i like food and stuff

pronouns are cool. trying to be kinder and more compassionate to myself & others. please don't be a meanie.

[the-snail-queen]

Maybe I've been in my job as an editor for too long. But I have a gripe with folks who uncritically promote piracy.

Piracy is great when you're stealing from a big ship. There are lots of big ships we can easily identify: Netflix. Disney. Simon and Schuster. Penguin Random House. Elsevier. Loot those ships!

But did you know how many of those shipping companies are also lending out their ships to smaller merchants? How many indie film houses are distributed by Netflix or Hulu? How many big publishers are essentially putting their names on indie books?

Many indie publishers have their books distributed by a larger publisher or distributor. Penguin Random House and Simon and Schuster both act as distributors for dozens of smaller presses. Each of the Big 5 Publishing Houses has a greater reach to local bookshops, museums, schools, and, yes, Barnes and Nobles, Amazon, etc, than local distribution centers, and SPD (Small Press Distribution) just shut down.

My publishing house is independently owned and employs about 30 people. We've been around for almost 50 years and publish a lot of cool things, and most of us are incredibly nerdy about the stuff we publish. And our authors are amazing! We work with artists, activists, teachers, healers, leaders--lots of people trying to change the world.

I want them to get their royalties! Though we can't pay a living wage to each author--we have a full staff that we support--we want to see our authors thrive! And Big 5 companies and Amazon are already taking some of their earnings. I don't want to see their pay further diminished by uncritical piracy. Downloading 500 copies of a book by Stephen King won't mean a thing to him, but to an indie author, 500 copies is half a month's rent. And to the publisher, a portion of another author's advance.

How can you tell if a book is published by an indie that's being distributed by a larger publisher, or I published by an imprint of a larger publisher? (An imprint is just another name for the same publisher, but likely with a separate editorial and marketing team. Look at the copyright page! It will likely say "imprint" if it's an imprint, "distributed by" if it's a distribution deal, or just the name of the publisher.

Don't pirate from small and indie publishers. Amazon and distributors take enough from us as it is! Support small presses and indie presses, support queer and BIPOC and immigrant authors, and if you really want to get a book for free, put in a request at the library. Libraries rule!

[snailcatpawprints]

[ieatpastriesforfun]

So colorful! It looks like the mushroom is crying.

[snailcatpawprints]

[ieatpastriesforfun]

Sleepy Friendly Friend!

[snailcatpawprints]

A cat doing pullups or a cat hanging on for dear life?

[ieatpastriesforfun]

Hang in there, buddy!

[ieatpastriesforfun]

r/daggerheart is toxic AF...and I love it

Note: This is just a rant about the subbreddit and their inability process any critique of the game that goes against their narrative of the game. The game itself has a lot of good parts, which I really like. But this post isn't about the game, but the subbreddit.

So you know, I am a nerd that like to nerd about games and probabilities. I've been interested in Daggerheart for a while because I am a fan of Critical Role, and the beta playtest rules recently came out. I was super excited, so I read through the PDF as soon as I got the chance, also started a game with my partner.

And honestly, there are some great parts to the game. But there are also some design decisions that made me scratch my head. So I shared some of my thoughts on r/daggerheart.

Oh boy did I poke a beehive. That subbreddit is pretty hostile toward anyone who dares to criticize the game. My first post critiquing the complexity of the damage system got down voted to oblivion. They told me I shouldn't have opinion on the very things I can read because I haven't played the game. So when I played the game and posted my feedback, these folks dismissed my criticisms because I was suffering from "new system syndrome."

Oh, and the comments. They were something else. The sub is dominated by a group of people who are pushing the narrative that Daggerheart is "rules-light" and "very easy" and "less math than DND."

Yes, Daggerheart is a rules-light game with a 377 page rulesbook. Because this is still beta, it is missing a ton of rules, not to mention artwork. But sure, it's a rules-light game. Because what is page count if not just a number?

Yes, Daggerheart is "very easy" if you ignore the fact that every character has HP, minor damage threshold, major damage threshold, severe damage threshold, stress, hope, and armor on top of your abilities and backstory and everything else you are trying to juggle.

