The Forge declared victory and closed up shop, all their games then almost immediately falling into the mists of time and obscurity. GNS was always dumb. A bunch of... people attempting to quantify fun and successfully finding anti-fun and then believing it was fun and judging others for not following the path to anti-fun. Let me explain. Firstly, one stipulation: It was always obvious that Narrativism was the piller all the cool kids leaned up against and smoked. Gamism was for Math Geeks and Simulationism was for Dum Dums. This was at least hinted at in every discussion on the topic. What's the problem with that? The entire idea of prescribed drama as a legitimate means to achieve drama. The foundation block in the pillar of "Narrativism". Similar to comedy, you can't bottle it and sell it, drama comes in ephemeral short bursts. It's always changing. And the enjoyment is on the part of the audience, not the author. So four people sitting around a table generating drama are indeed in for a world of boredom as that's not how drama is meant to be enjoyed. It'd be like the same four guys coming up with jokes and punchlines. You don't get punched by a punchline if you came up with it. But it's worse than that. (Game of Thrones spoilers incoming) Drama requires stakes. Having stakes. Building stakes. Comedy only requires an involuntary response based on an unexpected outcome. A joke is funny and the audience laughs because they didn't expect the punchline. This is basic comedy I'm not getting in to satire, parody, awkward comedy, etc. At a baseline level for drama the enjoyment of the audience comes from caring about a character enough to feel an emotional response to a situation that unfolds for them, for good or ill. GRRM doesn't care if Ned Stark dies, but he makes sure you, the reader (or watcher, if you saw the show), do. This is why the audience of GoT hated Jaime Lannister in Season 8 because he was narratively growing one way for The Entire Series and then it was all tossed in the trash making his end, frankly, completely awful. But I wouldn't feel that ending being as awful as it was if I wasn't invested in Jaime at that point after watching his character progression for SEVEN YEARS. He would just be a pawn on a chessboard if I was the author. As the audience I had the time to fully invest in his character. Lastly is when you invest in multiple characters you can do the unthinkable and see them fight to the death. The most memorable fight of the entire GoT series for me was not in season 8. It was in season 4. Episode 10. The fight between Brienne of Tarth and The Hound Sandor Clegane. Because I cared about both characaters, they were both doing the right thing from their own perspectives, and I expected one to be dead at the end of the fight. The fact that neither die at the end of that fight is a payoff we didn't get as an audience. To be clear, Brienne should have died. Hell Podrick should have tried to help her and also died. This was the first time the series pulled its punches IIRC, and was very noticeable. It was also a strictly narrative/drama choice, keeping both characters alive, rather than a simulate-y choices that we'd seen in the series up until that point. Not the last but possibly the first. The last season was rife with it, so many immutable characters that existed so plot could continue to happen. This is why GNS is dumb and I have held this belief since it's inception. Narrativism/Drama in mechanics actually robs a game session of potential drama, it doesn't add to it. You have to build something before you can break it. Drama doesn't come out of a tap. Drama comes from gradual events leading to a tipping point and then conclusion. To put it another way, drama never shocks the GM. It can the players. The solution of having everyone essentially GMing drama means nobody gets affected by said drama. And the enjoyment of drama on the GM side is the effect it has on the players. Since there is no effect if everyone's GMing drama then nobody's gonna be happy.

Thanks for sharing Ivan, congratulations on your success - very glad you're well.

There’s a lot wrong with bacon. Choose Tofu

An important detail about agendas (creative or otherwise) and intentions is that many people, newcomers especially but not just them, are not aware of their preferences in any useful way and so don't form a coherent approach to play. That makes discussion difficult and comparison an act of patience~

I was born in early 66 and have been playing guitar since I was 7. I too have struggled with a substance problem since the 70s and got off whatever it was back in the early 2000s but still drink beer and smoke weed. Been in and out of the program since 1986 and have found that being 'stuck' in my current state I am best able to 'maintain' if you will, a balance and my sanity. I lost faith in the program off and on due to all the BS that gets slung in those Memphis meetings but am smart enough to still go occasionally and get what I can from it and ignore the rest. Your story and advice is both inspiring and spot on. That program did save my life eventually along with my own personal plan for recovery but it takes tolerance (of other addicts being disrespectful, hypocrites and holier-than-thou types) and a strong sense of self-preservation. sadly, the first 24 years of just showing up were wasted. I guess I just finally grew the f*** up, you know? Something clicked and I realized how pissed I was at the addiction itself and that's what worked for me. If you don't hate it, you can't beat it! Love the Bag End videos btw.. I have a ton of them, 29 guitars but only one bass left... lol

Do you want to hop on a stream to discuss, sometime? Why go back and forth with video replies when we can go back and forth in a dialogue?

Recovery is a hard road, man. Congratulations and never look back.

Hey, hey! Watching, now. 🙂

The GNS hypothesis has indeed run its course, replaced by a more wise approach. Instead of checking boxes, ignorantly, we go on adventures with our friends, as individuals, and discover what they are about along the way. It's not science. We must Ed Witten the hundreds of models and acknowledge them as just one facet of the whole thing.😁

Good for you, my friend. Way to go!!

