Nailed it.
"H.P. Lovecraft stories described by "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia."
10.03.2026 04:01
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Nailed it.
"H.P. Lovecraft stories described by "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia."
This sucks, as The Bride is probably the best film I have seen this year. Was very happy to be able to see in theatres.
"To Play."
Just got back from The Bride!.
So good. Messy and weird and lush and sexy.
Sorry. I don't quite understand.
Similar for me in NJ.
Amen
I dunno. I had heard that Viggo died when the orc tossed a knife at him. It's been his stuntman ever since.
Shit that just could have been a D&D sequel.
I also can't help but feel that the one defense we have against the fear of purchased favorable reviews is the reputation loss to the reviewer. When the "presenter" isn't even real, that threat is evaporated. Just spam the space with review homunculi so no one can keep track. Shameful.
Agreed. And the teeth have to be "dead man's switch" in that just killing an opponent doesn't turn them off. Else you go back to the point I made earlier about death being the best debuff.
Also: Don't assume your table wants full transparency. Actually ask them. You players may want you to hide things from them. People resent spoilers for a reason.
That's great, but it doesn't mean much when people just ignore the results. If "losing" a social combat has no teeth, it has no impact on play. Just relying on having "good players" is risky and can be a source of clique play.
I think my point may have been missing the mark. The threat of violent consequences means that PCs need to find non-violent ways to engage with each other, making PC deaths less likely, not more. The issue most games have is enforcing social mechanics. "I successfully made my intimidate check."
Real Talk:
People wanting to make a fighting tournament film ala Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat should watch The Quick and the Dead.
I think that all depends on what you feel the genre should encourage. I prefer the tension of the threat of PVP moderated by the reality of consequences. I would also expect that there is a difference between players seeking to get what they want and their characters doing so. ymmv
Complex question.
Ideally, one book. The threats in your world are a part of your world and it's overall atmosphere ideally. However, book size can be a factor. There is a sweet spot where if you have a lot of world building and a large selection of threats, split the book.
Revision: I "killed" one other PC, but that was the player actively retiring their character and I was in essence just a means for them to do so.
Sort of?
I played a Prince in my local game for 2 yrs. Ex Sabbat Prince of a Cam city. My former pack had my back and yeah, we had a rep for being dangerous.
Total number of PCs we killed in 2 yrs?
One.
It's the threat that keeps people in line.
Thats kinda my point. That the Prince will kill you is an "In Game Rule" that prevents/mitigates violence.
If you aren't evangelizing your hobby to outsiders to invite them in, you are being selfish.
So in my experience, you need "in world rules" to mitigate pvp in larp. Consequences for actions. Else, "death is the best debuff" is a legit conclusion.
First one, with extra gaudy tiki bar aesthetic.
Gorgeous.
But what badges would he put in them? That's the real question.
I talked with my table. There wasn't a fire in my players to have detailed navel combat. They aren't interested in playing the ship, they wanted to play their characters.
Solution:
I deemphasized any plans for sea battles. Used just simple narrative flow to resolve things. Saved myself the effort.
On House Rules in #ttrpg.
Broadly two flavours.
1) Existing rules "don't work".
2) No rule exists/ existing rules insufficiently developed.
Advice for GMs: Avoid unneeded labour.
I was planning a pirate game. 5eDnD. Navel rules just were lacking. I started working on expanding on them.
But. >
Amen
Starcom. No question.
Real Talk: An English Teacher wrote this sketch.