bun's recent activity

  1. Comment on Europe’s controversial overhaul of online copyright receives final approval in ~tech

    bun Link Parent
    I am sick and quite busy with a few things in real life, so I have not been able to have another read through it yet. I was going to participate here but I was only able to get a few pages in...

    I am sick and quite busy with a few things in real life, so I have not been able to have another read through it yet. I was going to participate here but I was only able to get a few pages in before the letters were "dancing" around on page.

    Assuming it has not changed massively, I am in the opinion that most people against it are either being fed a massively warped view of the directive or haven't actually bothered researching it.

    The iffy part primarily comes from it being a directive, so each individual member country is given a lot of freedom in how they want to implement it. The directive itself does not seem that bad, in many ways it could even be good for the internet.

    3 votes
  2. Comment on An introduction to privacy and security - Part III in ~life

    bun Link Parent
    Microsoft is known to have added backdoors to their software, like Windows and Skype, to foreign intelligence agencies like the NSA. Not the least, Windows itself collects a lot of telemetry which...

    Microsoft is known to have added backdoors to their software, like Windows and Skype, to foreign intelligence agencies like the NSA. Not the least, Windows itself collects a lot of telemetry which it sends home.

    But ignoring that the software is known to be neither secure nor respectful of your privacy, there is a bigger and more fundamental issue with Windows. There is no good way to check what the software actually does. We can reverse engineer and monitor behavior of course, but in the end we are still operating with a black box of software.

    9 votes
  3. Comment on An introduction to privacy and security - Part III in ~life

    bun Link Parent
    We're talking within reason here. Assuming you still want to use a computer, you do have options.

    We're talking within reason here. Assuming you still want to use a computer, you do have options.

    5 votes
  4. Comment on An introduction to privacy and security - Part III in ~life

    bun Link
    Small clarification, the software that is named "Pi-Hole" runs on several Linux distros, and does not exclusively need to run on an Raspberry Pi either (though that is most likely the easiest...

    For the technically inclined person there is Pi-Hole which is a network-wide adware/malware blocker. The name comes from the use of a Raspberry Pi to act as a black hole for adware/malware. Currently, supported operating systems include Raspbian, Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, and CentOS.

    Small clarification, the software that is named "Pi-Hole" runs on several Linux distros, and does not exclusively need to run on an Raspberry Pi either (though that is most likely the easiest implementation). Any modern OS should be able to take advantage of Pi-Hole, you just need to change your network settings.

    A much easier method, which essentially does the same thing, is to modify your computer’s hosts file. For a safe and easy way to do this, I recommend that you use free GUI software to implement this. Windows users can download Hosts File Editor+ and Mac users can download Gas Mask.

    I would dispute it's an easier method, as this method requires you to install things on each individual unit. It also will be a headache/impossible on devices that won't let you easily edit your hosts configuration, for instance your android, iOS, PS4, Switch, etc.

    Furthermore, at least windows has some host names that are hard coded into the OS and will not be honored by the hosts configuration. This would not be an issue with the Pi-Hole. Though if you truly care about privacy and security, you would not really be using windows anyways.

    6 votes
  5. Comment on Utrecht shooting: 'Three dead' after attack on tram in ~news

    bun Link
    A livestream from NOS can be found here.

    A livestream from NOS can be found here.

    1 vote
  6. Comment on Giving automation the power to detect crime and enforce punishment has ramifications, even for minor infractions in ~tech

    bun Link Parent
    Would that not be a good example for why he should be fined then? There was opposing traffic and a crossing, both being factors that increase chances of accidents, as opposed to your example....

    While there's the potential for people to develop bad habits, I think traffic density does play a role in the risk posed by many maneuvers, so to a degree yes. Speeding is actually a great example of this, since it tends to be relative speed differences that cause accidents.

    Would that not be a good example for why he should be fined then? There was opposing traffic and a crossing, both being factors that increase chances of accidents, as opposed to your example.

    Have speed limits and fines been adjusted accordingly with 100% enforcement? Are they still used on divided highways where there is essentially no possibility of an oncoming collision? What is the recourse for a maliciously configured camera?

    These are questions that are a bit hard to answer on a EU-wide basis.

    Have speed limits and fines been adjusted accordingly with 100% enforcement?

    Why would that even matter? Should we give twice as high fines because we most likely didn't catch you that other time?