Yes, Daggerheart has less math than DND because instead of just subtracting the damage from the HP, you compare the damage to each of the thresholds to decide whether or not you want to reduce the damage by armor, then determine how much you lower the HP by, unless it is below the minor threshold, in which case you take stress, but if you are filled up on stress, you take 1 HP. Oh, and you know, if you also ignore the fact that you roll two dice, add the numbers, and check to see which one is bigger to decide which one is bigger every single time you want to do something.

So yeah, if you ignore all of those very obvious things that I can see with my very own eyes, my own experience of running the game, my experience having played a rules-light RPG like Candela, they are right: Daggerheart is a rules-light game that is very easy to play with less math than DND /s.

Seriously, these folks will fight you tooth-and-nail to tell you that what you can see is wrong. They will gaslight you, tell you about how 11-years can play Daggerheart, their 73 year old mother can play Daggerheart, tell you that you are playing the game wrong, DND has taught you bad habits, and that your critique doesn't matter because all you want is the game to be more like DND.

And I love it. I love seeing the cognitive dissonance. I love going at it with these die-hard fans. And it's pretty easy on my part. I don't need to get mean—all I need to do is point out very obvious things. And you know, no foul no harm—we keep going until one or both of us get sick of arguing about whatever specific thing we are arguing about.

Anyway, enough of my rant.

I want Daggerheart to succeed. I really do. I think Matt Mercer and friends are pretty good folks, and I find their story inspiring, and I would love to see them succeed. I hope that Daggerheart developers listen to the critical feedbacks, make the game better, and not try to push any weird narratives (like they did with Candela vs FitD).

[ieatpastriesforfun]

I have to say, r/daggerheart has gotten considerably more pleasant in the past few days. I feel like with the interest in the game growing, there are newer folks participating in the discussions.

On the side note, I'm very curious what v1.3 will bring. If we are going by software versioning rules, it should be backwards compatible with v1.2, but there is no reason to believe that TTRPG versions follow those convention.

I would personally love to see a complete re-haul of combat, and take the MCDM rpg-like approach to damage, but I have a feeling that won't be happening.

The general pattern I see in Daggerheart's mechanics is a lack of elegance. You have to constantly create patch works of special cases and rules to make things work.

And it is frustrating because

I love their character creation.

I love their cooperative world building.

I love their general GM-ing philosophy.

I want to like this game.

I want this game to succeed.

Here are some of the things I hate about Daggerheart combat in v1.2.

I hate the damage thresholds so much, but I don't think they will get rid of that.

I hate that you can only inflict 1, 2, or 3 damage (4 with a variant rule).

I hate the fact that you can take down a very powerful enemy by hitting them 12 times with your bare bands, though the same enemy could soak up to hundreds of "damage" before falling.

I hate that you sometimes combine damages before determining the HP loss, and sometimes you don't.

The fact that these thresholds vary so much makes it feel like the weapon damage dice doesn't really matter.

I hate that there are so many meta-currencies rolling around. I would argue for getting rid of stress and armor slots, and just use hope for players. So when you run out of hope, you can't negate damage. For adversaries, I guess you can use fear in place of stress, though I suppose you'll need a bigger fear pool.

I hate the asymmetry between GM and players. It makes it literally a requirement for the game to come up with a bunch of side rules—you can't just plop a ally NPC or plop a created character as an enemy.

I hate that missing in combat sucks so much in Daggerheart—not only did you fail to hit the enemy, but you ended the turn for your entire party, and possibly handed a resource that the adversaries can use.

Last but not least, the action economy really needs a re-examination. There are 2 restrictions on GM moves that really frustrate me:

You can't move the same enemy more than once in a turn (unless the enemy has a special ability)

You can move one enemy using one token (unless the enemy has a special ability)

As a GM, if you don't pick your enemies right, you could end up with an encounter where most of your creatures are just kind of standing around doing nothing. Or the GM could have a bunch of action tokens they can't use—maybe convert some to fear for later, assuming you aren't already filled up.

