I hate that enemies have so low armor class. In earlier editions, you had to be tactical, use flanking manoeuvres and charge attacks, prepare the right support spells, maybe even pick the Weapon Specialization feat for your favourite weapon. In 5e, no need; just stand wherever, roll an attack, you'll probably hit. In addition to removing much of the tactics from the game, this makes it basically impossible for enemy spellcasters to use duration spells. Good luck succeeding on 4 concentration checks per turn.

I hate that enemies' proficiency bonus is based on their challenge rating. No high-attack low-damage monsters here. Don't worry; the tank in your party will never need healing, any level-appropriate monster needs to roll ridiculously high on the dice to hit them! Everyone else just stay in the back and lob your bloody cantrips, and the battle will be over in 3 turns.

I hate that attack cantrips do as much damage as a weapon attack (or more). Why even have weapons at all, when your cantrips do more damage than a longsword, with better range than a crossbow.

I hate that cantrips scale with character level. No need to learn anything new for the rest of the game, your trusty Eldritch Blast will be your most powerful attack throughout. Especially when you get access to Greater Invisibility and don't need to rely on your bloody familiar for advantage on attack rolls.

I hate that familiars can do help actions in combat. Advantage every turn! And since they're no longer a class feature but a spell, they're also available to fighters and rogues, no multi-classing necessary. And unlike in earlier editions there are no real consequences of losing your familiar. All you lose is 10 gp worth of incense to get them back, a pittance at higher levels.

I hate that a long rest fully restores hit points. No need to ever stay in one place for longer than 8 hours, no need to conserve spell slots to do end-of-the-day healing, heck; no need for a healer at all really! And it gets worse when they reach 3rd level and get access to Leomund's Tiny Hut, and don't even need to find a safe spot to camp.

I hate that wild shape is basically useless in combat, due to challenge rating restrictions and the lousy selection of beasts in the Monster Manual.

I hate that the only logical combat use of Polymorph is turning into a dinosaur. Prepare for the inevitable discussion around the table: Can my character turn into a tyrannosaurus rex, even if they've never seen one? No? But, uuuuuh, they saw a picture of one in a book at the library!

I hate that you can use Counterspell to counterspell someone else's attempt at counterspelling your own spell.

I hate that any character can use any skill. No need for a rogue, just hand those Thieves' Tools to the character with the highest Dexterity, they'll get that door open.

The worst thing is that this game went through lots and lots of play-testing before it was released. The developers must have known about all of these issues and chosen not to change them, meaning that none of these are bugs; they're all features! This is how the developers intended the game to be!

Did I forget any of your peeves about the game? Add them in the comments. Alternatively, comment with what you love about 5e, let's add some positivity to this rant.

I'm currently reorganizing my Steam library, as I do every other year or so, and I'm curious as to how people here organize things (or not). Do you have certain categories or a taxonomy you put your games into? What are the benefits and limitations for the way you've chosen?

We don’t have a console and I’m a full time Linux user so gaming hasn’t been the best of experiences for me.

Today a Chromecast Ultra and two controllers arrived on our doorstep that my wife apparently ordered and wow is it awesome.

Zero input lag, 1080p with the option to go 4K, and some solid options for games that are playable instantly.

So far we have The Division 2, Grid, Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey, Destiny 2, Monopoly, and a couple other indie games. There are some big titles coming - I’m most excited for FIFA and Madden - but I’m looking to find out if you guys have any suggestions for games.

We are looking for some fun two player action.

Also, if anyone else on here has Stadia, I’ll add you!

I find with a lot of video-games, particularly RPGs, I have trouble just doing a casual playthrough. I just can't really stop myself from chasing down every quest marker, so if anyone has advice about how I can keep my playstyle focused on stuff I actually enjoy, I'd love to hear it.

