Ive had several bag ends and they all sounds great. If you want that really low sub sound, grab one of their crossovers. They'll take the closed /unported cabs down from around 50hz to 8hz! Biamp heaven!😂
@spikepit17 күн бұрын
Thanks for recording this, I share your sentiment.
@MrMarkshortt8 күн бұрын
Question: I have a 4 ohm cab and an 8 ohm cab. If I set the MESA to 2 ohms would I damage the amp at all by running both cabs, I realise that my 2 cabs combined would offer a resistance of 2.67 ohms and yet the amp would be expecting 2 ohms. So would the discrepancy be harder or easier on the amp itself ?
@ivanmike19688 күн бұрын
No, that won’t harm the amplifier at all. When the amp is set to two ohms, it’s not expecting a two ohm load. That just allows it to safely power loads down to two ohms. You could power a 16 ohm cabinet with it if you wanted to if you had one. The 4/8 setting Could just as easily have said four. Solid state power sections have a minimum impedance that they can drive safely, but they can power loads with higher impedance without a problem.
@MrMarkshortt8 күн бұрын
@@ivanmike1968 Much appreciated, fair play.
@roleplaycafe66459 күн бұрын
Lol just watched he'd this. Good video. I'll have to check out his video and your discussion with him.
@yourseatatthetable10 күн бұрын
Consider that part of the problem is, is that we are exploring just how diverse the hobby is, and that the term role play has long been tossed around as a catch all.
@yourseatatthetable10 күн бұрын
Rock on.
@yourseatatthetable10 күн бұрын
Well, it's better than pop tarts, which was what I thought it said.
@QuestingGM11 күн бұрын
Division is to distinguish an enemy. Diversity is to build bridges with discussion.
@EteraRPG11 күн бұрын
Having set definitions is divisive, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, take E-Gaming for example, pretty much any competitive game has both the casual and competitive side of it, the division there is actually beneficial, casuals don't want tryhards ruining their fun the same way the experts don't want casuals ruining their game. Of couse our hobby is not a competitive one, but having a clear distinction will end up helping both sides. It is clear that there are people seeking different things when playing RPGs, and helping it be clear will end up benefiting everyone. Either way thanks for sharing your thoughts
@JamesDBacon11 күн бұрын
I do hope to never come across as divisive, and to always recognize that my way of thought isn't the only way to think. 🙂
@JamesDBacon12 күн бұрын
Looks like I'm springing for a copy of Hyperborea. 😊
@ivanmike196812 күн бұрын
It’s a good one
@chrishall544013 күн бұрын
I always like hearing your thoughts on this topic. I think RPG theory models can provide a useful framework as a place to start from when examining one’s preferences and intentions. Knowing these preferences can help identify whether a game or another group of players will be a good fit. I have trouble identifying my own intentions within the strict confines of terms like Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist. I agree there’s a spectrum within each category and these intensions can masquerade as each other. When playing outside of a well-known friend group, I just try to be explicit about the kind of game I like rather than rely on the crutch of a buzzword. For example, my preferences are: story is interesting as a by-product but not the primarily goal, flamboyant and dramatic performances are not my cup of tea, I’m more interested in exploring and investigating imaginary worlds than a character’s psyche - though their in-game perspective does inform my decisions, I’m not interested in character optimization or builds, playing a “suboptimal” character is perfectly acceptable, out-of-character exchanges between the players and the GM is fine as long as it is game-focused and furthers adventuresome play, I prefer combat to be quick and somewhat abstract as opposed to highly mechanical and tactical, random character death isn’t sought after but it isn’t a big deal either, etc. What do these intentions make me? Am I really role-playing? Maybe not, according to some, but I’m okay with that. The more important thing to me is to find others of like mind.
@JamesDBacon13 күн бұрын
Good video.
@JamesDBacon15 күн бұрын
Also, how did you find this in print? I'd love to add it to my shelf.
@ivanmike196815 күн бұрын
I got that and a lot of the sorcerer materials and circle of hands from adept press. I’m not certain if that website of Ron’s still exists.
@JamesDBacon15 күн бұрын
Adept Play is still around, but not Adept Press. To the secondary market I go! 🙂
@JamesDBacon15 күн бұрын
We should get in touch and have this conversation. 😊 Do we share any Discord servers in common? I find that's the easiest way to connect... eventually I'll be forced to get on X (Twitter), but I'm resisting for as long as I can.
@ivanmike196815 күн бұрын
I barely use discord. I’m pretty sure I have an X account, but I don’t use it. I don’t find it useful. I do have a zoom subscription so I stream conversations to my channel that way. I’m not sure how you stream them to yours. Feel free to give me a holler on email and I’m sure we can figure something out quickly.
@JamesDBacon14 күн бұрын
I... don't know where to find your email address. 😅
One of the corners stones of the RPG hobby is it's diversity; and the challenge to be diverse. I've long said that there's a game for every person who wants to play, one only has to find it.
