Как заблокировать тор браузер hydra

Hydra dm

5

hydra dm

Hydra dm

Hydra dm поисковики в tor browser

UNDERAGE DARKNET

Personally I think they took this too far sometimes. Knowing what I did, it was frequently the case that the solution to a puzzling situation in front of them was information they had previously learned, or perhaps even had access to in their almanac, carousing stories, and player reports, but for whatever reason had forgotten or neglected. If they had risked a failed roll they also would have ventured to crack open the whole scenario. But they chose to play it safe, and that was designed to be a valid option.

There are plenty of arguably more successful examples, though. Climbing things slowly and carefully using teamwork, rope, and harnesses was very common. Many players successfully took advantage of the fact that if you attack a helpless opponent you skip straight to dealing damage by creating a situation in which their opponent was rendered helpless. I think that a huge part of this kind of play is a disciplined and consistent GM and the trust of the players in them. If you get into a fight the DM could just have all the monsters run around and do double movement every turn instead of fighting back.

If Spicy Dice does that, also great. I found that — if I was careful about it — Dungeon World did that, so that was fine by me. Does it depend on the engagement level of the particular players, as well? Basically to get the open table effect you need enough players so that they start mixing together. My favorite part of West Marches is actually the dynamic between the sessions where players talk about the game. It was a little on the low end for my tastes, and it definitely had too much turnover.

Players had access to the usual drawing and text tools, plus terrain hex tokens for the artistically inclined, with an invisible grid offering a map scale with the ruler tool. They had run off the edge of the paper and transitioned to a bigger map but that was near the end of the campaign so this version is more representative. Then they complained that their Almanac and map were disorganized. Oh well. Once we set up the page the only management we did was dealing with wonky Roll20 image permissions.

Mar 4. Editorial work is indicated by [square brackets]. They seem really similar. One example that comes to mind is we spent some time talking about different circumstances in which a player would just get hit by something in combat. Both in front? One ahead and one behind? Over the course of an hour or so we basically exhausted all the common scenarios we could think of where somebody might just take damage without getting a Defy Danger or anything, and then we made a big list of the ones where we agreed it would definitely happen.

I tended to just go with whatever made sense as the next most pressing thing based on a combination of speed, importance, and making sure nobody gets left out for more than a few minutes at a time. He preferred to pick an arbitrary order and just cycle through it. But because of how Dungeon World works regarding how consequences rarely happen to you unless you first take action we thought it would be equally fair either way we decided to handle who sits out and when.

Do you remember any examples of [when the you two GMs failed to adhere to the same rules of execution]? MC moves vs. The one that comes to mind was to do with maiming PCs. A player had got their finger caught in a mimic and my compatriot GM had it get torn off, which I thought was in line with our standard.

But then he said it was OK to re-attach it with Cure Light Wounds, although it would not regain its functionality. I thought that violated our common understanding of Cure Light Wounds not being able to re-attach lost limbs at all, regardless of whether the limb worked or not after.

So we had a bit of a spat over that, and the fate of the finger was in limbo ever since. Any chance you have some of it somewhere in email records, perhaps? I can say some things about the monster system, though, because that was recorded for reference purposes. In practice this happened sometimes, so go us, but more commonly the Barbarian and Fighter players got into it with the monsters and the other players supported them by holding the flanks and dealing with unexpected problems so they could keep at pitched combat with their superior damage, armor, and HP.

This led to a funny dichotomy where, depending on their preferred method of dealing with monsters, some players treated Defend as the Second Coming while others treated it as patently useless. In the end we decided a peer monster a monster meant to square off against one PC should start around 8 HP and with d8 damage, and to adjust from there depending on the intended level and number appearing.

On top of that monsters got various Strengths based on the intended level of their PC opponents. A higher level monster had slightly bigger stats, but also things like the Messy tag, some narrative advantage that tends to require Defy Dangers to be made, a specifically advantageous environment, or handing out Debilities.

All monsters also had one or more Weaknesses , which were fictional positioning elements that gave a dramatic advantage over them in a conflict if utilized. To give you an example of all this, one of the first monsters we designed was a kind of ten foot tall bog monster covered in rusty chains and padlocks that lived in a lake far from town we referred to him affectionately as Rusty. We chose his extra levels to grant a bit of extra Damage we thought this made sense as he was physically quite big and a fair whack of Armor we thought this made sense because of the giant metal chains.