I've found what ends up happening is I will play a game long after the point where the core gameplay loops are fun or challenging for me. This negatively impacts my impressions of games I play. It's like, chewing a stick of gum for way WAY too long. My jaw is sore, it tastes like cardboard. But I. Just. Keep. Going. I don't go into dumb collect-a-thons as much, so I'm not the worst at this, but I end up chasing every side-quest, every "do thing to befriend party member," and so on. Basically everything that counts as "content."

To be clear, I definitely blame the game designers for this. They stretch 30 hour games to 60 with a bunch of filler. And with open-world systems, it's just really hard to tell what's important and what isn't which just triggers my FoMO about missing something cool or plot critical.I just want some strategies on how to work around the bullshit and not have to bother with padding content.

DLC can often feel nickel-and-dimey, where you're paying out real money for cosmetics or other minor additions. For example, Borderlands 2 has dozens of DLC packs that merely unlock extra skins for your in-game characters. On the other hand, DLC can also significantly expand a game's scope, or add a lot more value to the base game. Borderlands 2, again, several additional campaign DLCs that extend the game playtime by hours, with new maps, missions, stories, etc.

I'm curious as to what DLCs out there fit this latter category. Also, for the purposes of the question, assume "DLC" to refer to any official expansion or additional content, even if it's not explicitly referred to as "DLC" by the devs or storefront or whatnot. What are some of the most worthwhile DLCs you've played?

I'm starting a virtual campaign with some friends soon, and this is my first time making a DnD character (I have DMed once in the past when we were all starting out). I'm super excited and just kind of delving in now and finding all of it very fun.

We're going to be playing the Tombs of Annihilation campaign which I understand can be a difficult one for beginners. I am right now leaning towards making a Wizard character since I think that is most in line with my irl personality and would be easiest to roleplay, but I'm kind of overwhelmed by the options available to me!

Does anyone have tips on ways to stay organized and make sure I'm building a balanced character? Common pitfalls to avoid for a beginner? Tips for playing a wizard? I'm open to any and all suggestions, both about character design and newbie tips in general.

What is a "game concept":

• visually-unpolished but functional game
• costs little compared to the full product
• only basic UI and UX
• solid, release-worthy mechanics
• released publicly in order to test a particular kind of gameplay (standalone, not part of any other game)
• retracted once the testing period is over
• testers get 50% off purchasing or updating to the polished, complete game (possibly also in-game perks)

Pros:

• game design team gets to test quirkier ideas without the investment of a full game
• mostly prevents flops (idiocy and hubris can still lead on)

Cons:

• players have to pay in order to participate (fewer players will want to join)
• game is retracted after testing is over (may cause player discontentment)

The essence of early access. Relevant to titles anywhere between AAA and indie (though more suited to AAA). Good early tests generate publicity. Bad tests are not as bad a publicity due to disclosed status.

Thoughts?

Assorted questions. As always, don't feel like you have to treat them like a quiz and answer them one-by-one (though you certainly can), but more like jumping off points for discussing whatever you feel is relevant:

• Who here games on Linux?
• How long have you been doing it?
• What is your setup like? Full-time Linux? Dual booting? GPU Passthrough?
• Which distro do you use, and why? Did gaming-related factors have an influence on that choice at all?
• What are some of the positives about gaming on Linux?
• What are some of the drawbacks/frustrations?
• What are some of your favorite native Linux games?
• What are your thoughts on the main gaming platforms' support or lack thereof for Linux?
• Do you personally feel a friction between open source philosophy and playing closed-source games?
• Do you think that Valve's Proton initiative is a help or hindrance for Linux gaming?

Share anything else you feel is relevant as well. I'm mostly interested in hearing what other people's experiences are.

Also, I debated whether to put this in ~games or ~tech and ultimately decided on the former, but if it's better placed in ~tech I'm fine with that.