@yourseatatthetable15 күн бұрын
A common question: "What is role play?" when in should be: "What is role play to you!?"
@yourseatatthetable15 күн бұрын
GNS theory is an informal field of study that attempts to create a unified theory of how role-playing games (RPGs) work. It was developed by Ron Edwards and has been discussed in ttrpg game development circles for decades. The theory focuses on player behavior and suggests that participants organize their interactions around three categories of engagement: Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulation. In the GNS model of RPG design, Simulationism is used for objectiveness and emulation. Per a Google search, for those of us who are just oepning the GNS module.
@yourseatatthetable15 күн бұрын
He's got some good stuff, worth viewing in my opinion.
@Eron_the_Relentless15 күн бұрын
I have a different POV and have since GNS was a thing, then later decried by it's own creators (while still continually referencing it), before eventually The Forge declared victory and closed up shop, all their games then almost immediately falling into the mists of time and obscurity. GNS was always dumb. A bunch of... people attempting to quantify fun and successfully finding anti-fun and then believing it was fun and judging others for not following the path to anti-fun. Let me explain. Firstly, one stipulation: It was always obvious that Narrativism was the piller all the cool kids leaned up against and smoked. Gamism was for Math Geeks and Simulationism was for Dum Dums. This was at least hinted at in every discussion on the topic. What's the problem with that? The entire idea of prescribed drama as a legitimate means to achieve drama. The foundation block in the pillar of "Narrativism". Similar to comedy, you can't bottle it and sell it, drama comes in ephemeral short bursts. It's always changing. And the enjoyment is on the part of the audience, not the author. So four people sitting around a table generating drama are indeed in for a world of boredom as that's not how drama is meant to be enjoyed. It'd be like the same four guys coming up with jokes and punchlines. You don't get punched by a punchline if you came up with it. But it's worse than that. (Game of Thrones spoilers incoming) Drama requires stakes. Having stakes. Building stakes. Comedy only requires an involuntary response based on an unexpected outcome. A joke is funny and the audience laughs because they didn't expect the punchline. This is basic comedy I'm not getting in to satire, parody, awkward comedy, etc. At a baseline level for drama the enjoyment of the audience comes from caring about a character enough to feel an emotional response to a situation that unfolds for them, for good or ill. GRRM doesn't care if Ned Stark dies, but he makes sure you, the reader (or watcher, if you saw the show), do. This is why the audience of GoT hated Jaime Lannister in Season 8 because he was narratively growing one way for The Entire Series and then it was all tossed in the trash making his end, frankly, completely awful. But I wouldn't feel that ending being as awful as it was if I wasn't invested in Jaime at that point after watching his character progression for SEVEN YEARS. He would just be a pawn on a chessboard if I was the author. As the audience I had the time to fully invest in his character. Lastly is when you invest in multiple characters you can do the unthinkable and see them fight to the death. The most memorable fight of the entire GoT series for me was not in season 8. It was in season 4. Episode 10. The fight between Brienne of Tarth and The Hound Sandor Clegane. Because I cared about both characaters, they were both doing the right thing from their own perspectives, and I expected one to be dead at the end of the fight. The fact that neither die at the end of that fight is a payoff we didn't get as an audience. To be clear, Brienne should have died. Hell Podrick should have tried to help her and also died. This was the first time the series pulled its punches IIRC, and was very noticeable. It was also a strictly narrative/drama choice, keeping both characters alive, rather than a simulate-y choices that we'd seen in the series up until that point. Not the last but possibly the first. The last season was rife with it, so many immutable characters that existed so plot could continue to happen. This is why GNS is dumb and I have held this belief since it's inception. Narrativism/Drama in mechanics actually robs a game session of potential drama, it doesn't add to it. You have to build something before you can break it. Drama doesn't come out of a tap. Drama comes from gradual events leading to a tipping point and then conclusion. To put it another way, drama never shocks the GM. It can the players. The solution of having everyone essentially GMing drama means nobody gets affected by said drama. And the enjoyment of drama on the GM side is the effect it has on the players. Since there is no effect if everyone's GMing drama then nobody's gonna be happy.
@RileyLum15 күн бұрын
Thanks for sharing Ivan, congratulations on your success - very glad you're well.
@john-lenin15 күн бұрын
There’s a lot wrong with bacon. Choose Tofu
@Runeslinger15 күн бұрын
An important detail about agendas (creative or otherwise) and intentions is that many people, newcomers especially but not just them, are not aware of their preferences in any useful way and so don't form a coherent approach to play. That makes discussion difficult and comparison an act of patience~
@ivanmike196815 күн бұрын
Truth!
