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.

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?

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.

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?

The 2010s are coming to a close soon, and I'm curious to know what your gaming highlights are from the past decade.

To be clear: these are your personal standouts so don't feel beholden to popularity, critical opinion, review scores, or anything else like that. If a game was great for you and you deem it worthy of mentioning, then by all means go for it. I'm not interested in a list of the "most important" games of the decade but individual lists from individual people.

Please let us know why you loved the games that you're choosing, and what makes them worth mentioning as your personal picks for "Games of the Decade." Furthermore, choose as many or as few as you like. I'm also not even going to limit this to games released in the 2010s, as I know that many games released before then have gotten new life in this decade through patches, mods, randomizers, online communities, etc.

Basically, there are no rules for this list other than "tell me what games you loved these past ten years, and why."

A recent discussion got me thinking about how a lot of the standard genre descriptions for games are either opaque to the unfamiliar or seemingly incongruous with what they are describing. Almost any game can be described as a "role playing" game because you "play" the "role" of a given character. Adventure games often aren't very "adventurous" and often just mean that characters talk to each other instead of shoot each other. In survival games you survive; in racing games you race; in casual games you... well, usually match 3 but not always? Also why are we so focused on camera for some games (e.g. first-person shooter) but not for others (e.g. third-person sports)?

So, let's throw away everything we know about genres and start fresh. No baggage from gaming history; no widely understood conventions; no games that reference other games (e.g. "Souls-like"). Your goal is to make gaming genres as clear and accurate as possible, at the expense of convenience, tradition, and, in some cases, good taste.

Turn "roguelike" into "procedural death labyrinth". Turn "battle royale" into "shrinking-zone dead-is-dead killfest". Feel free to propose not just genre redefinitions but whole a whole taxonomy if you feel it's warranted. After all, some genres need a hierarchy of identifiers.

Be as formal or loose as you want, and the main purpose of this is to have fun, though if some great new terms happen to fall out of it you won't hear me complaining.

Just an idea I've been kicking around. BL3 is pretty solid single-player, but two player is way more hectic and I imagine three and four player is even more fun. Online PUGs just don't appeal to me, but since Tilderinos are higher caliber online denizens I was thinking it might be fun to put together a group of four to tackle it together.

The way I'm thinking, we can commit to a certain time Saturday or Sunday that works for everyone, and play for an hour or two. Definitely more casual, but when you are balancing that many schedules you kind of have to be. Then we can get together weekly (or whatever interval works for everyone). I think it would be a lot of fun to play with four people where everyone has to know and fill their role, I imagine four player is less of a shoot em up and more strategy involved.

This is just checking on interest, please say what times you're available and if you have a mic.

BTW this is based on this post from mid 2018.

In my case it would be 1:

A grand strategy game but with way deeper simulation of not just the nations warring but the land they are warring in as well, complete with procedurally generated worlds. Thankfully for me this already exists.

2: a dating or just general social interaction sim that isn't just for fapping or fetish indulging with randomly generated people with personalities which aren't just anime archetypes which you can socialize with as the game gives advice to you and explains what you are doing right or wrong.

3:KSP but with top-notch graphics and more planets, dwarf planets and star systems. This one is also real thankfully, and even coming somewhat soon!

4:Outside: the game. Please.

For those of you that have setups, how's it going?

• What have been your favorite games/experiences so far?
• What are those of us without VR missing out on?
• In what was does VR still need to grow?
• Do you think it will eventually catch on more than it has?

So, I quit Hearthstone recently. Not just because of current events, but because I lost my taste for the game. Which is a shame, because Hearthstone is pretty well made and what it simplifies from Magic the Gathering and comparible card games is pretty inspired.

But to prevent this from being a one sided breakup post, I ask you, dear Tildos, what would you want out of a Digital Card Game? Be it a weird mechanic, playing mode, ideal platform or like this except with that, what would keep you coming back to such a game?

A "hidden gem" is a game that is considered to be great but not well-known at all. It's something you believe deserves far more recognition and reach than it currently has. A diamond in the rough.

Though a hidden gem certainly can be a highly polished experience, the term also allows a bit of roughness, leaving room for clunkiness or flaws on account of the game's scope and production values (hidden gems are rarely, if ever, big-budget). It also seems to place a slight premium on novelty and innovation, favoring but not requiring games to be fresh or experimental for their time.

With this in mind, I'm curious to hear people's opinions and hopefully get some new stuff to check out for when I find myself needing to take a break from Crash and Spyro.

• What games would you consider "hidden gems"?
• Why do you feel they fit the criteria?
• Why do you think they aren't more widely known?

If there's a better or more commonly used term for this let me know, but my idea of an "expired classic" is a game that was acclaimed and beloved at the time of its release but that would be nearly unplayable or unacceptable by modern standards. Not just less impressive or weaker, mind you, but outright bad. Think "aged poorly" but like, REALLY poorly.

The quintessential example is Goldeneye 007. While absolutely landmark for its time, gamers that pick it up now would likely be baffled by its controls and appalled by its significant, unforgivable framerate issues. Even some people that used to love playing it have a hard time enjoying it now (myself included). It is a game that has "expired" over time.

The expiration doesn't have to be due to technical issues either. It could be due to cultural issues, design issues, or any other factor that makes the same significantly less palatable today, even to those that want to play it!

What are some other examples, and why have they expired?

What have you been playing lately? Discussion about video games and board games are both welcome. Please don't just make a list of titles, give some thoughts about the game(s) as well.

Sorry, I usually post this on Monday and just realized I didn't do it this week. I'm bad at this and obviously need to add a proper scheduled-posting feature.

Doesn't necessarily have to be that you cried, though it certainly can be. It can also be that you connected with the characters or plot, or maybe you clicked with the game's sense of humor. Maybe it creeped you out something fierce, or maybe it forced you into difficult ethical decisions. Any strong personal response counts.

• Why was the game so meaningful for you?
• How did the game use the medium to enhance its resonance?

Please give adequate spoiler warnings!
(You can use a <details> block to make a convenient collapsible section.)