I also don't like that players not doing anything is at times an optimal strategy. This came up a couple of times in the subreddit in question actually, and the crap comments the poster got was, "If you are trying to optimize, then you are playing it wrong." But can you really blame a player for not wanting to take an action if their action is much less effective than another character? Because taking an action in this game means you are risking giving a powerful resource to your adversaries (see above rant about missing in Daggerheart).

"Oh but @ieatpastriesforfun. You don't understand. Daggerhear is a narrative game. Don't you bring that GM vs Players mentality to this narrative game," a fan-human would say, ignoring that the very mechanics of the game undermine this philosophy.

Wow, that was a lot. I am done now.

[ieatpastriesforfun]

I stand corrected. r/daggerheart is back being toxic, except it's no longer fun for me.

The new mantra is "If you don't like it, homebrew it." It's like they don't understand what it means for a game to be in beta testing.

[ieatpastriesforfun]

r/daggerheart is toxic AF...and I love it

Note: This is just a rant about the subbreddit and their inability process any critique of the game that goes against their narrative of the game. The game itself has a lot of good parts, which I really like. But this post isn't about the game, but the subbreddit.

So you know, I am a nerd that like to nerd about games and probabilities. I've been interested in Daggerheart for a while because I am a fan of Critical Role, and the beta playtest rules recently came out. I was super excited, so I read through the PDF as soon as I got the chance, also started a game with my partner.

And honestly, there are some great parts to the game. But there are also some design decisions that made me scratch my head. So I shared some of my thoughts on r/daggerheart.

Oh boy did I poke a beehive. That subbreddit is pretty hostile toward anyone who dares to criticize the game. My first post critiquing the complexity of the damage system got down voted to oblivion. They told me I shouldn't have opinion on the very things I can read because I haven't played the game. So when I played the game and posted my feedback, these folks dismissed my criticisms because I was suffering from "new system syndrome."

Oh, and the comments. They were something else. The sub is dominated by a group of people who are pushing the narrative that Daggerheart is "rules-light" and "very easy" and "less math than DND."

Yes, Daggerheart is a rules-light game with a 377 page rulesbook. Because this is still beta, it is missing a ton of rules, not to mention artwork. But sure, it's a rules-light game. Because what is page count if not just a number?

Yes, Daggerheart is "very easy" if you ignore the fact that every character has HP, minor damage threshold, major damage threshold, severe damage threshold, stress, hope, and armor on top of your abilities and backstory and everything else you are trying to juggle.

Yes, Daggerheart has less math than DND because instead of just subtracting the damage from the HP, you compare the damage to each of the thresholds to decide whether or not you want to reduce the damage by armor, then determine how much you lower the HP by, unless it is below the minor threshold, in which case you take stress, but if you are filled up on stress, you take 1 HP. Oh, and you know, if you also ignore the fact that you roll two dice, add the numbers, and check to see which one is bigger to decide which one is bigger every single time you want to do something.

So yeah, if you ignore all of those very obvious things that I can see with my very own eyes, my own experience of running the game, my experience having played a rules-light RPG like Candela, they are right: Daggerheart is a rules-light game that is very easy to play with less math than DND /s.

Seriously, these folks will fight you tooth-and-nail to tell you that what you can see is wrong. They will gaslight you, tell you about how 11-years can play Daggerheart, their 73 year old mother can play Daggerheart, tell you that you are playing the game wrong, DND has taught you bad habits, and that your critique doesn't matter because all you want is the game to be more like DND.

And I love it. I love seeing the cognitive dissonance. I love going at it with these die-hard fans. And it's pretty easy on my part. I don't need to get mean—all I need to do is point out very obvious things. And you know, no foul no harm—we keep going until one or both of us get sick of arguing about whatever specific thing we are arguing about.

Anyway, enough of my rant.

I want Daggerheart to succeed. I really do. I think Matt Mercer and friends are pretty good folks, and I find their story inspiring, and I would love to see them succeed. I hope that Daggerheart developers listen to the critical feedbacks, make the game better, and not try to push any weird narratives (like they did with Candela vs FitD).

[ieatpastriesforfun]

I have to say, r/daggerheart has gotten considerably more pleasant in the past few days. I feel like with the interest in the game growing, there are newer folks participating in the discussions.