I'd like to ask for recommendations for FLOSS (Free/Libre, Open-Source Software) games, playable on Linux or Android. I saw an old thread on this topic, but it's over a year old, so I thought it'd be okay to ask this year. Genre-wise, I'm pretty open. RPG, adventure, FPS, RTS, TBS, 4x, puzzle, sidescroller, platformer, single-player, multi-player, online, offline... whatever. I would prefer not needing to have original (commercial) game assets.

Fine print: I do like a good FPS, but, having played commercial titles on PS3 and PS4, I've found that the FLOSS FPSes I've tried just don't hold a candle to them. Also, I prefer having a short TTK (think: hardcore mode, R6S, BFV), and every FLOSS FPS I've tried has had a long TTK.

I've already played:

Linux:

• Wesnoth
• 0 A.D.
• roguelikes (currently have an active character in Angband)
• Ur Quan Masters
• Minetest
• bzflag (long ago)

Android:

• SuperTuxKart
• Pixel Dungeon
• Andor's Trail
• Mindustry
• Pixel Wheels
• Vector Pinball
• Minetest
• Wesnoth
• HyperRogue

What I haven't played, but might check out:

• FreeOrion
• Endless Sky
• Glest, MegaGlest
• Warzone 2100
• Zero-K
• KeeperRL
• OpenRCT2
• Oolite

Combat appears to be an important facet of most RPG systems out there, including ones embedded into the games themselves. Seems fair to say that most RPGs have combat as a major, dedicated part of their gameplay: stats like weapon damage and armor resistance are tracked and augmented by enhancements and skills; there are special game states and (for videogame RPGs) controls that separate combat from non-combat; combat serves as one of the major sources of XP for character growth.

There's probably a good few examples out there of games that tried something different that I haven't even heard about. Disco Elysium does "combat" through skill checks in the few instances that it does tackle physical encounters. Griftlands uses card-based actions for both combat and social encounters, each having their own separate decks and "health" values.

What I've been looking for was the kind of a system that doesn't take combat for a special game state. A system where the simulation extends to assimilate combat as just... a thing that happens because you're in danger – or looking to be the danger.

To understand where I'm going with the next bit, you should know a couple of things about Frontiers.

Frontiers is an episodic story about a group of friends playing a homebrew from-first-principles tabletop RPG system. The system, so far titled Frontiers RPG 'cause I'm very original, deals away with or reimagines much of the classic RPG trope library.

One thing that differentiates Frontiers RPG is having 20-some traits for characters, where each trait is an abstracted statistic representative of a character's distinct natural-performance categories. For example:

• Instrumentation determines how well the character naturally operates simple and complex technology
• Visual Space determines one's eyesight and, consequently, the ability to model the geometry of an environment or an object in the head (because apparently these things are linked in the human brain)
• Biomechanics determines how well does one's muscles perform under stress
• Presence determines the strength of the vibe the character gives off naturally; the vibe itself could be intimidating, commanding, or inspiring, depending on said character

Traits are tracked on a low scale:

• −10 is the lowest possible for any living creature with any amount of agency.
• −5 is the lowest any human could possibly get without outside intervention, and means the person is unable to perform in this area completely.
• 0 is average human performance.
• +5 is the best a human being could naturally achieve at their peak.
• +10 is the epitome of human potential when amplified with hyperadvanced technology or supernatural effects.

This means that when someone with Presence +1 enters the room, people can't but notice, even if they don't concern themselves too much with the person. When it's someone with Presence +3, however, most will stop what they're doing for a few seconds and pay attention to what the person is doing. Presence +5? The party stops when the person enters the room: they inspire this much awe and respect (or fear, depending on the person). Characters with high Presence naturally make for excellent leaders, teachers, negotiators, and point-makers.

There are no dice rolls. Each challenge has a difficulty rating on the same scale as traits, which is how the outcomes get determined: either by checking the trait itself or the average of a set of traits (which are sometimes conceptualized into skills and sometimes only exist as checks). For example, if your character's Conditioning (representing physical endurance) is +1 and the challenge is a short jog (difficulty 1), they succeed without a problem.