@RockNRoller6616 күн бұрын
I was born in early 66 and have been playing guitar since I was 7. I too have struggled with a substance problem since the 70s and got off whatever it was back in the early 2000s but still drink beer and smoke weed. Been in and out of the program since 1986 and have found that being 'stuck' in my current state I am best able to 'maintain' if you will, a balance and my sanity. I lost faith in the program off and on due to all the BS that gets slung in those Memphis meetings but am smart enough to still go occasionally and get what I can from it and ignore the rest. Your story and advice is both inspiring and spot on. That program did save my life eventually along with my own personal plan for recovery but it takes tolerance (of other addicts being disrespectful, hypocrites and holier-than-thou types) and a strong sense of self-preservation. sadly, the first 24 years of just showing up were wasted. I guess I just finally grew the f*** up, you know? Something clicked and I realized how pissed I was at the addiction itself and that's what worked for me. If you don't hate it, you can't beat it! Love the Bag End videos btw.. I have a ton of them, 29 guitars but only one bass left... lol
@JamesDBacon16 күн бұрын
Do you want to hop on a stream to discuss, sometime? Why go back and forth with video replies when we can go back and forth in a dialogue?
@ivanmike196816 күн бұрын
Sure thing. However, wait till after tomorrows video R to Trollbabe
@JamesDBacon16 күн бұрын
I can wait. Just let me know. 😀
@ivanmike196816 күн бұрын
@JamesDBacon sure thing let me know what you think of the other one
@ivanmike196815 күн бұрын
@@JamesDBacon its out so just let me know when you would like to do a chat. My email is my channel name @Gmail.
@Bryon118716 күн бұрын
Recovery is a hard road, man. Congratulations and never look back.
@JamesDBacon16 күн бұрын
Hey, hey! Watching, now. 🙂
@Nolinquisitor16 күн бұрын
The GNS hypothesis has indeed run its course, replaced by a more wise approach. Instead of checking boxes, ignorantly, we go on adventures with our friends, as individuals, and discover what they are about along the way. It's not science. We must Ed Witten the hundreds of models and acknowledge them as just one facet of the whole thing.😁
@joselozada32416 күн бұрын
Good for you, my friend. Way to go!!
@yourseatatthetable17 күн бұрын
I know full well how much of an accomplishment this is for you, Ivan. And double down on that for coming to the crossroad and taking 'the new path'. Some of us fail to notice the crossroad, or ignore them, until we walk ourselves into literal hell. I speak from experience, one I would wish on no one.
@Runeslinger17 күн бұрын
We are very glad~
@Adrian_Lee611317 күн бұрын
Congrats for sobriety! And thank you for sharing.
17 күн бұрын
Congratulations on achieving this milestone, and thanks for sharing!
@Nolinquisitor17 күн бұрын
That's a massive achievement and it is worth celebrating FOR SURE. 🤘🥳🤘
@joshjames58217 күн бұрын
You're killin' it, dude. We're not fully defined by the things we rise above or move beyond, but they are an important part our our story as humans. This might be just the message someone out there needs to hear, so thanks for sharing it.
@ivanmike196817 күн бұрын
Good to hear from you!
@Tablerunner17 күн бұрын
Truly courageous. Congratulations on a success worth celebrating! Inspiring.
@freethrall17 күн бұрын
Hey Ivan, I really appreciate you speaking about this. I spent 22 years of my life under the influence of one substance or another, primarily because I was completely out of touch with my own feelings. In 2010 I decided I needed to do something about it and I've never looked back. You say you don't know why you're making this video. Well, I don't really know why I'm commenting on it but I am, so there you go! Thanks for sharing.
@RolRapidАй бұрын
Ah! Ok, I thought it was a Canadian rpg in French called Hex. I didn't realize it was an acronym for Hollow Earth Expedition. Thank you and sorry to bother you.
@ivanmike1968Ай бұрын
No bother it’s a good question. They are great games
@SteveSwannJrАй бұрын
I'm enjoying the story. It does seem like the NPC is doing a lot of the heavy lifting.
@jimdcushmanАй бұрын
Thank you for that feedback! Definitely something I was thinking about when I was designing this scene of the adventure. Come back next episode and I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
@SteveSwannJrАй бұрын
@@jimdcushman oh, you are not getting rid of me that easily. I am still very much enjoying the game!
@RolRapidАй бұрын
Is this a French game?
@ivanmike1968Ай бұрын
@@RolRapid no. Hollow Earth expedition is produced by exile game Studios in the United States. However, this game does have some elements of leagues of adventure by Triple Ace games, which is in the UK.
@peepsieDАй бұрын
How is the Passive Mid Control different from the typical Enhance knob (mid cut) that is so prevalent on bass amps?
@ivanmike1968Ай бұрын
It doesn’t sound anything like it. It sounds an awful lot like a passive tone control. you might find on an instrument but more focused on the mids than the highs if that makes any sense. It does have a slight boost past 2 o’clock as well. It is a very musical sounding and useful control.
