We are losing yellow guardian because we made the classic blunder of the coughing baby and nuclear bomb teamup
One Nice Bug Per Day
sheepfilms
hello vonnie
🩵 avery cochrane 🩵

Product Placement
art blog(derogatory)
𓃗
KIROKAZE
The Stonewall Inn

Andulka

#extradirty
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸

titsay
NASA
RMH

No title available
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

tannertan36
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ

if i look back, i am lost

seen from Austria

seen from United States
seen from Russia
seen from Chile
seen from Kazakhstan
seen from United States
seen from Chile

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Canada

seen from Netherlands

seen from Argentina
seen from Brazil
seen from Spain
seen from Malawi
seen from United States
seen from Philippines
seen from Uruguay
seen from Georgia

seen from China
@mc-usher
We are losing yellow guardian because we made the classic blunder of the coughing baby and nuclear bomb teamup
I miss the days when Dropout doing copaganda was a ridiculous joke that would never actually happen.
No company is your friend, and though it hurts I'm at least thankful to be reminded of that.
Billions must nap
Wraith's fault.
"accessibility" needs to stop meaning "low-engagement"
"we are making our TTRPG more accessible!"
"oh, did you make the font bigger and more legible?"
"no we're just doing the next edition in D&D5e"
"we're making our video game more accessible!"
"oh did you add an option to remap the controls?"
"no we just added an option to remove combat so the game is just a bunch of cutscenes"
"we made it accessible!"
"which part? what did you make accessible?"
"why, not playing the game at all of course! games are much better when they don't have any pesky game in them, especially for the disabled, who typically access the game parts even less."
To further elaborate (very long)
it is a very popular trend right now to add, like, features that skip the engagement with an interactive work of art, such as skipping combat or making combat impossible to lose in a combat-focused video game, or in the scene of TTRPGs making your TTRPG completely dumbed down or just hastily and mindlessly making it a D&D5e hack "because people already know how to play D&D5e and I want it to be accessible" instead of expecting people to actually read and learn and engage with a set of specific rules, and call all of that "accessibility" instead of adding "accessibility" features that would actually help disabled people access the "meat" of whatever the interactive art is.
If it's a combat-focused video game, some examples would be helping them engage with the full depth of the combat by allowing the controls to be fully remapped to something easier for their hands(or lack of hands), or the option to disable flashing lights or reduce the intensity muzzle flashes on the guns or something.
I think I have come up with a good example to illustrate this point. Let's say there is an FPS where you shoot aliens. Pretend it's, like, Halo but not specifically Halo.
And let’s say there’s a group of disabled gamers who are excited for this video game.
Missing Finger Guy, Deaf Guy, Colorblind Guy, and Poor Eyesight Guy.
Missing Finger Guy is missing at least one finger that corresponds to the Dodge button, he can’t reliably press it especially on short notice when aliens are coming at his character. So, he can’t really play the game because dodging is required to beat the levels. The game devs provide an “acccessibility” easy mode that turns off combat or makes the enemies do so little damage that he never needs to use the Dodge button. So, Missing Finger Guy can play the game now, right? Wrong. Dodging enemies *is* the game, and he still never gets to play with the Dodge button, or engage with any of the other elements of the game that are watered down by making enemy attacks not matter. To make the fun gameplay of dodging enemies accessible to this player, the answer is to allow remapping the Dodge action to a button that he can reach.
Deaf Guy
The game expects the player to rely on audio cues to know when enemies are sneaking up behind them or when a grenade lands at their feet or when an enemy is about to do a specific attack. Obviously the deaf player can’t hear these and can’t play the game because he’ll just die all the time to attacks which are literally impossible for him to predict. Again, this could be “fixed” by a mode that makes it so it doesn’t matter if he doesn’t hear a grenade land at his character’s feet by removing the consequence of death for failing to notice the grenade, or you could add the option to turn on subtitles for both story dialogue and sound effects like “[grenade beep]” and “[screatchure scream].” One of these allows the deaf gamer to play on roughly the same playing field as other players and react to threats the same way that hearing people can do that he can engage with the meat of the game, and the other doesn’t.
Colorblind Guy
The video game features enemies that are identifiable by their red and blue armor. Red aliens throw red grenades that you can catch and throw back, and blue aliens throw blue grenades that explode by proximity and you just have to fully avoid. Obviously, a colorblind player cannot reliably tell these apart, and would either have to try to throw back grenades at random and hope for the best, or just avoid all grenades to be safe. You could “fix” this by removing the consequence of death for getting exploded by a grenade, or you could fix it by adding a togglable colorblindness mode that switches the color distinction to something visible or adds some other distinctive feature besides color to one of those grenade types. One of these allows the colorblind player to engage with the intended gameplay of the game by taking informed risks by trying to throw back certain grenades, and one of them doesn’t, making it just not matter what decision he makes.
Poor Eyesight Guy
