u/WebpackIsBuilding

I love the negotiation rules, but I can see why they might not work for everyone.

IME, they are most useful in clearly communicating that players need to appeal to the NPC's personality. Without these rules, players always seem to default to negotiating by stating their own needs, and rarely try to even consider the NPC's needs.

By tying mechanics directly to the NPC's ideals, the game forces players to engage with the story on that level. And I'm so glad when they do.

Yeah, it's telling that the list of people invited is a 1-dimensional spectrum of "non-believers to Christians", but doesn't make any mention of other faiths.

Maybe I'm reading too much into things but... Sounds like a recruitment drive.

If the dm wants them to be, sure. Seems like a weird requirement though.

Crazy how the monsters need to be 25+ level casters to do the same thing that the level 3 PCs are doinng.

Wow, what a slimmed down version of the monster manual you found. Most of them have at least 2 more creatures than that.

I think you also missed the point I was making. Not your fault, seems I didn't communicate it clearly.

ALL game mechanics are an abstraction. That's just what a mechanic is. E.g., "Encumbrance" is an abstraction of the idea that "carrying a lot of stuff is difficult". "HP" is an abstraction of the idea that "being attacked can cause you to die".

I'm not against abstractions. That would mean being against game mechanics, categorically.

I'm not criticizing HP for being an abstraction. It's that it is a bad abstraction.

I'm not suggesting some alternative that would be better, so no need to attack some other hypothetical system. I'm just talking about HP.

The main reason HP is bad has nothing to do with how realistic it is. The issue comes from it being a gradient scale representing a binary status. That's a bad combination, no matter what concept it is an abstraction of.

• Gradient scale: You can have any number of HP between 0 and your max.

• Binary status: You are either down (0 HP) or up (any other HP).

It's also worth pointing out that HP is fungible. 20 HP is 20 HP, regardless of context. Compared to encumbrance, which is non-fungible; 20 lbs of weight can represent a wide variety of different items, which each represent different opportunities and abilities.

Nowhere in my comment did I say "big number bad". Nor did I say "killing quicker is better".

I'm honestly not sure what you're even responding to.

A lot of answers here are right, but skirt around the real issue.

HP represents a binary status represented by a gradient scale.

A character's HP only has mechanical impact when it hits 0. Going from 1,000,000 HP to 1 is mechanically meaningless, but going from 1 to 0 (or from 0 to 1, when healing) has huge significance.

That's a bad abstraction.

You can fix this by either giving mechanical importance to different HP thresholds, or by swapping out HP entirely for a save-or-suck style mechanic. But there are big consequences to either of those directions, which usually lead you to developing an entirely different game.

Twitter is the bottom of the barrel in 2026.

It takes 30 seconds to learn how to declare a variable.

This is embarrassing.

I have this problem with both Arcs and Oath, both of which I absolutely adore.

IMO, the issue is that both games are not fair, by design. Luck and king making are features of these games, but many people see them as deal breakers.

To me, this isn't a problem. These "unfair" elements usually lead to dramatic games, with moments that stick in your memory. If you care to interpret a narrative from the game, it blossoms into a storytelling device that is really phenomenal.

Arcs is an exercise in controlled chaos. If you have the means to acquire a resource, you probably lack the means to protect it, or the means to make it worth anything. At least on your own.

The way to win Arcs is by finding your own advantage in other people's plays. Stealing the court card someone else spent effort securing. Scoring an ambition someone else declared. Claiming trophies from when an opponent chose to attack you.

You're fundamentally not playing a solo strategy game. You're writhing in the mud, like the pigs all politicians are.

Can you explain what issue you had with the shopkeeper scene? I genuinely can't see why you think he was "being a jerk" there.

It's not even that I disagree with you, it's that I don't even see what issue you could possibly have.

I think I just have really bad luck for some reason

That's what improvise is for. It's a card game, not a dice game.

1. You can discard cards to gain 1 time each. This rule is often overlooked, and is crucial to effective play.

2. You will frequently have turns where you do very little other than discarding to purchase what you need for the next turn.

3. Improvise is the most important card in the game. You should rarely be playing multiple cards in a turn without starting with a full-success Improvise.

Yes you can spray paint. No one is stopping you.

I don't think it counts as a bnb if you need 100 meter

I don't have anyone on the record, but it's what I've heard from people who work directly with WOTC.

Most of MTG sales are from target/walmart impulse purchases.

A recognizable IP is going to help sales in that environment.

That doesn't mean the core playerbase actually prefers it. The core playerbase is just vastly outnumbered by casual players that couldn't give a shit about MTG lore, but can recognize spiderman's mask from 50 yards.

I think I heard that they have a restock each night, so go early if you need a popular size. Smalls seemed to be sold out early tonight.

This is both accurate and useless.

React is opinionated? It's main selling point for a decade is that it's closer to a library than a framework.

No we literally can't fill up fast on text. You are ignorant to an embarrassing extent.

Edit: I clicked on your profile. Not sure what I expected, but knew it would be embarrassing. Boy was I right.

You're comparing a thimble of water to niagra falls. It's embarassing.

And if changing a setting is going to disrupt 4 weeks of progress, then it should have a warning modal before allowing the change to occur.

To be clear about this "expected behavior".

Week 1 of this cycle is suggesting lower weights than week 1 of the previous cycle.

I understand week 1 will be lower than week 3. That's not what is happening. Week 1 of cycle 2 is lower than week 1 of cycle 1.