What makes this system not entirely deterministic is stat depletion. Each trait value above 0 grants the character 1 point of the trait. These points may be used to assist oneself or another character in a challenge if the challenge is of higher difficulty than their trait would normally allow to automatically succeed in. Points are regained at rest, up to the maximum of trait value points: e.g. Instrumentation 2 grants you maximum of 2 points you can have on your character at any given time.

What I've been working with for a few months was HP-like stats derived from specific traits:

• wounds for physical damage, derived from Conditioning
• willpower for mental stress, derived from Volition
• stamina for physical performance, derived from Stress Response

(Having willpower as a stat works because for normal humans, D&D-like adventures would inevitably take their toll. Seeing people suffering may damage the will of a high-Empathy character, but then, everyone would suffer from seeing their loved ones in danger. Seeing a giant fucking monster would certainly make you consider your life choices. Persevering through emotional and mental challenges where your willpower is mechanically limited – a person can only take so much within a limit of time – is an underexplored, underdeveloped field of roleplay, and it fits into the story thematically.)

This naturally geared itself to combat-as-special-state. Abstracting "health points" only makes sense when the only thing that matters is whether you're able to fight further. To this end, I figured that at a certain level of wounds, all traits would take penalty (to simulate being beaten up and stressed from combat) until such a time when the character receive proper care and rest.

Lately, however, I came upon a way to streamline the system and make it "wider" (i.e. not just combat/non-combat simulation): use the trait points directly. This approach enables the player by allowing them to use their whole potential in all manners of situations, and have said potential used against them if they're facing a challenge their ability does not allow them to surpass.

• rather than exchange punches in a bar fight, you can use your Executive Function – your thinking-on-your-feet – to distract your opponent and sucker-punch them while they're looking away
• in a fistfight, character may use their Coordination to deflect a blow – or two points to direct it in a specific way: for example, to harm their proximous ally
• before approaching the bench in order to testify, characters may use their Empathy in order to read the room and understand what sort of an appeal would work best
• seeing an atrocity committed would take a point away from the character's Volition; if they have none left, they may faint, become disstressed (receiving a malus to all checks of a particular nature), or even become catatonic (unable to act coherently until snapped out of it or well-rested)
• being shot by a scared youth may take a point or two of the character's Conditioning, but because they're still standing, they could use Volition to "not fucking flinch", which gives them a temporary bonus to Presence that they can use to interrogate with greater success or otherwise use the youth's capacities

This works, at least on the surface, because it reflects the potential traits grant almost exactly. Someone with Conditioning 0 may be able to take a punch, but it would leave them seriously disoriented or may even inflict lasting damage (broken rib, dislocated jaw etc.); meanwhile, another character with Conditioning 4 may be able to get shot with a pistol and still function to a degree. Someone with Inner World +3 should find it little trouble to jot down a short story to tell their children before bed, while someone with Inner World 0 would find it impossible to come up with a logo for their new product even with intense consideration.

What I haven't yet figured out is:

• how to handle such "shooting above one's head" attempts for trait values lower than 0 (which is encouraged for challenge and roleplay reasons)
• how to handle situations where all points are depleted and the player still wants to try a difficult thing that's just above their character's level
• whether players should receive more than one point per level of trait, or even see points granted scale with value (Engineering 3 → 1 + 2 + 3 = 6 points total)

The system is not perfect, but it's hella interesting, and I'd like to pursue it. If it leads nowhere, at least I explored. What I'm looking for from this topic is review of the concept of stat depletion and its potential implications. Assume that the rest of the system is perfectly viable and feasible unless its parts directly contradict or hamper the system as a whole. What problems can you see with this section? What benefits can one derive from it?

Times are tough and isolation is getting to everybody, we've been playing some easy jackbox games with my friends on Google Hangouts, when the idea came to me: Why not start a DnD campaign? I've never ever played one, just watched some Youtube (Geek and Sundry, Mathew Colville), and definitely never though about hosting one until now.