    Are they still used on divided highways where there is essentially no possibility of an oncoming collision?

    Yes, but you are ignoring many other reasons one could use a camera. Road condition, visibility, wildlife crossings, weather conditions, etc. All those can lead to accidents, where with speed control you could avoid them. Even when incoming traffic is not an issue.

    What is the recourse for a maliciously configured camera?

    In most countries, the agency operating the cameras are not the same as the ones responsible for configuring the cameras. If this truly is an issue in your country, then the issue is not with the speed camera itself.

    Additionally what's stopping people from learning where the cameras are and minding their speeds only there? It should also be noted that cameras don't pull people over, so if someone is driving recklessly and it leads to a fatal accident, the camera did nothing. I'd be interested if you can link some studies that confirm your assertion.

    Absolutely. Here for instance is one done on order by Statens Vegvesen.

    https://www.toi.no/publikasjoner/evaluering-av-effekt-pa-ulykker-ved-bruk-av-punkt-atk-article32955-8.html

    The summary is in english. Super summarized, it has a great effect, especially on the most deadly of crashes.

    Generally speaking, road engineering is the best collision safety possible. There are ways to design roads to control speeds without the use of speed bumps, such as narrowing them or creating rough shoulders. This doesn't stop reckless individuals but it will slow down the 85th percentile -- which is something to read up on, if you're interested in this kind of thing!

    Can you show me some research or statistic that compares such solutions, to speed cameras?

    It's not as absurd as you might think! Pavlovian responses in humans are real. Emotional associations as well. Merely pulling someone over with simply a warning for an early offense is very effective, in fact, despite not issuing a fine! Emotional triggers to memory are real, and a disassociated punishment is not as effective. This guy got a fine and didn't even know he did anything wrong.

    I agree the fine should have come together with the info on what he did wrong. That was not what I considered absurd. This is the part I reacted on:

    You don't use the 'stick' on an animal two weeks after it pooped on your rug. There's no association, and it's merely cruelty. This, itself, at these levels, is merely cruelty for revenue's sake.

    We humans can understand that our actions had consequences, even if the consequence is delayed. When you say a fine that came a period after the incident is human cruelty for revenues sake, I consider that absolutely absurd.

    Should we just ignore any wrongdoings that's done, unless a perpetrator is caught red-handed?

    Additionally, a very high percentage of electronically issued tickets are dismissed when appealed in the US. This typically involves having to take a day off work, which also destroys real human productivity.

    That is not a problem with the speed camera or the automatic ticketing system. That's a problem with your legal system.

    Not only that, speed and red-light cameras can be abused. There are often situations where certain speed limits don't make sense with the way a road is set up, or light timings can be maliciously adjusted -- there are actual cases of these things in the states.

    If your law enforcement tampers with evidence and equipment, that is a problem with your law enforcement.

    You could have been operating in a completely reasonable manner and then suddenly have a 400$ ticket -- as was the case in this article.

    That's your opinion. What we know is, he broke traffic law, in a crossing, with oncoming traffic. Unless you know something I do not from that article, it seems completely reasonable he received a ticket.

    You may not be allowed to cross that white line, but what if doing so prevents you from hitting a pedestrian or causes you to avoid an accident?

    Then you should not be fined. But that was not the case in this article.

    If no one is in danger, then I fail to see the purpose of issuing blanket fines with no situational consideration. That is literally why we have judges, juries, and sentencing guidelines.

    And that is why you can appeal on your fine. This is not an issue with the camera itself.

    1 vote
  7. Comment on Pledge against Article 13 (EU) in ~tech

  8. Comment on War over being nice in ~misc

    bun Link Parent
    Isn't that what we are living in anyways? Most cultures tend to have things from either, but usually lean much more heavily towards one of them. Where I live it's very much so type A, and many...

    What about going for a third alternative? Can we live life full of mirth and gaiety?

    Isn't that what we are living in anyways? Most cultures tend to have things from either, but usually lean much more heavily towards one of them. Where I live it's very much so type A, and many people would argue that the frankness and directive...ness(?) is part of the reason why people get along. But there's definitely a bit of both.

    I think in the end, the types are more so based on the opposites of the world that the author sees, but for me they aren't opposites.