I recall a few PCs almost drowned this way. Why is that? Are you planning to run it again with the same players, or something like that? This is for two reasons. A less obtuse reason is that I believe missing information has value in many cases. Handing it out can change the value of the original work in much the same way a sequel answering certain questions one way rather than another can change the value of the original work by modifying its context in retrospect.

And keeping secrets to oneself is vitally important to running a game in the exploratory prepared style. At the end of the day, West Marches is about giving player actions real weight. The players are the only ones willing and able to explore the dangerous world beyond the wall, in the game or out of it, and to give away the answers they worked so hard to get for free at a later date is to cheat them of their labor.

So basically I think it would make my game be worse and less immersive in retrospect, and at this point in time retrospect is the only way to experience it at all and I am not interested in making my game be worse and less immersive. I am aware how you would get a lot of value out of knowing these specifics, but it is a non-starter for me. Was this a conscious design choice, and what efforts did you make to maintain it? How did you agree to do the same way or reliably?

The numbers just happen to work out that way. We had to consider that kind of thing. Rusty liked to wrap people in chains and drag them into Crescent Lake. He had Reach weapons and an aura of fear, so naturally he played zone defense to keep those pesky barbarians with the big sword away from him. We both wanted to play monsters as hard as we could within the prep and guidelines and we both did a pretty good job of being creative while not violating prep or guidelines with that I think.

We were obligated to portray monsters as the whole package of goals, information tells, weaknesses , behaviors as well as specific moves , and strengths at all times. Lots of locations were designed in tandem with their inhabitants, and we took that interaction into consideration while imagining how the scenario would probably go in advance.

Just ask them about the infamous tornado bridge. So this further incentivized us both to be very familiar with how the inhabitants of locations would behave if it came to a fight. Players are exploring near the lake he lives in. I describe ripples in the water tells. I describe one character being grappled by rusty chains suddenly shooting from the water golden opportunity, they ignored the ripples.

They describe pulling and resisting, and somebody helps them. Aid Another or automatic fail Forceful makes it impossible to plausibly beat Rusty at tug of war by yourself which precludes Defy Danger. I describe him as a giant human-shaped monster covered in lake gunk physical description and rusty chains Strength affixed with keyed padlocks Weakness.

The other two players make an attempt to attack the creature in melee by running up to it. It whips chains at them, and one thinks better of risking being hit and rummages through their bag for some kind of ranged weapon player taking action that automatically succeeds due to not triggering a Move. One two skip a few, players get free from the chains with some more Defy Danger or perhaps an automatic success by e. How was your prep recorded and organized?

Was it fully shared across the two GMs, and, if so, in what format? To clarify, we did share all of our prepared locations. We had a Google Sheets file with all of the mechanical nitty-gritty for monsters and locations sometimes appended by a Google Docs file with short summaries for locations, though this was less standardized , and of course a major benefit of having a vector image file for a map is that you can write all the important information for running a location right next to it!

For whatever reason the players in all my games went to places the other GM had made, and the players in all of his games went to places I had made. Tune in next time for questions and answers about players, their priorities, and what makes for a fair game of Dungeon World West Marches. Mar 3. Since story-games. You know how forum posts get all mixed up with people quoting different parts of messages and so on. Otherwise the text is basically unedited.

Yes, somewhat. As a general rule we tried to leave unmodified as many things as possible, because part of a good Robbins-style West Marches is in having enough players. That said, the default picture of Dungeon World as well as some of its rules and contents did not mesh well with a prep heavy game.

We tried to be excruciatingly clear that this would not play like many improvisation-heavy story-forward Dungeon World campaigns people might be used to, and that a few changes had been made where necessary to support a planning-based play experience. I actually made a little Google Docs hyperlink adventure booklet for precisely this purpose with new players.

As mentioned previously, we tried to avoid changes where we plausibly could. So this typically led to 3 kinds of changes: clarifications the most common , tweaks to existing Moves less common , and the creation of new Moves least common. Here are four representative examples. To be in melee means you are in a conflict at short range where you and something else are trying, and have the ability, to hurt each other physically.

Discern Realities clarifies two things that I believe were present in the original rules but many people miss. One: basic sensory details are always provided by the GM in their description of what is happening or as answers to basic player questions. For bigger alterations, Last Breath and Make Camp are good candidates. It now reads like this:. Rumors have long said that Death will offer the strong a game of chance against their life. The rumors are true.