You get the formula by now. The *actually* accessible feature would be allowing him to adjust the text to be more readable instead of making it not matter if he can read the directions that tell him how to get through the minefield safety by removing the consequences for stepping on a mine.
A mode that simply removes consequences for failing to engage with and react appropriately to the threats the game presents is, at best, appealing only to people who don’t actually *like* the gameplay in the first place, while still shutting out the people who *want* to engage with the full depth of the gameplay but can’t because of some disability that prevents them from doing so as intended.
Because the gameplay isnt just seeing the cutscenes and getting a “level cleared” achievement, it is dodging the enemies, throwing back the grenades, listening for the screatchure screams, etc..
If there is an enemy who is super tough from the front and will kill you if you can’t get around behind him, you don’t make the game more “accessible” by making him so weak from the front that it doesn’t matter where you shoot him, or making his attacks so weak that you can shrug them off long enough to whittle him down from the front, youve actually removed this enemy from the game by making him just like the common enemies that can be shot from the front. You have actually made the element of the gameplay provided by this enemy inaccessible by doing this, because the quick thinking and tactical usage of the game’s features required to get behind him *is* the gameplay.
It’s much easier to explain this via video games but it goes for tabletop games as well. A TTRPG is more truly accessible for having big easy-to-read font and clear explanations so that players that want to engage with that game’s rules can do so even if they have reading difficulties, than if it just went “eh it doesn’t matter if you read the rules or not.”
Difficulty levels are not disability accomodations. OP explains that very well through their examples here.
I like difficulty levels, sometimes I don't enjoy a specific aspect of gameplay or I just want to blast through from cutscene to cutscene, and being able to toggle a zero-consequences baby mode is a nice option to have.
But most of the time I want to play the game, and to do that I need to remap half the controls. Let me remap them, don't treat me like I'm incapable of playing video games or like I don't deserve rewarding and engaging gameplay just because I can't move the mouse as precisely as the other guy.
It's like, you make a museum accesible by putting in ramps and elevators, not by telling wheelchair users that the art on the upper floors isn't all that great and they shouldn't want to see it in the first place.
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, and most people who follow me are very much of this opinion. But like... So much accessibility talk is not actually about letting people engage with your game who otherwise couldn't due to a disability or physical limitation. Rather, it's an idea of accessibility in the way a CEO would want a movie to be more accessible to a wider audience. As in like, "This movie's audience is too niche and it's ideas are too lofty, make it more accessible." Both of these are "accessibility" in a sense, but those are two VERY different definitions of the word, you know what I'm saying? Ideally, I'd like art which is naturally inaccessible through it's themes and difficulty and ideas to nonetheless be something people who have physical limitations (Or... Well, technological limitations, economic limitations, whatever else) can experience
Yes, this is a term that is being co-opted to prioritize corporate profits by appealing to a "wider audience" which includes people who don't actually like the product, while leaving disabled people shut out and, in many cases, calling them ableist for saying "an invincibility mode is not an accessibility setting, instead give me tools that will let me play the game without an invincibility mode the way everyone else who likes the gameplay can."
People in the tags are already going "hello i am the strawman from your post! I bought a game without realizing there was combat in it and i don't like combat so invincibility mode was an accessibility setting to me because it let me avoid the game i don't like!"
You'd have so much latitude to mess with people if you were a sorcerously animated skeleton. Space aliens have biology, and robots are least presumably beholden to physics, but skeletons are pure bullshit. Nobody would have the slightest intuition about your whole deal to fall back on, so you could claim it works however you want.
@important-animal-images
I think the "you should let your players be a 1000 year old vampire" is an interesting argument not because of the argument on its face but because of the assumptions inherent in the argument.
Like, it really narrows the type of game you could be talking about. It necessarily assumes some sort of fantasy, gothic, or horror elements. But it also assumes a game where you can't play as a 1000 year old vampire. So probably not a vampire-focused game, more likely to be some sort of kitchen sink fantasy setting.
And like, the Rules-As-Written answer to "can I play as a 1000 year old vampire" varies from game to game. It can range from "sure, the rules support that" or "you can be a vampire, but not an old one" to "you can be a vampire but not at character creation" to "sure, as long as you can represent that on a scale between two stats" to "sure, I guess, as long as it doesn't have any mechanical effects" to "sure, as long as your 1000 year old vampire is a teenager" to "what? this is a slice of life journaling game about roommates reflecting on memories while replacing their couch?"