    2 votes
  9. Comment on The text of Article 13 and the EU Copyright Directive has just been finalised in ~tech

    bun Link Parent
    So I finally got around to reading article 11. There are some bits I don't like, but my main issue is it's too vague. But here is my reading of it. So basically, for home usage or non-commercial...

    So I finally got around to reading article 11. There are some bits I don't like, but my main issue is it's too vague. But here is my reading of it.

    1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications established in a Member State with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the online use of their press publications by information society service providers. These rights shall not apply to private or non-commercial uses of press publications carried out by individual users.

    So basically, for home usage or non-commercial usage, article 11 will not apply. For instance Tildes might be excempt due to being non-profit. This makes sense, you need to have some sort of cash flow to "tax" for a "link tax" to function.

    The protection granted under the first subparagraph shall not apply to acts of hyperlinking.

    The rights referred to in the first subparagraph shall not apply in respect of uses of individual words or very short extracts of a press publication.

    I read this to mean that just providing a link and/or excerpt/quote/title is not enough usage of someone elses material to trigger article 11. This to me also makes sense, else services like google would have to pay for any results they show. This would most likely make most of the usage of pages like reddit excempt too, as a link and title would not trigger article 11. This is most likely more so in case large parts of an article is reproduced.

    But this is too vague for my liking.

    1. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject-matter incorporated in a press publication. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated

    A bit weirdly phrased. But I basically read this so that if the author quotes or reproduces parts of his article elsewhere, he will not have to pay for his own article.

    The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 2 years after the publication of the press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the date of publication. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to press publications first published before [entry into force of the Directive].

    So basically, you can only seek compensation for up to two years after publication, and article 11 does not apply to anything published before article 11 enters into force.

    4a. Member States shall provide that the authors of the works incorporated in a press publication receive an appropriate share of the revenues that press publishers receive for the use of their press publications by information society service providers

    This is the more iffy one. It states that member states need to provide a mean (mechanism? licensing system?) to allow authors to receive an appropiate share of revenue. Question here is how this is supposed to work, and if this is something needs to be seeked specifically (like in article 13) by author or something that needs to be done by the republisher (for instance a blogger reproducing parts of an article).

    Another question is what an "appropriate share" is.

    The next two sections of the article mostly goes into the reasoning of why such an article is required.

    (33) For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to define the concept of press publications so that it only covers journalistic publications, published in any media, including on paper, in the context of an economic activity which constitutes a provision of services under Union law. The press publications to be covered would include, for instance, daily newspapers, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest, including subscription based magazines, and news websites. Press publications contain mostly literary works but increasingly include other types of works and subject-matter, notably photographs and videos.

    This basically covers what actually a piece of media is that is covered by article 11. So it seems to specifically aimed at news as we understand them today, and not so much on for instance entertainment, forums or public information.

    Periodical publications published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive.

    Scientific papers and academic journals are not protected by article 11.

    Neither should this protection apply to websites, such as blogs, that provide information as part of an activity which is not carried out under the initiative, editorial responsibility and control of service provider, such as a news publisher.

    If you're not under an editorial responsibility, you will also not be covered by article 11. So a random blog or youtube channel will most likely not be covered.

    The rest of the article just kinda repeats things already covered. All in all, its not that bad, but it is too vague on the actual mechanics for my writing. I would also have liked to see some sort of "minimum" profit, so that you don't hurt bloggers but go after places like Facebook. We will just have to see how it develops.

    5 votes
  10. Comment on The text of Article 13 and the EU Copyright Directive has just been finalised in ~tech

    bun (edited ) Link Parent
    This is from the very first paragraph. Emphasis is mine. Assuming Tildes falls under "non-commercial" usage, then this would not apply. I would recommend reading the text before making statements....
    1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications established in a Member State with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the online use of their press publications by information society service providers. These rights shall not apply to private or non-commercial uses of press publications carried out by individual users.

    This is from the very first paragraph. Emphasis is mine. Assuming Tildes falls under "non-commercial" usage, then this would not apply. I would recommend reading the text before making statements.

    EDIT: Also look to my other comment (https://tildes.net/~tech/adk/the_text_of_article_13_and_the_eu_copyright_directive_has_just_been_finalised#comment-2lsb) for other reasons why Tildes most likely is not covered. Primarily by the amount that is needed for article 11 to be triggered, which is also written about in the first paragraph.