Take it and stabilize or refuse and pass beyond the Black Gates into whatever fate awaits you. The GM will tell you when and how. It adds just one more mystery to investigate in a game about investigating mysteries, and it adds a lot of gameplay. At least once a sole survivor rallied a whole new crew in town within the hour to embark on a new expedition to save their fallen comrades.

In Dungeon World vanilla Make Camp basically heals you to full. Some new Moves included things like Forced March roll to resist fatigue , Carouse a total re-write of the existing party move for spending money in town to throw a big party celebrating yourself and become famous, which awarded a kind of meta-game leaderboard points , or Return to Town a total re-write of the Move for getting XP and resolving Bonds.

There were also Moves specific to downtime in the town. Regarding playbooks specifically, some required more re-writing than others. We ended up adding one more a Monk we cobbled together from various sources plus our own brains , which left us with 13 character classes. The most major rewrites were probably of the Bard who would you talk to?

Finally, GM Moves largely remained the same. The main change to those was in how we had a system to standardize their usage. For example, under certain conditions we would always damage characters in certain ways in fights. That said we did also make some systems of our own for things like exploration-based XP and things like that. How did this work? You can dial the player feedback meter to zero, if you really want to.

Ask them ONLY what their characters are feeling and thinking and leave it at that. The point is, then, to never play to guide the PCs in a certain direction. To let them explore the world and get into trouble wherever they like as they learn what you, as the GM, already know.

Just ask questions whenever you feel like it and build on what you do ask about. So, that was emblematic of the sorts of ways we interpreted the principles and agenda. The biggest changes in implementation in the GM Moves were probably related to combat stuff like Deal damage and wandering-monster-type uses of things like Show signs of an approaching threat. Since combat was a big place where GM preference can really alter the difficulty and experience of the game we thought this area of standardization was one of the most important.

We also re-did how monsters were generated pretty substantially, and we got a lot of mileage out of all of our monsters having specific weaknesses, somewhat beefier than vanilla DW stats so we could rely less on being mean with our Moves and more on numbers , and building their Moves together so we both understood how they were supposed to work.

When we did our post-campaign discussion, though, nobody had noticed anything wrong with it, so I guess it was sufficient. We did end up having a bit of a fight over whether one or the other of us had adhered to these decisions properly at least once that I can remember probably more like a small handful of times. But by and large it worked well, and the impression I got from the campaign veterans was that it felt pretty consistent and predictable. So the bottom line is probably just that deciding to follow certain rules of thumb to standardize your approach to the game works, whether or not you mess with the Moves themselves or what the rules of thumb you develop happen to be.

One thing we tried to do to minimize sessions that were a bust was to ask for not only one plan of action, but a backup plan of action in case the main plan was a bust. So not enough transparency of method…? D and some pals were exploring some crypts near the town when one of his pals has to leave unexpectedly. D is a bit of a power gamer so this is no problem, he can run any character in a combat.

This was the singularly most deserved PC death I have witnessed in thousands of hours of RPG play except perhaps the time a Barbarian drank from a clearly labeled fountain of acid with a skeleton in it. They had already guessed successfully that a big scary monster was behind this next door, their friends urged them not to, and they ran ahead into a trap I was in the middle of describing. Technically it was my fault: I built the whole world they were playing in, and I could have given every monster 1 hit point and 0 damage if I wanted.

I had already run a West Marches style campaign and decided I wanted to run another, but bigger and better. And looking at all of the games I could use to run it, I settled on Dungeon World as the best fit for my needs. Dungeon World is a poor fit for West Marches on first impression, no doubt. One time I tweeted Ben about that and he basically said the same thing. I decided that the way I played Dungeon World and the changes I had made to it would suffice for as far as I was willing to bend over backwards to facilitate that, and players would just have to do the rest.

The game had tools for the players to access GM-provided hints if they wanted them things like Spout Lore and Discern Realities. Here are all the things Ben said were key to a West Marches game listed explicitly: No regular time. No regular party. No regular plot. Exploring a fantasy wilderness using first person turn-by-turn navigation referencing a GM-kept vector map.

A table map. Session summaries. Random encounter tables and restocking locations. Things getting more dangerous the farther from town you go, with pockets of danger nearer by that are well telegraphed. A safe town and wild wilds. No NPC adventurers. A treasure map to get them started. No town games. Players who try to out-do one another. A meta-game scheduling location like a forum or mailing list. The rules are available in a player-facing document. Combat is a tactical puzzle with little hidden information.