On the side note, I'm very curious what v1.3 will bring. If we are going by software versioning rules, it should be backwards compatible with v1.2, but there is no reason to believe that TTRPG versions follow those convention.

I would personally love to see a complete re-haul of combat, and take the MCDM rpg-like approach to damage, but I have a feeling that won't be happening.

The general pattern I see in Daggerheart's mechanics is a lack of elegance. You have to constantly create patch works of special cases and rules to make things work.

And it is frustrating because

I love their character creation.

I love their cooperative world building.

I love their general GM-ing philosophy.

I want to like this game.

I want this game to succeed.

Here are some of the things I hate about Daggerheart combat in v1.2.

I hate the damage thresholds so much, but I don't think they will get rid of that.

I hate that you can only inflict 1, 2, or 3 damage (4 with a variant rule).

I hate the fact that you can take down a very powerful enemy by hitting them 12 times with your bare bands, though the same enemy could soak up to hundreds of "damage" before falling.

I hate that you sometimes combine damages before determining the HP loss, and sometimes you don't.

The fact that these thresholds vary so much makes it feel like the weapon damage dice doesn't really matter.

I hate that there are so many meta-currencies rolling around. I would argue for getting rid of stress and armor slots, and just use hope for players. So when you run out of hope, you can't negate damage. For adversaries, I guess you can use fear in place of stress, though I suppose you'll need a bigger fear pool.

I hate the asymmetry between GM and players. It makes it literally a requirement for the game to come up with a bunch of side rules—you can't just plop a ally NPC or plop a created character as an enemy.

I hate that missing in combat sucks so much in Daggerheart—not only did you fail to hit the enemy, but you ended the turn for your entire party, and possibly handed a resource that the adversaries can use.

Last but not least, the action economy really needs a re-examination. There are 2 restrictions on GM moves that really frustrate me:

You can't move the same enemy more than once in a turn (unless the enemy has a special ability)

You can move one enemy using one token (unless the enemy has a special ability)

As a GM, if you don't pick your enemies right, you could end up with an encounter where most of your creatures are just kind of standing around doing nothing. Or the GM could have a bunch of action tokens they can't use—maybe convert some to fear for later, assuming you aren't already filled up.

I also don't like that players not doing anything is at times an optimal strategy. This came up a couple of times in the subreddit in question actually, and the crap comments the poster got was, "If you are trying to optimize, then you are playing it wrong." But can you really blame a player for not wanting to take an action if their action is much less effective than another character? Because taking an action in this game means you are risking giving a powerful resource to your adversaries (see above rant about missing in Daggerheart).

"Oh but @ieatpastriesforfun. You don't understand. Daggerhear is a narrative game. Don't you bring that GM vs Players mentality to this narrative game," a fan-human would say, ignoring that the very mechanics of the game undermine this philosophy.

Wow, that was a lot. I am done now.

[ieatpastriesforfun]

r/daggerheart is toxic AF...and I love it

Note: This is just a rant about the subbreddit and their inability process any critique of the game that goes against their narrative of the game. The game itself has a lot of good parts, which I really like. But this post isn't about the game, but the subbreddit.

So you know, I am a nerd that like to nerd about games and probabilities. I've been interested in Daggerheart for a while because I am a fan of Critical Role, and the beta playtest rules recently came out. I was super excited, so I read through the PDF as soon as I got the chance, also started a game with my partner.

And honestly, there are some great parts to the game. But there are also some design decisions that made me scratch my head. So I shared some of my thoughts on r/daggerheart.

Oh boy did I poke a beehive. That subbreddit is pretty hostile toward anyone who dares to criticize the game. My first post critiquing the complexity of the damage system got down voted to oblivion. They told me I shouldn't have opinion on the very things I can read because I haven't played the game. So when I played the game and posted my feedback, these folks dismissed my criticisms because I was suffering from "new system syndrome."

Oh, and the comments. They were something else. The sub is dominated by a group of people who are pushing the narrative that Daggerheart is "rules-light" and "very easy" and "less math than DND."