@antieverything1Ай бұрын
Just saw that you made a follow-up so I'll just copy and paste my spreadsheet for 2d6, 2d10, 2d12, and 3d6 probabilities (including with boons and banes). I also went ahead and copied the text from that post just in-case it spurs any discussion. docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RmctLmRBrcWDwExBhIQKbK6FPNshH-vBdMyzUNRszfg/edit?usp=sharing A while back, I made a spreadsheet with probabilities for 2d6 TN=9 (as used in Barbarians of Lemuria), 2d10 TN=14, 2d12 TN=17, and 3d6 TN=13 with various modifiers and boons/banes (bonus/penalty dice where you drop the lowest or highest, respectively). I also included a column showing the delta relative to the previous step. Other TNs are easy to extrapolate since you just have to move up or down a number of steps based on the difference between the TN I entered and the one you want to know the probabilities for. For someone coming to a 2d6 game from a game using a linear d20 mechanic, I'd describe +1 as similar to +2.5 in d20 and a boon die as similar to advantage in 5e. If you want a more granular and meaningful range of possible modifiers alongside a bell-curve 2dX mechanic, I recommend 2d12 which has increments of success probability that are around 6% (very intuitive to people coming from the 5% increments of d20). 2d10 or even 3d6 are also good options if increments around 10% are more to your taste (which is pretty much where I'm at, from a design perspective, despite really loving that d12). With 2d6 and a TN of 9, a +2 modifier results in a 58% probability of success while a +2 and a boon results in a 80% probability of success. I disagree that 80% is high enough that rolling dice isn't really necessary (although I do think the upper and lower limits of a roll being worth table time are probably about 85% and 25%, respectively, and a lot of modern game design seems to hew to that rule of thumb). edit: I entered this manually using anydice so let me know if you have any questions, comments or corrections by using the comment function in Google Sheets.
@antieverything1Ай бұрын
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RmctLmRBrcWDwExBhIQKbK6FPNshH-vBdMyzUNRszfg/edit?usp=sharing A while back, I made a spreadsheet with probabilities for 2d6 TN=9 (as used in Barbarians of Lemuria), 2d10 TN=14, 2d12 TN=17, and 3d6 TN=13 with various modifiers and boons/banes (bonus/penalty dice where you drop the lowest or highest, respectively). I also included a column showing the delta relative to the previous step. Other TNs are easy to extrapolate since you just have to move up or down a number of steps based on the difference between the TN I entered and the one you want to know the probabilities for. For someone coming to a 2d6 game from a game using a linear d20 mechanic, I'd describe +1 as similar to +2.5 in d20 and a boon die as similar to advantage in 5e. If you want a more granular and meaningful range of possible modifiers alongside a bell-curve 2dX mechanic, I recommend 2d12 which has increments of success probability that are around 6% (very intuitive to people coming from the 5% increments of d20). 2d10 or even 3d6 are also good options if increments around 10% are more to your taste (which is pretty much where I'm at, from a design perspective, despite really loving that d12). With 2d6 and a TN of 9, a +2 modifier results in a 58% probability of success while a +2 and a boon results in a 80% probability of success. I disagree that 80% is high enough that rolling dice isn't really necessary (although I do think the upper and lower limits of a roll being worth table time are probably about 85% and 25%, respectively, and a lot of modern game design seems to hew to that rule of thumb). edit: I entered this manually using anydice so let me know if you have any questions, comments or corrections by using the comment function in Google Sheets.
@JoshuazxАй бұрын
Summoning!
@EricT43Ай бұрын
Thanks for the video, this is helpful. I just joined a new band, and my 4-string P bass would be great for it, but they play a few tunes in Eb with standard tuning. Doesn't seem fair for me to ask the guitarist and keyboardist to learn the songs in a different key just so I can use my 4 instead of a 5.
@NearsideАй бұрын
The Broken Rooms dice mechanic, using d12s, is designed to program players (and their characters) to look for patterns that match the number 13. It's never spelled out anywhere in the book, but that was the intention.
@ivanmike1968Ай бұрын
It’s pretty obvious and very cool
@NearsideАй бұрын
@@ivanmike1968 Oh good!
@machfrontАй бұрын
Bro! I’m 80% sure who you are (not 100%) on ODD74 and DF….but if you’re gonna also review low-cost and quality basses….ill have to subscribe! Haha! Love the color and finish on that Sterling! -Eric (aka Mach Front on…well…everything from ODD74, DF and tons of activity long ago on the T&T TrollBridge Forums). Cheers, man! Heheh
@ivanmike1968Ай бұрын
I’m ivanmike on most forums
@john-leninАй бұрын
Doesn’t matter whether it’s first person or third as long as they cut out all the pointless narcissistic posturing. The GM isn’t supposed to be writing a novel and neither should the players be.
@QuestingGMАй бұрын
So a question becomes for those who only play in first person, is the form of only speaking in first-person more important to maintain in-character immersion? Or 3rd-person speak is allowed (or is more efficient) if done without anyone noticing or breaking said immersion?