What made 3rd edition revolutionary in — having clear rules that anybody can look up whenever they want and expected wealth by level tables and encounter building rules — is just normal practice today for a whole swath of games. Join me soon for part 2 where I cover monster design and the challenges of running West Marches, which needs consistency, with multiple game-masters who might be anything but consistent. Oct It seemed like taking a minor problem and exaggerating it into overkill proportions.

Who needs this many notecards? Bluntly, I was wrong. By moving the information onto notecards instead of holding it in your head you can manipulate a lot more of it at once without having to first memorize it all. Think of it like that cork board filled with news clippings and photos and red string connected by thumb tacks in police procedural TV shows. Those detectives know how important it is to externalize the vast amount of information in their cases, and the same goes for you and your campaign!

This is why assembling all that information before the game began was so important. The players have by this point told you what they want: the NPCs, the kinds of challenges, and so on. Changing game prep from inventing new content to instead merely inventing a new presentation is how Jamison can say with a straight face that he can prepare a 4 hour game every week in only 15 minutes.

The result of the method is what I consider a nearly air-tight adventure design. Here is a dumb example to bluntly highlight how it works:. Jumpman PC is a superhero who can jump really high skills. He needs to defeat his nemesis Runman Foe NPC who is wrecking Peaceburg starting location , but he can never catch him and needs some help.

However, first he needs Jumpman to go retrieve the Widget of Goodness from the top of a mountain obstacle resolved with skills so that he can recharge his super powers and come out of retirement woe. While hopelessly boorish by actual writing standards I think it illustrates my point nicely. You get to do something challenging, show off how cool you are, and achieve your goals if all goes to plan.

The players tell you what they want, and then you spend a few minutes a week shuffling notecards around a table and — voila — out pops an irresistible, bespoke adventure better than any you could have ever bought at a store. Oct 9. Of course, no teacher can force a student to learn — they do have free will, after all. What is the thing most GMs do when they first make an adventure and only then get their friends to make some characters?

More commonly they just make something they think is cool and hope the players think so, too. The last blue moon, maybe? But in a more traditional game your campaign will only ever be fun by luck. They can easily be too weak, or too strong, or so on. Much easier to build them by hand.

Regarding likable characters this is much less obvious advice than it appears. I have heard a lot of stories over the years of chaotic evil loners, and even seen one or two myself. Chaotic evil loners. Finally, Jamison insists that characters begin relatively weak.

It allows for a wider variety of challenges across the length of a campaign, players like becoming more powerful the SAPS — Status, Access, Power, Stuff — model describes this particular form of player motivation. Sounds reasonable to me. I think a lot of what Jamison wrote in this box is, to be blunt, extremely inconsistent. Is it very hard to play a character of another gender or with a mental illness convincingly? We expect the GM to play dozens of characters like this throughout the course of a campaign.

Be cautious? But disallow it? Seems invalid to me. The character creation method, however, is both very consistent and very useful. These are all useful information, both for the player and for the GM. Baby Orcs in particular may be overdone, but utilitarian dilemmas are a classic of drama: will you do the wrong thing for the right reason?

Six point scales force people to pick sides, sides lead to conflict, and conflict leads to a good story. Goals are necessary because they are literally what the character and thus the player is interested in doing.

Quirks and traits are mostly helpful for the player because they are a list of things the player should keep in mind while play-acting as their character, like accents, temperament, and common behaviors. Together with character goals I think this is one of the best ideas in the whole book when it comes to minimizing wasted prep work. How many times have you tried to introduce a villain and the players all just made fun of him?

It sucks and it happens all the time. How do you get instant player buy-in? You get them to make the villain themselves! Nobody thinks their own creation is stupid, after all. With a player and the GM instantly bought in that makes buy-in from everyone else a lot easier to come by. The reason I like this trick so much is that it completely generalizes. Anything that really needs player buy-in should be something you try to get the players to have a hand in making.

The preparations really heat up! Sep To wrap up chapter 2 I want to talk about something Jamison wrote that reminded me of my theory of Game-as-Training-Wheels. I have noticed the trend he references — heavier systems being deemed less useful for experts — in myself as well as in many people I know.