    5 votes
  11. Comment on Tildes folks, are you learning another language or multilingual? in ~talk

    bun Link
    I speak five languages, three fluently. I can also understand 3 more but if I open my mouth it will sound too bad for usage. Currently I am learning dutch, which is going pretty well. It's...

    I speak five languages, three fluently. I can also understand 3 more but if I open my mouth it will sound too bad for usage.

    Currently I am learning dutch, which is going pretty well. It's currently good enough for day-to-day usage, though I obviously notice that there are some fields that are much better than others.

    3 votes
  12. Comment on The text of Article 13 and the EU Copyright Directive has just been finalised in ~tech

    bun Link Parent
    Also, am not a lawyer or policy maker, just a humble engineer. Take everything I say as a laymans reading.

    Also, am not a lawyer or policy maker, just a humble engineer. Take everything I say as a laymans reading.

    3 votes
  13. Comment on The text of Article 13 and the EU Copyright Directive has just been finalised in ~tech

    bun Link Parent
    I wonder if EFF and I have read the same article, because at least on Article 13 we see completely different realities. This is so blatantly warped based on the actual text, it borders on...

    I wonder if EFF and I have read the same article, because at least on Article 13 we see completely different realities.

    is responsible for ensuring that no user ever posts anything that infringes copyright, even momentarily.
    Those filters will subject all communications of every European to interception and arbitrary censorship if a black-box algorithm decides their text, pictures, sounds or videos are a match for a known copyrighted work
    "best efforts" to license anything their users might conceivably upload, meaning that they have to buy virtually anything any copyright holder offers to sell them, at any price, on pain of being liable for infringement if a user later uploads that work.

    This is so blatantly warped based on the actual text, it borders on fearmongering and propaganda.

    5 votes
  14. Comment on The text of Article 13 and the EU Copyright Directive has just been finalised in ~tech

    bun Link
    I don't consider Julia Reda to be an impartial voice in all of this, due to her political stance, so I would recommend everyone to take a read into the details themselves. Having read through...

    I don't consider Julia Reda to be an impartial voice in all of this, due to her political stance, so I would recommend everyone to take a read into the details themselves. Having read through article 13, I don't actually think its that bad. My main issue comes from a lot of the specifics being up to the individual member states, without properly stipulating any minimums. Though anyone who touts this is the end of the internet is overblowing it in my opinion.

    Regarding article 13.

    ‘online content sharing service provider’ means a provider of an information society service whose main or one of the main purposes is to store and give the public access to a large amount of copyright protected works or other protected subject-matter uploaded by its users which it organises and promotes for profit-making purposes. Providers of services such as not-for profit online encyclopedias, not-for profit educational and scientific repositories, open source software developing and sharing platforms, electronic communication service providers as defined in Directive 2018/1972 establishing the European Communications Code, online marketplaces and business-to business cloud services and cloud services which allow users to upload content for their own use shall not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this Directive.

    So basically, for-profit content sharing services like YouTube and Facebook are covered by this rule. Whereas not-for-profit resources like Wikipedia are excluded.

    If no authorisation is granted, online content sharing service providers shall be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public of copyright protected works and other subject matter, unless the service providers demonstrate that they have: (a) made best efforts to obtain an authorisation, and

    If the content distributor does not have the right to share the content, they need to show they have "made best efforts" to avoid trouble.

    (b) made, in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence, best efforts to ensure the unavailability of specific works and other subject matter for which the rightholders have provided the service providers with the relevant and necessary information, and in any event

    (c) acted expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice by the rightholders, to remove from their websites or to disable access to the notified works and subject matters, and made best efforts to prevent their future uploads in accordance with paragraph (b).

    I read that as that the specifics of how efficient a content distributor has to be in removing content, is up to each member state. And that once a process of removal has begun, you need to keep doing it. You can't just do it once and call it a day.

    4a. In determining whether the service has complied with its obligations under paragraph 4,and in the light of the principle of proportionality the following should, among others be taken into account: (a) the type, the audience and the size of the service and type of works or other subject matter uploaded by the users; (b) the availability of suitable and effective means and their cost for service providers

    This basically boils down to that you cannot just create one rule that applies to all. It needs to be fair based on the circumstances of the content distributor.