@ivanmike1968Ай бұрын
It depends upon the individual
@RuneslingerАй бұрын
It is quite common for people to say something like, "I jump out of the way," or "I punch him in the face," etc in the heat of the moment in play. There is a unity of perspective between the player and the character in that moment. In real life, it is unlikely that someone would describe their action as they perform it (I dodge!) but in the game, the declaration is an analog for the action. Over time, the use of the 1st person can expand these analogs to cover the relation of the character's senses and their self-image, so that something like, "I open the door," might become, "I stop at the door, feeling my coat brush against the back of my legs, as I turn the knob and take a quick look through a narrow crack at what is on the other side." When we choose to use the 3rd person, there is a distance created by our imagined perspective for the character and our own in observation of it. We see the character from the outside. It is no less immersive, nor is it more complicated to do, but it is different and offers different things to the player while taking others away. One benefit some find is that it helps to unify the imaginations of the players in terms of the minutiae and non-essentials of the imagined setting. When switching, not just between 1st and 3rd, but out to the player as the player as well, there tends to be a reason. It might be fatigue, or a lack of attention, or there might be something that the player can only figure out how to say in that voice - or that only makes sense in it... like, I have to excuse myself for a moment.
@The_CGAАй бұрын
When someone shifts to 3p, my experience is it’s almost always a sign of a change in time compresssion or “montage.” The third person narration is the longer time scales of “elapsement” while (for switchy people) the 1p narration is “conversation of play.”
Пікірлер
Ive had several bag ends and they all sounds great. If you want that really low sub sound, grab one of their crossovers. They'll take the closed /unported cabs down from around 50hz to 8hz! Biamp heaven!😂
Thanks for recording this, I share your sentiment.
Question: I have a 4 ohm cab and an 8 ohm cab. If I set the MESA to 2 ohms would I damage the amp at all by running both cabs, I realise that my 2 cabs combined would offer a resistance of 2.67 ohms and yet the amp would be expecting 2 ohms. So would the discrepancy be harder or easier on the amp itself ?
No, that won’t harm the amplifier at all. When the amp is set to two ohms, it’s not expecting a two ohm load. That just allows it to safely power loads down to two ohms. You could power a 16 ohm cabinet with it if you wanted to if you had one. The 4/8 setting Could just as easily have said four. Solid state power sections have a minimum impedance that they can drive safely, but they can power loads with higher impedance without a problem.
@@ivanmike1968 Much appreciated, fair play.
Lol just watched he'd this. Good video. I'll have to check out his video and your discussion with him.
Consider that part of the problem is, is that we are exploring just how diverse the hobby is, and that the term role play has long been tossed around as a catch all.
Rock on.
Well, it's better than pop tarts, which was what I thought it said.
Division is to distinguish an enemy. Diversity is to build bridges with discussion.
Having set definitions is divisive, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, take E-Gaming for example, pretty much any competitive game has both the casual and competitive side of it, the division there is actually beneficial, casuals don't want tryhards ruining their fun the same way the experts don't want casuals ruining their game. Of couse our hobby is not a competitive one, but having a clear distinction will end up helping both sides. It is clear that there are people seeking different things when playing RPGs, and helping it be clear will end up benefiting everyone. Either way thanks for sharing your thoughts
I do hope to never come across as divisive, and to always recognize that my way of thought isn't the only way to think. 🙂
Looks like I'm springing for a copy of Hyperborea. 😊
It’s a good one
I always like hearing your thoughts on this topic. I think RPG theory models can provide a useful framework as a place to start from when examining one’s preferences and intentions. Knowing these preferences can help identify whether a game or another group of players will be a good fit. I have trouble identifying my own intentions within the strict confines of terms like Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist. I agree there’s a spectrum within each category and these intensions can masquerade as each other. When playing outside of a well-known friend group, I just try to be explicit about the kind of game I like rather than rely on the crutch of a buzzword. For example, my preferences are: story is interesting as a by-product but not the primarily goal, flamboyant and dramatic performances are not my cup of tea, I’m more interested in exploring and investigating imaginary worlds than a character’s psyche - though their in-game perspective does inform my decisions, I’m not interested in character optimization or builds, playing a “suboptimal” character is perfectly acceptable, out-of-character exchanges between the players and the GM is fine as long as it is game-focused and furthers adventuresome play, I prefer combat to be quick and somewhat abstract as opposed to highly mechanical and tactical, random character death isn’t sought after but it isn’t a big deal either, etc. What do these intentions make me? Am I really role-playing? Maybe not, according to some, but I’m okay with that. The more important thing to me is to find others of like mind.
Good video.
Also, how did you find this in print? I'd love to add it to my shelf.
I got that and a lot of the sorcerer materials and circle of hands from adept press. I’m not certain if that website of Ron’s still exists.
Adept Play is still around, but not Adept Press. To the secondary market I go! 🙂
We should get in touch and have this conversation. 😊 Do we share any Discord servers in common? I find that's the easiest way to connect... eventually I'll be forced to get on X (Twitter), but I'm resisting for as long as I can.