I know full well how much of an accomplishment this is for you, Ivan. And double down on that for coming to the crossroad and taking 'the new path'. Some of us fail to notice the crossroad, or ignore them, until we walk ourselves into literal hell. I speak from experience, one I would wish on no one.

We are very glad~

Congrats for sobriety! And thank you for sharing.

Congratulations on achieving this milestone, and thanks for sharing!

That's a massive achievement and it is worth celebrating FOR SURE. 🤘🥳🤘

You're killin' it, dude. We're not fully defined by the things we rise above or move beyond, but they are an important part our our story as humans. This might be just the message someone out there needs to hear, so thanks for sharing it.

Truly courageous. Congratulations on a success worth celebrating! Inspiring.

Hey Ivan, I really appreciate you speaking about this. I spent 22 years of my life under the influence of one substance or another, primarily because I was completely out of touch with my own feelings. In 2010 I decided I needed to do something about it and I've never looked back. You say you don't know why you're making this video. Well, I don't really know why I'm commenting on it but I am, so there you go! Thanks for sharing.

Ah! Ok, I thought it was a Canadian rpg in French called Hex. I didn't realize it was an acronym for Hollow Earth Expedition. Thank you and sorry to bother you.

I'm enjoying the story. It does seem like the NPC is doing a lot of the heavy lifting.

Is this a French game?

How is the Passive Mid Control different from the typical Enhance knob (mid cut) that is so prevalent on bass amps?

Just saw that you made a follow-up so I'll just copy and paste my spreadsheet for 2d6, 2d10, 2d12, and 3d6 probabilities (including with boons and banes). I also went ahead and copied the text from that post just in-case it spurs any discussion. docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RmctLmRBrcWDwExBhIQKbK6FPNshH-vBdMyzUNRszfg/edit?usp=sharing A while back, I made a spreadsheet with probabilities for 2d6 TN=9 (as used in Barbarians of Lemuria), 2d10 TN=14, 2d12 TN=17, and 3d6 TN=13 with various modifiers and boons/banes (bonus/penalty dice where you drop the lowest or highest, respectively). I also included a column showing the delta relative to the previous step. Other TNs are easy to extrapolate since you just have to move up or down a number of steps based on the difference between the TN I entered and the one you want to know the probabilities for. For someone coming to a 2d6 game from a game using a linear d20 mechanic, I'd describe +1 as similar to +2.5 in d20 and a boon die as similar to advantage in 5e. If you want a more granular and meaningful range of possible modifiers alongside a bell-curve 2dX mechanic, I recommend 2d12 which has increments of success probability that are around 6% (very intuitive to people coming from the 5% increments of d20). 2d10 or even 3d6 are also good options if increments around 10% are more to your taste (which is pretty much where I'm at, from a design perspective, despite really loving that d12). With 2d6 and a TN of 9, a +2 modifier results in a 58% probability of success while a +2 and a boon results in a 80% probability of success. I disagree that 80% is high enough that rolling dice isn't really necessary (although I do think the upper and lower limits of a roll being worth table time are probably about 85% and 25%, respectively, and a lot of modern game design seems to hew to that rule of thumb). edit: I entered this manually using anydice so let me know if you have any questions, comments or corrections by using the comment function in Google Sheets.

docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RmctLmRBrcWDwExBhIQKbK6FPNshH-vBdMyzUNRszfg/edit?usp=sharing A while back, I made a spreadsheet with probabilities for 2d6 TN=9 (as used in Barbarians of Lemuria), 2d10 TN=14, 2d12 TN=17, and 3d6 TN=13 with various modifiers and boons/banes (bonus/penalty dice where you drop the lowest or highest, respectively). I also included a column showing the delta relative to the previous step. Other TNs are easy to extrapolate since you just have to move up or down a number of steps based on the difference between the TN I entered and the one you want to know the probabilities for. For someone coming to a 2d6 game from a game using a linear d20 mechanic, I'd describe +1 as similar to +2.5 in d20 and a boon die as similar to advantage in 5e. If you want a more granular and meaningful range of possible modifiers alongside a bell-curve 2dX mechanic, I recommend 2d12 which has increments of success probability that are around 6% (very intuitive to people coming from the 5% increments of d20). 2d10 or even 3d6 are also good options if increments around 10% are more to your taste (which is pretty much where I'm at, from a design perspective, despite really loving that d12). With 2d6 and a TN of 9, a +2 modifier results in a 58% probability of success while a +2 and a boon results in a 80% probability of success. I disagree that 80% is high enough that rolling dice isn't really necessary (although I do think the upper and lower limits of a roll being worth table time are probably about 85% and 25%, respectively, and a lot of modern game design seems to hew to that rule of thumb). edit: I entered this manually using anydice so let me know if you have any questions, comments or corrections by using the comment function in Google Sheets.

Summoning!