    4aa. Member States shall provide that when new online content sharing service providers whose services have been available to the public in the Union for less than three years and which have an annual turnover below EUR 10 million within the meaning of the Commission recommendation 2003/361/EC, the conditions applicable to them under the liability regime set out in paragraph 4 are limited to the compliance with the point (a)of paragraph 4 and to acting expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice, to remove the notified works and subject matters from its website or to disable access to them. Where the average number of monthly unique visitors of these service providers exceeds 5 million, calculated on the basis of the last calendar year, they shall also demonstrate that they have made best efforts to prevent further uploads of the notified works and other subject matter for which the rightholders have provided relevant and necessary information

    This is an addition to a). Basically, pages with a turnover of less than 10 million euros and that are younger than 3 years get a bit of leniency. I don't get the specifics, but it seems to me they are not required to pro-active.

    1. The cooperation between online content service providers and rightholders shall not result in the prevention of the availability of works or other subject matter uploaded by users which do not infringe copyright and related rights, including where such works or subject matter are covered by an exception or limitation.

    Member States shall ensure that users in all Member States are able to rely on the following existing exceptions and limitations when uploading and making available content generated by users on online content sharing services: a)quotation, criticism, review, b)use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche.

    Don't remove content that is not in infringement. Things like criticism, parodies and reviews are considered fair usage.

    1. The application of the provisions in this article shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation as defined in Article 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC.

    So this one is a bit weird as it sounds like it would be in contradiction to 4? I think the general idea here is that you cannot add a filter on everything in hopes of catching things that are in violation. There needs to be a process, so we don't get automatic filtering on content that is fair usage but may contain some elements that are copyrighted. So that would sort of imply that you cannot have an upload filter, unless it filters for something specific that has already been reported.

    1. Member States shall provide that an online sharing service provider puts in place an effective and expeditious complaint and redress mechanism that is available to users of the service in case of disputes over the removal of or blocking access to works or other subject matter uploaded by them.

    The individual countries shall make sure services have proper mechanism to dispute removal of content. This seems to combat fake takedowns.

    When rightholders request to remove or disable access to their specific works or other subject matter, they shall duly justify the reasons for their requests. Complaints submitted under this mechanism shall be processed without undue delay and decisions to remove or disable access to uploaded content shall be subject to human review.

    Oh boy! This one is going to annoy Google. You need to properly justify removals of contents, and a human has to review and settle any disputes in a timely manner.

    What follows is a long text about how we need to be reasonable and encourage a good relationship between content distributors and member states. Im skipping the unimportant bits.

    Finally, in order to ensure a high level of copyright protection, the liability exemption mechanism provided for in Article 13 should not apply to service providers the main purpose of which is to engage in or to facilitate copyright piracy.

    Piracy oriented pages do not get a loophole by being small/new.

    If unauthorised works and other subject matter become available despite the best efforts made in cooperation with rightholders as required by this Directive, the online content sharing service providers should be liable in relation to the specific works and other subject matter for which they have received the relevant and necessary information from rightholders,unless they demonstrate that they have made their best efforts pursuant to high industry standards of professional diligence.

    Basically, content distributors when failing to properly remove content need to prove they have acted within regulations and done their best efforts possible. So you can't just fail by technicality.

    When rightholders do not provide the service providers, with the necessary and relevant information on their specific works and other subject matter or when no notification concerning the removal or disabling access to specific unauthorised works or other subject matter has been provided by rightholders and, as a result, online content sharing service providers cannot make their best efforts to avoid on their services the availability of unauthorised content in accordance with the high standard of professional diligence, the service providers should not be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public or of making available to the public of these unidentified works and other subject matter.

    When rights holders need to report properly to the content distributor. If they do not, they cannot be expected to succeed in following any rules set out. This would negate the liability of the content distributor.

    I will read article 11 when I have time again.

    15 votes
  15. Comment on Any D&D players on here? in ~games

    bun Link Parent
    It is a bit on both, but it's indeed mostly on the DM. The way I treat it, the players are not the only players. EVERYONE is a player. The farmers, the kings, the towns, the wolves, the countries,...

    I can imagine a lot of engaging situations springing up from various skill failures or the bad ideas on players' parts, but what about general stagnation? I suppose it's on the DM to prevent it from happening or introduce something to get the party moving.