I barely use discord. I’m pretty sure I have an X account, but I don’t use it. I don’t find it useful. I do have a zoom subscription so I stream conversations to my channel that way. I’m not sure how you stream them to yours. Feel free to give me a holler on email and I’m sure we can figure something out quickly.
I... don't know where to find your email address. 😅
@JamesDBacon it’s my channel name at gmail [email protected]
One of the corners stones of the RPG hobby is it's diversity; and the challenge to be diverse. I've long said that there's a game for every person who wants to play, one only has to find it.
A common question: "What is role play?" when in should be: "What is role play to you!?"
GNS theory is an informal field of study that attempts to create a unified theory of how role-playing games (RPGs) work. It was developed by Ron Edwards and has been discussed in ttrpg game development circles for decades. The theory focuses on player behavior and suggests that participants organize their interactions around three categories of engagement: Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulation. In the GNS model of RPG design, Simulationism is used for objectiveness and emulation. Per a Google search, for those of us who are just oepning the GNS module.
He's got some good stuff, worth viewing in my opinion.
I have a different POV and have since GNS was a thing, then later decried by it's own creators (while still continually referencing it), before eventually The Forge declared victory and closed up shop, all their games then almost immediately falling into the mists of time and obscurity. GNS was always dumb. A bunch of... people attempting to quantify fun and successfully finding anti-fun and then believing it was fun and judging others for not following the path to anti-fun. Let me explain. Firstly, one stipulation: It was always obvious that Narrativism was the piller all the cool kids leaned up against and smoked. Gamism was for Math Geeks and Simulationism was for Dum Dums. This was at least hinted at in every discussion on the topic. What's the problem with that? The entire idea of prescribed drama as a legitimate means to achieve drama. The foundation block in the pillar of "Narrativism". Similar to comedy, you can't bottle it and sell it, drama comes in ephemeral short bursts. It's always changing. And the enjoyment is on the part of the audience, not the author. So four people sitting around a table generating drama are indeed in for a world of boredom as that's not how drama is meant to be enjoyed. It'd be like the same four guys coming up with jokes and punchlines. You don't get punched by a punchline if you came up with it. But it's worse than that. (Game of Thrones spoilers incoming) Drama requires stakes. Having stakes. Building stakes. Comedy only requires an involuntary response based on an unexpected outcome. A joke is funny and the audience laughs because they didn't expect the punchline. This is basic comedy I'm not getting in to satire, parody, awkward comedy, etc. At a baseline level for drama the enjoyment of the audience comes from caring about a character enough to feel an emotional response to a situation that unfolds for them, for good or ill. GRRM doesn't care if Ned Stark dies, but he makes sure you, the reader (or watcher, if you saw the show), do. This is why the audience of GoT hated Jaime Lannister in Season 8 because he was narratively growing one way for The Entire Series and then it was all tossed in the trash making his end, frankly, completely awful. But I wouldn't feel that ending being as awful as it was if I wasn't invested in Jaime at that point after watching his character progression for SEVEN YEARS. He would just be a pawn on a chessboard if I was the author. As the audience I had the time to fully invest in his character. Lastly is when you invest in multiple characters you can do the unthinkable and see them fight to the death. The most memorable fight of the entire GoT series for me was not in season 8. It was in season 4. Episode 10. The fight between Brienne of Tarth and The Hound Sandor Clegane. Because I cared about both characaters, they were both doing the right thing from their own perspectives, and I expected one to be dead at the end of the fight. The fact that neither die at the end of that fight is a payoff we didn't get as an audience. To be clear, Brienne should have died. Hell Podrick should have tried to help her and also died. This was the first time the series pulled its punches IIRC, and was very noticeable. It was also a strictly narrative/drama choice, keeping both characters alive, rather than a simulate-y choices that we'd seen in the series up until that point. Not the last but possibly the first. The last season was rife with it, so many immutable characters that existed so plot could continue to happen. This is why GNS is dumb and I have held this belief since it's inception. Narrativism/Drama in mechanics actually robs a game session of potential drama, it doesn't add to it. You have to build something before you can break it. Drama doesn't come out of a tap. Drama comes from gradual events leading to a tipping point and then conclusion. To put it another way, drama never shocks the GM. It can the players. The solution of having everyone essentially GMing drama means nobody gets affected by said drama. And the enjoyment of drama on the GM side is the effect it has on the players. Since there is no effect if everyone's GMing drama then nobody's gonna be happy.
Thanks for sharing Ivan, congratulations on your success - very glad you're well.
There’s a lot wrong with bacon. Choose Tofu
An important detail about agendas (creative or otherwise) and intentions is that many people, newcomers especially but not just them, are not aware of their preferences in any useful way and so don't form a coherent approach to play. That makes discussion difficult and comparison an act of patience~
Truth!