Even just with house rules something I tried to do in my last campaign was to make them as GM-facing as possible. Nobody likes to be confronted with a 20 page errata booklet. Learning rules from a book is tedious and hard and takes too long. Jamison is right. Most GMs do spend too long making the universe. Jamison recommends making at most two societies: the one the characters are from and the antagonist society.

You need to know how to tell different people apart in terms of social class and beliefs and so on so you can describe them, and how they speak so you can act them out. The economics is similarly basic: what does the society make and what do they need on the whole? Many non-system processes that are running can be stopped because they are not involved in running your operating system. If you no longer use HydraVision Desktop Manager, you can permanently remove this software and thus hydradm.

Then find HydraVision Desktop Manager in the list of installed programs and uninstall this application. This process is not considered CPU intensive. Most hydradm issues are caused by the application executing the process. The surest way to fix these errors is to update or uninstall this application.

Process Library. Home Process Directory Blog About. What is hydradm. Can I stop or remove hydradm. Is hydradm. Why is hydradm. Previous Process Library is the unique and indispensable process listing database since Now counting , processes and 55, DLLs. Toolbox ProcessQuicklink.

Hydra dm tor 4pda android скачать бесплатно browser

DM de hydra

MAYBELLINE ПОМАДА HYDRA EXTREME СВОТЧИ

In the end we decided a peer monster a monster meant to square off against one PC should start around 8 HP and with d8 damage, and to adjust from there depending on the intended level and number appearing. On top of that monsters got various Strengths based on the intended level of their PC opponents.

A higher level monster had slightly bigger stats, but also things like the Messy tag, some narrative advantage that tends to require Defy Dangers to be made, a specifically advantageous environment, or handing out Debilities. All monsters also had one or more Weaknesses , which were fictional positioning elements that gave a dramatic advantage over them in a conflict if utilized.

To give you an example of all this, one of the first monsters we designed was a kind of ten foot tall bog monster covered in rusty chains and padlocks that lived in a lake far from town we referred to him affectionately as Rusty. We chose his extra levels to grant a bit of extra Damage we thought this made sense as he was physically quite big and a fair whack of Armor we thought this made sense because of the giant metal chains.

I recall a few PCs almost drowned this way. Why is that? Are you planning to run it again with the same players, or something like that? This is for two reasons. A less obtuse reason is that I believe missing information has value in many cases. Handing it out can change the value of the original work in much the same way a sequel answering certain questions one way rather than another can change the value of the original work by modifying its context in retrospect.

And keeping secrets to oneself is vitally important to running a game in the exploratory prepared style. At the end of the day, West Marches is about giving player actions real weight. The players are the only ones willing and able to explore the dangerous world beyond the wall, in the game or out of it, and to give away the answers they worked so hard to get for free at a later date is to cheat them of their labor. So basically I think it would make my game be worse and less immersive in retrospect, and at this point in time retrospect is the only way to experience it at all and I am not interested in making my game be worse and less immersive.

I am aware how you would get a lot of value out of knowing these specifics, but it is a non-starter for me. Was this a conscious design choice, and what efforts did you make to maintain it? How did you agree to do the same way or reliably? The numbers just happen to work out that way. We had to consider that kind of thing. Rusty liked to wrap people in chains and drag them into Crescent Lake. He had Reach weapons and an aura of fear, so naturally he played zone defense to keep those pesky barbarians with the big sword away from him.

We both wanted to play monsters as hard as we could within the prep and guidelines and we both did a pretty good job of being creative while not violating prep or guidelines with that I think. We were obligated to portray monsters as the whole package of goals, information tells, weaknesses , behaviors as well as specific moves , and strengths at all times.

Lots of locations were designed in tandem with their inhabitants, and we took that interaction into consideration while imagining how the scenario would probably go in advance. Just ask them about the infamous tornado bridge. So this further incentivized us both to be very familiar with how the inhabitants of locations would behave if it came to a fight.

Players are exploring near the lake he lives in. I describe ripples in the water tells. I describe one character being grappled by rusty chains suddenly shooting from the water golden opportunity, they ignored the ripples. They describe pulling and resisting, and somebody helps them. Aid Another or automatic fail Forceful makes it impossible to plausibly beat Rusty at tug of war by yourself which precludes Defy Danger.

I describe him as a giant human-shaped monster covered in lake gunk physical description and rusty chains Strength affixed with keyed padlocks Weakness. The other two players make an attempt to attack the creature in melee by running up to it. It whips chains at them, and one thinks better of risking being hit and rummages through their bag for some kind of ranged weapon player taking action that automatically succeeds due to not triggering a Move.