But a lot of responses to this focus only on genre. Telling a player "you can play a 1000 year old vampire as long as it doesn't have any mechanical effects" or even "how about a dhampir/fledgeling/half-vampire" is sidestepping the actual ask. Being a 1000 year old vampire is a power fantasy. The common response of "what if you were a weak vampire" is not an actual answer to "I want to be a strong vampire." And if a system can accommodate being a strong vampire, that's fine, but if a system has a focus on, say, level-based combat encounters and relative combat parity between players, there's a reason that a GM might turn down that character concept.
All this is to say, the argument has an assumption that you're playing D&D 5E but your players aren't reading the rules, which scans actually
y'all missing the whole point of stardew valley. it's supposed to be slow paced. you're a farmer. crops do now grow instantly and you wont be making millions in a season. enjoy the fucking game, take your fucking time. take days off to just forage and talk to people. aren't yall tired of the grind from real life??? do you want to experience burnout in a farming game too??????
Nearly every mechanic in the game incentivizes efficiency in resource expenditure so "it's supposed to be slow" is a pretty bold stance. It's got quest deadlines, store hours, and unique NPC schedules for god's sake! The game actively rewards you for careful usage of your time to get the most out of every day to generate a better return, but offers you very little as a reward if you choose to ignore its systems. Intrinsic motivation aside, the game is quite opinionated on how it wants you to play it. It won't stop you from playing slow, but it won't really reward you either.
Idk this is kinda like saying D&D 5e is a good TTRPG system for a political-intrigue mystery thriller even though almost all of the rules point you toward fighting monsters in a dungeon. Like yeah you can do that, but the rules and mechanics are certainly not going to help you achieve that.
I've seen some people in the notes brining up Animal Crossing as a point of comparison which illustrates my point perfectly. Animal Crossing is structurally built to gate your progress to a capped rate, meaning that min-maxing efficiency only gets you so far and then your only option is wandering around interacting with the world. The game goes "slow down there buckaroo, you'll have to wait until tomorrow for that to happen" and by tomorrow it means the ACTUAL IRL NEXT DAY. Stardew Valley on the other hand has gates but that don't really stop you from plowing ahead.
Sure, you can play stradew in a slow, vibes-focused way, and it's no less valid by any means, but pretending that playing more structured is somehow wrong is ridiculous when the game is constantly telling you to care about efficient use of your resources.
Concernedape leaves glitches in the game when speedrunners tweet at him.
The only media I ever watched was avatar the lost air bender and dnd podcasts can I write a novel to change the world?
"The legislature did not include a grace period."
Overnight it will become illegal for trans people in Kansas to drive their cars. They can be arrested and, if convicted, face upwards of 6 months in prison with a $1000 fine. While in prison, as this is Kansas, they will be jailed according to their gender at birth. If they try to flee the state without surrendering their license, they cannot get a new one in a different state until they surrender their old one because the licenses are part of a national registry. And this is part of the bathroom bounty bill, which allows people to sue anyone they think is in the wrong bathroom.
The year is 1991, a villain robs your record store and on a whim you call a new hero helpline. It takes them over an hour to arrive, during which the villain waits around patiently because its a fun novel experience and it's new to everyone involved. The hero and villain almost appear to be play-fighting, and afterwards the villain immediately escapes their police holding cell because neither containment foam nor the PRT exists yet. Everyone tips you afterwards.
The year is 2002, a villain robs the restaurant you manage, and you call the local hero team, who arrive within 20 minutes. There's a brief, professional fight with a back and forth that almost seems like a therapy session, before the villain is captured. Because of circumstantial political tides they're immediately sent to the birdcage, despite it being a first offence.
The year is 2012, villains rob the grocery store that you work at, and you wearily call the PRT, the heroes arriving 50 minutes later because most of them have been killed in endbringer fights. The fight is bloody and quick, with all banter from either side taking the form of growled threats. Upon being brought back to the phq all of the villains are immediately offered plea deals to become probationary heroes.
The year is 2015, villains rob your community's new grain silo. No-one calls the heroes, but they decide to come anyway, taking over 2 hours (they live 10 miles and two portals away), to eventually catch up on a highway where 30 civilians die in the ensuing fight. After this the villains are captured and subsequently exiled to a blacksite prison world where one of them almost immediately dies of exposure and the other later becomes a titan. You don't get your grain back.
In the late 1980s & early 90s Syd Mead released a series of calendars featuring his work. These are some of the images from the 1989, 1991 & 1992 Syd Mead Oblagon Calendars
I don't even hate 5e at all. It's just the reasons that people give for it being good are things that are pretty much inherent to the medium of tabletop roleplaying, or true of all games in the same genre of ttrpg. And that makes me want to argue with people.
It doesn't matter if it's on Kickstarter, by making 5e content you are supporting wizards of the Coast. No matter how you make it you are building their brand for them.
Skaven Clan Gnaw engineers
Modiphus fallout 2d20 is begging for an isomeric perspective video game adaptation. As it exists it may be The most in spirit with the original game of all modern fallout publications.