I was born in early 66 and have been playing guitar since I was 7. I too have struggled with a substance problem since the 70s and got off whatever it was back in the early 2000s but still drink beer and smoke weed. Been in and out of the program since 1986 and have found that being 'stuck' in my current state I am best able to 'maintain' if you will, a balance and my sanity. I lost faith in the program off and on due to all the BS that gets slung in those Memphis meetings but am smart enough to still go occasionally and get what I can from it and ignore the rest. Your story and advice is both inspiring and spot on. That program did save my life eventually along with my own personal plan for recovery but it takes tolerance (of other addicts being disrespectful, hypocrites and holier-than-thou types) and a strong sense of self-preservation. sadly, the first 24 years of just showing up were wasted. I guess I just finally grew the f*** up, you know? Something clicked and I realized how pissed I was at the addiction itself and that's what worked for me. If you don't hate it, you can't beat it! Love the Bag End videos btw.. I have a ton of them, 29 guitars but only one bass left... lol
Do you want to hop on a stream to discuss, sometime? Why go back and forth with video replies when we can go back and forth in a dialogue?
Sure thing. However, wait till after tomorrows video R to Trollbabe
I can wait. Just let me know. 😀
@JamesDBacon sure thing let me know what you think of the other one
@@JamesDBacon its out so just let me know when you would like to do a chat. My email is my channel name @Gmail.
Recovery is a hard road, man. Congratulations and never look back.
Hey, hey! Watching, now. 🙂
The GNS hypothesis has indeed run its course, replaced by a more wise approach. Instead of checking boxes, ignorantly, we go on adventures with our friends, as individuals, and discover what they are about along the way. It's not science. We must Ed Witten the hundreds of models and acknowledge them as just one facet of the whole thing.😁
Good for you, my friend. Way to go!!
I know full well how much of an accomplishment this is for you, Ivan. And double down on that for coming to the crossroad and taking 'the new path'. Some of us fail to notice the crossroad, or ignore them, until we walk ourselves into literal hell. I speak from experience, one I would wish on no one.
We are very glad~
Congrats for sobriety! And thank you for sharing.
Congratulations on achieving this milestone, and thanks for sharing!
That's a massive achievement and it is worth celebrating FOR SURE. 🤘🥳🤘
You're killin' it, dude. We're not fully defined by the things we rise above or move beyond, but they are an important part our our story as humans. This might be just the message someone out there needs to hear, so thanks for sharing it.
Good to hear from you!
Truly courageous. Congratulations on a success worth celebrating! Inspiring.
Hey Ivan, I really appreciate you speaking about this. I spent 22 years of my life under the influence of one substance or another, primarily because I was completely out of touch with my own feelings. In 2010 I decided I needed to do something about it and I've never looked back. You say you don't know why you're making this video. Well, I don't really know why I'm commenting on it but I am, so there you go! Thanks for sharing.
Ah! Ok, I thought it was a Canadian rpg in French called Hex. I didn't realize it was an acronym for Hollow Earth Expedition. Thank you and sorry to bother you.
No bother it’s a good question. They are great games
I'm enjoying the story. It does seem like the NPC is doing a lot of the heavy lifting.
Thank you for that feedback! Definitely something I was thinking about when I was designing this scene of the adventure. Come back next episode and I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
@@jimdcushman oh, you are not getting rid of me that easily. I am still very much enjoying the game!
Is this a French game?
@@RolRapid no. Hollow Earth expedition is produced by exile game Studios in the United States. However, this game does have some elements of leagues of adventure by Triple Ace games, which is in the UK.
How is the Passive Mid Control different from the typical Enhance knob (mid cut) that is so prevalent on bass amps?
It doesn’t sound anything like it. It sounds an awful lot like a passive tone control. you might find on an instrument but more focused on the mids than the highs if that makes any sense. It does have a slight boost past 2 o’clock as well. It is a very musical sounding and useful control.
Just saw that you made a follow-up so I'll just copy and paste my spreadsheet for 2d6, 2d10, 2d12, and 3d6 probabilities (including with boons and banes). I also went ahead and copied the text from that post just in-case it spurs any discussion. docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RmctLmRBrcWDwExBhIQKbK6FPNshH-vBdMyzUNRszfg/edit?usp=sharing A while back, I made a spreadsheet with probabilities for 2d6 TN=9 (as used in Barbarians of Lemuria), 2d10 TN=14, 2d12 TN=17, and 3d6 TN=13 with various modifiers and boons/banes (bonus/penalty dice where you drop the lowest or highest, respectively). I also included a column showing the delta relative to the previous step. Other TNs are easy to extrapolate since you just have to move up or down a number of steps based on the difference between the TN I entered and the one you want to know the probabilities for. For someone coming to a 2d6 game from a game using a linear d20 mechanic, I'd describe +1 as similar to +2.5 in d20 and a boon die as similar to advantage in 5e. If you want a more granular and meaningful range of possible modifiers alongside a bell-curve 2dX mechanic, I recommend 2d12 which has increments of success probability that are around 6% (very intuitive to people coming from the 5% increments of d20). 2d10 or even 3d6 are also good options if increments around 10% are more to your taste (which is pretty much where I'm at, from a design perspective, despite really loving that d12). With 2d6 and a TN of 9, a +2 modifier results in a 58% probability of success while a +2 and a boon results in a 80% probability of success. I disagree that 80% is high enough that rolling dice isn't really necessary (although I do think the upper and lower limits of a roll being worth table time are probably about 85% and 25%, respectively, and a lot of modern game design seems to hew to that rule of thumb). edit: I entered this manually using anydice so let me know if you have any questions, comments or corrections by using the comment function in Google Sheets.