After looking around, there are a lot of cool resources for running one, Roll20 seems to be the most popular and praised for ease of use. Rules are very well written into it and all the tools needed to deal with the mechanics are in. So technology-wise I think we're set.

Now I have a lot of questions on how to get an adventure running. Do I just get an official DnD guide book, do I just rip off the White Orchard level from Witcher 3 to start off or do I come up with some generic fantasy land? I'd like to run a small adventure in one night, just to get a taste of it and maybe branch it off later if everyone is up for it.

For characters I think it would be easier for me to come up with 8-10 pre-generated ones for a group of 4-5 people (with specific people in mind) to tailor it a little bit for my group, but still present some variety, while smoothing the learning curve and lowering the barrier to entry. Feels like a decent idea.

I'm still not sure where to start with this expansive world and I'd love to hear for seasoned DMs an players here on Tildes. How did you start your first game, what was the setting? How do I gently introduce players to mechanics? How do I deal with unpredictable situations?

And most importantly, how do I make sure everyone is having fun?

I’m going to be making an fully libre, tactical, co-op, WW2 FPS in the ioquake3 engine. I need an idea for a name. Anyone have ideas?

It's going to be kind of like Day of Infamy, if you've ever played it. You're going to be working through the enemy's base (Axis or Allies, depending on which side you choose) with your friends, trying to complete an objective. You can either be stealthy, go guns blazing, or anywhere in between. There's also going to be TDM, where you either attack or defend against another team of players. I'm hoping to increase longevity by making it completely open source.

My gaming group got to talking at our last game about how long we've been playing. Most of us were at 20+ years. I asked them if they'd ever played a 20th level character, and the answer was a unanimous no, so that's something we're going to remedy with the next campaign.

I got to fiddling around with characters and noticed that 5e caps itself out nicely once you hit 20th. No matter what you create, the limits on action economy, maximum spell/attacks, stats/scores all give rise to a nice plateau. The hit points getting huge is the biggest change, so you just end up trading healing word whack-a-mole for characters that can actually take some real punishment and using power word heal. Needs a wound mechanic so that going down has lasting consequences even if you get right back up, but that's easily workable.

I was bored and threw another twenty levels on for a 40th level character, and then another 11 for a meaningful dip into a third class. Just cap the character's proficiency bonus at +6/20th and nothing really changes except you have a far larger bag of tricks at your disposal. Twelve feats is like candyland. I'm anticipating some of my players are going to get ferret shock trying to keep up with their spell lists during combat. Too many choices, they'll make a hilarious mess out of it and it'll be fun. I have a tiny hourglass sitting on the table to keep the pressure up, I'm sure that'll get some use.

I told them to pick their favorite character they've played over the years that they want to revisit and make the best version they can, complete with character history, holdings, etc. They also have to explain everything on their sheet - every level, feat, item, holding, etc all have a story attached. You're a monk? Where and when did you get that training, etc.

Then one of my players turned me on to the epic level book for 5e from 2c gaming. It's perfect, plugs right into the limits and takes them up a bit, but also adds all sorts of epic madness. Every class/archetype gets its own ten level epic prestige class. That's the 'real' 21-30 I can use for their advancement. I can also torment them with the prestige evolutions from the campaign setting we'll be using. There's plenty of advancement to be had this way despite already being at 51st level. I'm working in all of their existing characters from adjacent games as well, so we've got a ready made pool of henchmen.

I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of spelljamming and planar travel in this campaign. There's probably a gods war in there somewhere too. I have my 2nd Edition monster manual binders right here, and a third of the critters in them can give these characters nightmares for days. I'm figuring I'll be making heavy use of Illithids as one of the main threats, that trailer for Baldur's Gate 3 has them back in vogue again. Psionics is such a wonderful foil for magic.

