That's a lot of words to write for either not reading what I wrote, or not even attempting to understand it.
It's wild that I very explicitly said they're both bad and then you go on to imply that I, or people like me, think that one of these is "ok".
And that you chose to use those straw men instead of engaging with the concept of relativity of wrongness, tells me that you probably don't even really believe in that novella you wrote.
It wasn't actually attacking an enemy, it was setting their weapon rack on fire so that they couldn't get to their ranged weapons.
Very clever, I like it!
But this familiar is becoming OP through rules lawyering. I don't wanna rain on my player's parade, but I'm not an experienced DM and it's becoming difficult to make encounters that can't just be circumvented by this damn familiar lol.
Interesting!
Outside of combat, when a character is diligently working towards a thing that they're able to do, I wouldn't typically expect them to roll for it beyond adding flavor of how long it takes them.
In that light I could see using the tinderbox as an attack but the player doesn't usually need to roll it. But that's a stretch, I admit.
I'm gonna have to think on this a bit more. I'm shocked that burning hands or acid splash isn't considered an attack.
Well put.
I guess I also don't really know the average users behavior, or more specifically typical fedi behavior of users who would use a matchmaking service.
I'm just highly skeptical of compatibility quizzes, it feels like there must be a better solution.
That sounds like they'd ban content promoting the eating of the rich, too.
I'm all for banning fascist content, but I don't wanna lose the French revolution vibes.
I actually think observing your actual behaviour would be a better more honest way of matching.
And technically it's all public info so it's not technically a privacy issue; they'd get it over activitypub the same as all fediverse platforms already do.
But it feels wrong to do.
What would the matching mechanism do? Look at your fediverse activity and match people who like the same things as you?
Could be interesting but creepy
Or a boxing gym in general tbh.
But it also has to be defended separately by the admin of every server that has a user subbed to that community. Seems like a large burden to put on small-mid instance admins.
I'd be surprised if my server admin was really paying attention that closely to votes on communities I'm subbed to, right?
I have to admit I don't know the view that admins get of how their server intersects the fediverse.
I'm not sure how giving every server access to the votes solves that.
The malicious server can make fake users to pump up votes. your server admin has to notice, then check the vote logs, then see what's happening and defederate them. That's pretty much what you described in your scenario, anyways.
What do you mean "send fake votes"?
Or rather, who do you think should be responsible for identifying and blocking fraudulent votes?
And how do you reconcile votes that come from servers that you've defederated with? Should everyone have the same view of the post, or should people only see votes from servers that their server is federated with? What about votes from users you've personally blocked? Etc
I personally kinda think that the responsibility is on the server hosting the post, and that everyone should see the same (but anonymous) vote count, of which the hosting server is the single source of truth.
Unfortunately they're thinking so far outside the box that I'm having difficulty balancing encounters ๐ญ
One player can two shot a fire giant from a safe distance, yet a decent sized pack of giant rats would probably fuck up the whole party.