Yes, Daggerheart is a rules-light game with a 377 page rulesbook. Because this is still beta, it is missing a ton of rules, not to mention artwork. But sure, it's a rules-light game. Because what is page count if not just a number?

Yes, Daggerheart is "very easy" if you ignore the fact that every character has HP, minor damage threshold, major damage threshold, severe damage threshold, stress, hope, and armor on top of your abilities and backstory and everything else you are trying to juggle.

Yes, Daggerheart has less math than DND because instead of just subtracting the damage from the HP, you compare the damage to each of the thresholds to decide whether or not you want to reduce the damage by armor, then determine how much you lower the HP by, unless it is below the minor threshold, in which case you take stress, but if you are filled up on stress, you take 1 HP. Oh, and you know, if you also ignore the fact that you roll two dice, add the numbers, and check to see which one is bigger to decide which one is bigger every single time you want to do something.

So yeah, if you ignore all of those very obvious things that I can see with my very own eyes, my own experience of running the game, my experience having played a rules-light RPG like Candela, they are right: Daggerheart is a rules-light game that is very easy to play with less math than DND /s.

Seriously, these folks will fight you tooth-and-nail to tell you that what you can see is wrong. They will gaslight you, tell you about how 11-years can play Daggerheart, their 73 year old mother can play Daggerheart, tell you that you are playing the game wrong, DND has taught you bad habits, and that your critique doesn't matter because all you want is the game to be more like DND.

And I love it. I love seeing the cognitive dissonance. I love going at it with these die-hard fans. And it's pretty easy on my part. I don't need to get mean—all I need to do is point out very obvious things. And you know, no foul no harm—we keep going until one or both of us get sick of arguing about whatever specific thing we are arguing about.

Anyway, enough of my rant.

I want Daggerheart to succeed. I really do. I think Matt Mercer and friends are pretty good folks, and I find their story inspiring, and I would love to see them succeed. I hope that Daggerheart developers listen to the critical feedbacks, make the game better, and not try to push any weird narratives (like they did with Candela vs FitD).

[ieatpastriesforfun]

Candela Obscura Core Rulebook has a 1 star rating on amazon because of a troll

I was interested in how Candela Obscura Core Rulebook was being received by the populous outside of the Critical Role community, and I was sad to find that there is only one review on amazon with a 1 star rating, not because of anything to do with with the game mechanics or the world, but because it is... "preachy"?

I have no idea what this person is talking about, so I flipped through the rulebook and found one tiny paragraph in the character creation page that talks about avoiding harmful stereotypes, in a 200 page book. Like, screw this guy.

[ieatpastriesforfun]

Now it has a 4 star rating on amazon! It looks like there were 2 additional reviewers who gave it a 5 star rating.

[ieatpastriesforfun]

Candela Obscura Core Rulebook has a 1 star rating on amazon because of a troll

I was interested in how Candela Obscura Core Rulebook was being received by the populous outside of the Critical Role community, and I was sad to find that there is only one review on amazon with a 1 star rating, not because of anything to do with with the game mechanics or the world, but because it is... "preachy"?

I have no idea what this person is talking about, so I flipped through the rulebook and found one tiny paragraph in the character creation page that talks about avoiding harmful stereotypes, in a 200 page book. Like, screw this guy.

[the-snail-queen]

So while I've been bed bound my husband and I have been playing Pokemon Scarlet (he runs the controls and I enthusiastically backseat game). (Also this game is not at all what I expected, it's very goofy, yet still fun.) And I've been re-writing the world of Pokemon into my own headcanon because for whatever reason the idea of imprisoning wild creatures, forcing them to fight, and basing an entire branch of capitalism on this practice somehow doesn't sit well with me.

I'm sure there are other versions of this theory out there but I have no interest in looking any of them up.

Okay the theory: Pokemon are extraplanar sprites that see the human world as a playground to visit. Trainers are those individuals who are most skilled at seeing between worlds and thus seeing and interacting with Pokemon, and some trainers go into the sport of Pokemon. (Others with the trainer skill may take up Pokemon medicine, become researchers, or just form bonds with Pokemon.) Trainers and Pokemon have a mutualistic relationship: Pokemon are more easily able to channel their emotions and needs into playful release, and humans find fulfillment in the relationship with another being.