So what kind of character would you build if you were making a character that's already the master of his/her/its? tiny corner of the D&D universe? What do you do with those 51 character levels?

Any races allowed, of course. Racial abilities are the least of it at this point. Origin can be from any campaign setting, past or present.

I just started playing AER: Memories of Old which allows your character to transform into a bird and fly around a sky world of islands. I was struck by how good the flight feels in-game. The sense of speed, control, and freedom was immediately satisfying. I've spent most of the game not actually doing what I'm supposed to but just enjoying the ability to swoop, dive, and get from one point to another in a novel way.

It made me curious: what other games are out there in which just the act of moving your player avatar around is engaging, interesting, or fulfilling?

I recently became quite invested in this game, but my friends are not really interested in it. And talking to random people on PSN feels kinda creepy, TBH. Besides, most people don´t seem that interested. In these times of coronavirus, I´m playing from 1 am to 4 am (GMT-3) almost every day, but I´m open to playing at other times!

I have a level 24 duelist.

My in-laws are wanting to do a distance game night soon where we meet up and play some party games together while on video chat from our separate locations. I think it's a wonderful idea, but I'm also not sure what games we can play? Anyone have any ideas for some good, casual fun (think stuff like Pictionary/Charades) to be had via video chat, and how we can best set things up? Are there any good tools/websites that will help us out?

Also feel free to make suggestions that aren't necessarily applicable to my situation but still work for the question as a whole (e.g. a D&D campaign). I want this to be a resource for everyone, not just me.

This questions ultimately rests on the supposition of what a game intends to be or what esport should be. This is partially why it probably won't spark too much discussion, but I'm interested in your opinions nonetheless, especially when it comes to the current state of esports. It seems to me that when we are talking about rules in any kind of sport we want to change as little as we can over time. If the rules changes enough, you could argue that people have over time played what essentially is a different game. It becomes harder to compare achievements between players within the a timeline. Meta's and achievements will only really be comparable after games has stopped adding content such as new heroes or mechanics. With a lot of games there seems to be a major content patch, then long period of balancing and this cycle basically repeats itself. Another point is that by adding content and changing the meta you are preventing the current players from reaching their full potential, the older players from retaining their hard earned experience and discouraging new players by promising them a game they can never "beat". That is until the content stops coming in and in today's world that might mean that you are not able to play at all due to a lack of dedicated servers. Further the players that might once have stuck to it might already have left, leaving no opponents left to play against.

This superficial take ultimately comes from someone who hasn't really played esports except a little bit of 1.6 counter strike and counter strike global offensive. It always struck me as odd that with MOBA's and especially with shooters such as overwatch and siege, that there seem to be no pushback on this. When I ask people that prefer this sort of drip-feed-service, what I usually hear is that it's something that is necessary to keep them engaged. Isn't there ultimately a trade-off here, between a sort of accessible fun and lack of constancy which prevents players from reaching their full potential?

I immediately see the talking point of financial aspect of games. It seems to me however that Quake and counter strike largely went without major changes when compared to modern esports games. Are there any good broad rules we can use when designing esport games in order to avoid the issues mentioned here?

In an ideal world, do you agree that we generally don't want kind of content and/or rule change that we see today?

If there is a need to add content (such as heroes) to keep a game feeling "fresh". Is there an acknowledgement here that the core-gameplay isn't engaging enough? I think there is a case to be made here when it comes to MOBA's since knowledge (about enemy heroes abilities) plays a more central part when compared to more archaic shooters. Is this indicative of a an audience that is more interested in an entertaining service, rather than a (e)sport that seldom changes?

When we look at games such as world of warcraft, which isn't an esport, yet there are achievements and historic events so to speak which became cheapened or not attainable until what was basically a restart of the timeline (story of the game). Is this not what we are risking with current service models in modern esports?