    It is a bit on both, but it's indeed mostly on the DM. The way I treat it, the players are not the only players. EVERYONE is a player. The farmers, the kings, the towns, the wolves, the countries, the seasons. They all have their own agenda, that will progress no matter what the players are doing.

    If the players stay too long in a village, maybe other adventurers show up and are hired too because they players are too slow. That could start a rivalry. Or maybe tax collectors show up, confusing them as villagers? Maybe there's an uprising slowly unfurling itself in the kingdom they're visiting, with the players slowly noticing that its about time to get going or get involved? Maybe a festival is about to happen and everyone in town starts building stages.

    You can also make time count. If they're standing around ingame, time passes. Mention how it is mid day, and how it slowly turns to night and it's time to find an inn.

    If all else fails, there's always the "narrative hand grenade". In my game it usually is an actual hand grenade because they've been discovered by guards. In a fantasy setting, it could be something else. Maybe it's the one day of the month where Ch'zctl peers from the moon. A being so beyond human comprehension, just looking at it is slowly draining your sanity from you. You realize he is always there, always watching. And a small voice inside the players head is telling them its about to run. Screw this town, we're gonna save the day somewhere far far away from here.

    4 votes
  16. Comment on Any D&D players on here? in ~games

    bun Link Parent
    Indeed. Thats pretty much my opinion on it too! I don't use DnD any more. The system I'm currently working with just treats your combat related skills as any other skills. Skill names are more...

    Indeed. Thats pretty much my opinion on it too!

    I don't use DnD any more. The system I'm currently working with just treats your combat related skills as any other skills. Skill names are more generic. You don't even need to know the skill to attempt it, though in that case you will have to use severely weaker dice. For instance if you know "one handed sword combat", you can attempt any trick in the book, but the skill dice available to you will influence your chance of succeeding and avoiding consequences. Exactly the same system as if you were for instance trying to repair your shoes. Two rolls, for everything.

    All your skills also build into "concepts" which help define the character you are. So there's also a direct relationship between skills and roleplay.

    2 votes
  17. Comment on Any D&D players on here? in ~games

    bun Link Parent
    @deing already mentioned a few good points. I'd like to chime in with a few other pointers. I would also recommend using a pre-written adventure for your first adventure. Find a short one-episode...

    @deing already mentioned a few good points. I'd like to chime in with a few other pointers. I would also recommend using a pre-written adventure for your first adventure. Find a short one-episode adventure. Change and adapt it however you like, and make it your own thing.

    • Go with the flow. One of the most common mistakes is that fresh DMs consider their story as if it was a script to a play. When preparing, keep it light on details, and fill the details while playing games. Sometimes my most interesting experiences happened just randomly. If a players idea seems weird or unclear, have them explain to you what the plan is.

    • Common sense. I don't tell my players no, but I will sometimes remind them that their "common sense is tingling". Maybe storming a bunch of well trained guards is a very bad idea after all. If they still think they have a chance, it's up to the dice.

    • Failure, but progress. Sometimes players can't find a good solution or have really bad luck on rolls. They're stuck and could at best only repeat their tasks. Thats not fun. For instance, if a rogue tries to pick a lock but fails. Retrying again and again until the lock breaks is not that fun. So what I would do is that the failure does not lead to a broken lock, but that the rogue forgets time and fails to notice the footstep of guards. They can always return to the lock later, but for now they have to run and hide. It keeps things moving.

    You can do the same in combat for instance. The archer missed the bandit, but the arrow knocks over a lamp. Now they have to deal with bandits and a burning building. This could turn both to advantage and disadvantage, maybe they figure out a good way to use the fire to get their goal.

    • Adapt all the time. Your players decided to go join the antagonist instead? Let the story play out as it should, but let the players see it from the other perspective. Got an important NPC that doesn't work? Demote him. Got a random NPC that works? Make her more important.

    • Write down details. Maybe a player did something earlier in their advantage, and it has consequences later in the game. What if the player helped a homeless man, and later when they meet him again they will help him. Or they created mayhem in town and now word have spread of their actions, making any innkeper take a very generous deposit. It makes it very clear to players that their actions have impacted the world in some way, but also means that their actions have consequences.

    • Combat in DnD takes way longer than the rules imply it to take. So I would keep the encounters few and short.

    6 votes