When in their pokeballs or when they "faint," Pokemon are linked back to their original planes until the humans they've bonded with summon them. Because Pokemon do not experience linear time, they don't mind getting called at a moment's notice.

Ò

Pokemon choose regions on Earth based on the qualities they most wish to cultivate in themselves; this is related to how Pokemon "types" manifest. Of course, their appearances are filtered through the existing human experience and environment. No Pokemon would choose itself to look like an ice cream or a garbage, because those concepts are meaningless to Pokemon overall.

Anyway, these are my half cocked theories to let me play this game without feeling icky. Because apparently I need to rationalize the story design of a long standing series.

[ieatpastriesforfun]

I like this idea of Pocket Monsters being Fey-like creatures from another plane.

No Pokemon would choose itself to look like an ice cream or a garbage

ROFLAMO

[the-snail-queen]

okay, therapist. ill feel some stupid little emotions and process my stupid little traumas and engage in some stupid little growth and healing. just the way you planned it, you coy, conniving, licensed professional. are you happy now? what's that--we can explore the nuance of our feelings beyond just happiness, anger, and sadness? we can examine and break down the barriers we've built our whole lives while also appreciating how they've scaffolded us? how quaint.

[ieatpastriesforfun]

+1

[ieatpastriesforfun]

I wonder when Disney will remake Bambi

...and I hope they cast Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson as Bambi

[ieatpastriesforfun]

There were many times in life when I was the fool

...and I was so smug about winning an argument.

[beardedmrbean]

A skilled artisan is a joy to witness

vladik_oladik_2222

[ieatpastriesforfun]

Amazing!

[ieatpastriesforfun]

Traveling as a Child vs Adult

My parents took me to a lot of places when I was a child. Their intent, at least the way they said it, was to help me learn and expand my horizons. It was definitely a privilege that my parents could afford to do this, but what did that privilege do for me?

I remember so little. I can't even name the countries we visited. The only specific things I can recall are elephant poop is huge, suffering a heatstroke, and a joke a tour guide told us about some guy who fell asleep on a bench wearing shorts that got their dick bitten by a mouse (the punch line was, "It must have been a female mouse," ha ha). Only activities and food I was allowed to have were things I couldn't have back at home. We were always on the move, because we had to spend every second doing somewhere or else we are wasting money. It is no wonder I grew up equating travel with suffering and stress.

It was only as an adult that I discovered the joy of traveling. I love that I can choose not to do all top 10 best things to do. I love that I can choose to watch a bunch of movies while lounging in the hotel room with my beloved. I love that I can just get lost and walk in circles in some random neighborhood. I love that I can just enjoy and relax.

[ieatpastriesforfun]

Oh wait. Mangosteen. I also remember having mangosteen for the first time in my life and loving it.

I got a chance to eat some imported mangosteen from Berkeley Bowl and oh boy were they disappointing.

[ieatpastriesforfun]

Traveling as a Child vs Adult

My parents took me to a lot of places when I was a child. Their intent, at least the way they said it, was to help me learn and expand my horizons. It was definitely a privilege that my parents could afford to do this, but what did that privilege do for me?

I remember so little. I can't even name the countries we visited. The only specific things I can recall are elephant poop is huge, suffering a heatstroke, and a joke a tour guide told us about some guy who fell asleep on a bench wearing shorts that got their dick bitten by a mouse (the punch line was, "It must have been a female mouse," ha ha). Only activities and food I was allowed to have were things I couldn't have back at home. We were always on the move, because we had to spend every second doing somewhere or else we are wasting money. It is no wonder I grew up equating travel with suffering and stress.

It was only as an adult that I discovered the joy of traveling. I love that I can choose not to do all top 10 best things to do. I love that I can choose to watch a bunch of movies while lounging in the hotel room with my beloved. I love that I can just get lost and walk in circles in some random neighborhood. I love that I can just enjoy and relax.

[ieatpastriesforfun]

Thank you to everyone who got me to 50 likes!