This is not meant to be a "which is best"-style console war question but instead one of personal affinity: which console, if any, do/did you love the most, and why? Whether you're a diehard Dreamcast fan ^{Hello friend!}, you have fond memories of your first Gameboy, or you think the PS4 is the best piece of technology of all time, tell me your story and why it means so much to you.

Also, I know we have a lot of primarily/strictly PC gamers here, so if you're wanting to view that as a console, feel free -- whether that's looking at the platform as a whole, an individual piece of hardware (e.g. my laptop from college), a specific time period (e.g. the early 2000s), or some other division. The question is about attachment to a device with a lifecycle and identity, which computers undoubtedly have too, just in different ways from consoles.

Usually bugs, glitches, and exploits degrade the experience of a game, but occasionally they can actually work to a game's benefit. In some cases, they can become significant enough to become part of a game's identity. In others, they make a broken game worth playing in the first place. Even without such legendary status, a given wrinkle in a game might simply make it more enjoyable or entertaining, or perhaps open up unexpected modes or paths of play.

What are some examples of these, and how did they improve their associated games?

Hey folks, I haven't posted in a hell of a long time and thought why not get this going again.

So when I last posted I think my Paladin had just been basically killed off and I wrote up a druid. Well this one has been amazingly fun to role play, being that he has lived most of his life in solitude he has no social skills and tends to do things that can be a little off at times. Our merry band of misfits had cleared a small towns problem warerats who turned out to be a family of Gnomes who lived there, while trying to console the final member of the family Rolen (my druid) felt the best way to give emotional support would be to congratulate the young Gnome on becoming the head of the family. This actually broke the whole table for about a minute, the DM sat in silence for a moment, laughed, tried to role play the distraught girl but failed epically.

We have also got another campaign going with a few of the same guys as the bigger campaign, this one is mostly homebrew. The first character I made I really wasn't happy with so spoke to the DM and we worked out how to kill her off and introduce the new character I made, completely homebrew this one and it's again been far more fun. He is a Dwaf Shaman whose ancestors speak to him constantly, sometimes good and sometimes not so much.

So what has been happening in your RPGs? anything big, fun or just want to chat about? painted anything cool? got new dice? anything at all.

Romantic relationships in gaming are often heavily debated, with lots of criticism and lots of support for the myriad experiences out there. I don't have a single specific question related to the topic, only some guiding ones. Feel free to answer any/all of these, or simply give your thoughts on the topic:

• What are some games that you feel have handled romance well?
• What are some games that you feel have not handled romance well?
• What particular advantages does gaming have with regard to portraying romantic relationships?
• What particular disadvantages does gaming have with regard to portraying romantic relationships?
• Are there any games that have depicted romantic relationships that were particularly resonant to you?
• What would you define as some "best practices" for game writers/designers with regard to in-game romance?
• What would you define as some "mistakes/errors" for game writers/designers to avoid with regard to in-game romance?

My wife and I enjoy playing mystery walking simulators together and have been looking for more-- Steam's recommendation engine is pretty terrible in finding others or lesser-known titles, so I thought I'd ask around for what others play! They don't have to be full-on walking simulators, just games where dying is rare/not a big component of the experience (looking at you, Visage!), and the rest of the game is all about solving a mystery/thriller of some sort. Preferably first-person games with realistic-enough graphics.

Ones we've played so far and have loved are:

• Dead Secret
• Gone Home (loose fit)
• The Painscreek Killings (really loved this one)
• The Vanishing of Ethan Carter

Ones I've got in my queue:

• Anna
• Bohemian Killing
• Dead Secret 2
• Return of Obra Dinn

I've also played What Remains of Edith Finch, Dear Esther, Firewatch, and some others-- but those didn't really have a big enough mystery component to them (to be clear I liked them, they just didn’t have a dark/thriller vibe to em).

Any other suggestions?

A while ago, maybe like a year ago? There was a thread and two websites were linked to that were basically puzzle sites. As in the sites themselves were the puzzle and you had to find clues in the site to get to the next page. It was very cool but I managed to lose the link and was hoping someone might know what I'm talking about. We ringing any bells?