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RmctLmRBrcWDwExBhIQKbK6FPNshH-vBdMyzUNRszfg/edit?usp=sharing A while back, I made a spreadsheet with probabilities for 2d6 TN=9 (as used in Barbarians of Lemuria), 2d10 TN=14, 2d12 TN=17, and 3d6 TN=13 with various modifiers and boons/banes (bonus/penalty dice where you drop the lowest or highest, respectively). I also included a column showing the delta relative to the previous step. Other TNs are easy to extrapolate since you just have to move up or down a number of steps based on the difference between the TN I entered and the one you want to know the probabilities for. For someone coming to a 2d6 game from a game using a linear d20 mechanic, I'd describe +1 as similar to +2.5 in d20 and a boon die as similar to advantage in 5e. If you want a more granular and meaningful range of possible modifiers alongside a bell-curve 2dX mechanic, I recommend 2d12 which has increments of success probability that are around 6% (very intuitive to people coming from the 5% increments of d20). 2d10 or even 3d6 are also good options if increments around 10% are more to your taste (which is pretty much where I'm at, from a design perspective, despite really loving that d12). With 2d6 and a TN of 9, a +2 modifier results in a 58% probability of success while a +2 and a boon results in a 80% probability of success. I disagree that 80% is high enough that rolling dice isn't really necessary (although I do think the upper and lower limits of a roll being worth table time are probably about 85% and 25%, respectively, and a lot of modern game design seems to hew to that rule of thumb). edit: I entered this manually using anydice so let me know if you have any questions, comments or corrections by using the comment function in Google Sheets.
Summoning!
Thanks for the video, this is helpful. I just joined a new band, and my 4-string P bass would be great for it, but they play a few tunes in Eb with standard tuning. Doesn't seem fair for me to ask the guitarist and keyboardist to learn the songs in a different key just so I can use my 4 instead of a 5.
The Broken Rooms dice mechanic, using d12s, is designed to program players (and their characters) to look for patterns that match the number 13. It's never spelled out anywhere in the book, but that was the intention.
It’s pretty obvious and very cool
@@ivanmike1968 Oh good!
Bro! I’m 80% sure who you are (not 100%) on ODD74 and DF….but if you’re gonna also review low-cost and quality basses….ill have to subscribe! Haha! Love the color and finish on that Sterling! -Eric (aka Mach Front on…well…everything from ODD74, DF and tons of activity long ago on the T&T TrollBridge Forums). Cheers, man! Heheh
I’m ivanmike on most forums
Doesn’t matter whether it’s first person or third as long as they cut out all the pointless narcissistic posturing. The GM isn’t supposed to be writing a novel and neither should the players be.
So a question becomes for those who only play in first person, is the form of only speaking in first-person more important to maintain in-character immersion? Or 3rd-person speak is allowed (or is more efficient) if done without anyone noticing or breaking said immersion?
It depends upon the individual
It is quite common for people to say something like, "I jump out of the way," or "I punch him in the face," etc in the heat of the moment in play. There is a unity of perspective between the player and the character in that moment. In real life, it is unlikely that someone would describe their action as they perform it (I dodge!) but in the game, the declaration is an analog for the action. Over time, the use of the 1st person can expand these analogs to cover the relation of the character's senses and their self-image, so that something like, "I open the door," might become, "I stop at the door, feeling my coat brush against the back of my legs, as I turn the knob and take a quick look through a narrow crack at what is on the other side." When we choose to use the 3rd person, there is a distance created by our imagined perspective for the character and our own in observation of it. We see the character from the outside. It is no less immersive, nor is it more complicated to do, but it is different and offers different things to the player while taking others away. One benefit some find is that it helps to unify the imaginations of the players in terms of the minutiae and non-essentials of the imagined setting. When switching, not just between 1st and 3rd, but out to the player as the player as well, there tends to be a reason. It might be fatigue, or a lack of attention, or there might be something that the player can only figure out how to say in that voice - or that only makes sense in it... like, I have to excuse myself for a moment.
When someone shifts to 3p, my experience is it’s almost always a sign of a change in time compresssion or “montage.” The third person narration is the longer time scales of “elapsement” while (for switchy people) the 1p narration is “conversation of play.”