I know my question isn't worded great! If anyone has a better edit after reading all of this, let me know!

I have a half-formed idea in my head and I want to brainstorm a bit.

Here's the idea: games as a whole have a ton of different aspects/lenses through which we can enjoy and appreciate them, and I want to know what they all are. Here are some examples to show what I mean:

I feel like there are dozens of these we could come up with if we get really specific. The diversity of gaming experiences and genres really lends itself to a broad swath of these aspects. After all, the appreciation someone gets from playing something like Katamari Damacy is very different from that which someone gets from, say, ARMA 2.

I think later it might be interesting to try to apply some sort of analysis or taxonomy to this, but right now I just want to brainstorm. What are all of the different reasons we can like games? Be as specific as you can, try to cover lots of different titles and genres so that all of gaming is represented, and feel free to critique or edit my examples as well (e.g. I think it might be worth breaking up "Narrative" into "Plot" and "Characters", for example).

Aggregated List So Far

I'll keep updating this as we go. For entries that didn't follow the table format (which I didn't intend to be prescriptive but it looks like it caught on!), I've tried to incorporate them as best as I can, but if you feel I've misrepresented something let me know! Again, I'm mostly just interested in brainstorming at the moment, and then I think we can have a secondary thread later for analysis/synthesis.

My D&D group mostly used Lego for the longest time, but we recently decided to give miniatures a shot because we were adding more people and I only have so many minifigs to share (unless you want Stormtroopers in your fantasy setting, that is!). A few weeks ago we met up to paint our miniatures for our new campaign and I think that was the most relaxing, calming thing I've ever done. We all sat in silence basically, noobing our way through the painting process and we had a lot of fun.

My character is a sheltered rich southern man who sounds a bit like a mix between Colonel Sanders and Foghorn Leghorn. He's a sorcerer and despite how is mini ended up looking, he does not cast bubblegum -- https://imgur.com/fr4tc6Z

But anyway, looking at it now there are some obvious spots where I messed up and certainly some things I'd do differently now. But until I'm able to get my hands on another miniature, I was wondering if anyone here had experience with painting miniatures and would be able to share some advice?

This year I wanted to make a point to support and follow more indie game developers. I thought I'd post this topic to spread some love. Let's share indie game projects and developers that we are currently following to help them get some more exposure. Here are a few from my end:

Pizza Tower:

https://pizzatowerguy.itch.io/

The demo feels so good to play. Controls are really tight and art/animation is really charming albeit eye-straining on higher resolution.

Guinea Pig Parkour:

https://twitter.com/GPigParkour
This game is not as far along as Pizza Tower, but the game-play footage looks superb. Seems like a taxing process considering the level of polish being demonstrated. Looking through GPigParkour's twitter, apparently this is something that they have been working on since 2016.

Headcannon (Stealth):

http://www.headcannon.com/vertebreaker.html

You probably know Headcannon as the development team behind Sonic Mania. Despite the amazing job they did on Sonic Mania they don't receive much of anything for their hard work. The only pay from Sega that they received was the commission to create Sonic Mania and don't receive any revenue from sales. A recent kickstarter for the game Vertebreaker had be be cancelled because they were unable to raise enough funds for it. The founder and head of Headcannon Stealth goes into detail about this in the linked video. I highly recommend you check them out and donate to their Patreon if you can. They certainly have the talent and know how to create some cool ass games.

I'd love to hear about some games that are surprisingly good, deep, or different. As in, the premise or the presentation of the game does not bode well or looks weak, but the game itself rises above those preconceptions and limitations to be greater, richer, or more interesting than you expected. Think games like: a surprisingly good movie tie-in, a really great edutainment experience, a well-executed corporate mascot platformer, etc.

What is it about the game that sets your expectations low, and how does the game overcome that low anchoring?