One two skip a few, players get free from the chains with some more Defy Danger or perhaps an automatic success by e. How was your prep recorded and organized? Was it fully shared across the two GMs, and, if so, in what format? To clarify, we did share all of our prepared locations. We had a Google Sheets file with all of the mechanical nitty-gritty for monsters and locations sometimes appended by a Google Docs file with short summaries for locations, though this was less standardized , and of course a major benefit of having a vector image file for a map is that you can write all the important information for running a location right next to it!

For whatever reason the players in all my games went to places the other GM had made, and the players in all of his games went to places I had made. Tune in next time for questions and answers about players, their priorities, and what makes for a fair game of Dungeon World West Marches. Mar 3. Since story-games. You know how forum posts get all mixed up with people quoting different parts of messages and so on.

Otherwise the text is basically unedited. Yes, somewhat. As a general rule we tried to leave unmodified as many things as possible, because part of a good Robbins-style West Marches is in having enough players. That said, the default picture of Dungeon World as well as some of its rules and contents did not mesh well with a prep heavy game. We tried to be excruciatingly clear that this would not play like many improvisation-heavy story-forward Dungeon World campaigns people might be used to, and that a few changes had been made where necessary to support a planning-based play experience.

I actually made a little Google Docs hyperlink adventure booklet for precisely this purpose with new players. As mentioned previously, we tried to avoid changes where we plausibly could. So this typically led to 3 kinds of changes: clarifications the most common , tweaks to existing Moves less common , and the creation of new Moves least common.

Here are four representative examples. To be in melee means you are in a conflict at short range where you and something else are trying, and have the ability, to hurt each other physically. Discern Realities clarifies two things that I believe were present in the original rules but many people miss.

One: basic sensory details are always provided by the GM in their description of what is happening or as answers to basic player questions. For bigger alterations, Last Breath and Make Camp are good candidates. It now reads like this:. Rumors have long said that Death will offer the strong a game of chance against their life. The rumors are true.

Take it and stabilize or refuse and pass beyond the Black Gates into whatever fate awaits you. The GM will tell you when and how. It adds just one more mystery to investigate in a game about investigating mysteries, and it adds a lot of gameplay. At least once a sole survivor rallied a whole new crew in town within the hour to embark on a new expedition to save their fallen comrades.

In Dungeon World vanilla Make Camp basically heals you to full. Some new Moves included things like Forced March roll to resist fatigue , Carouse a total re-write of the existing party move for spending money in town to throw a big party celebrating yourself and become famous, which awarded a kind of meta-game leaderboard points , or Return to Town a total re-write of the Move for getting XP and resolving Bonds.

There were also Moves specific to downtime in the town. Regarding playbooks specifically, some required more re-writing than others. We ended up adding one more a Monk we cobbled together from various sources plus our own brains , which left us with 13 character classes. The most major rewrites were probably of the Bard who would you talk to? Finally, GM Moves largely remained the same. The main change to those was in how we had a system to standardize their usage.

For example, under certain conditions we would always damage characters in certain ways in fights. That said we did also make some systems of our own for things like exploration-based XP and things like that. How did this work? You can dial the player feedback meter to zero, if you really want to. Ask them ONLY what their characters are feeling and thinking and leave it at that.

The point is, then, to never play to guide the PCs in a certain direction. To let them explore the world and get into trouble wherever they like as they learn what you, as the GM, already know. Just ask questions whenever you feel like it and build on what you do ask about. So, that was emblematic of the sorts of ways we interpreted the principles and agenda.

The biggest changes in implementation in the GM Moves were probably related to combat stuff like Deal damage and wandering-monster-type uses of things like Show signs of an approaching threat. Since combat was a big place where GM preference can really alter the difficulty and experience of the game we thought this area of standardization was one of the most important.

We also re-did how monsters were generated pretty substantially, and we got a lot of mileage out of all of our monsters having specific weaknesses, somewhat beefier than vanilla DW stats so we could rely less on being mean with our Moves and more on numbers , and building their Moves together so we both understood how they were supposed to work.

When we did our post-campaign discussion, though, nobody had noticed anything wrong with it, so I guess it was sufficient. We did end up having a bit of a fight over whether one or the other of us had adhered to these decisions properly at least once that I can remember probably more like a small handful of times. But by and large it worked well, and the impression I got from the campaign veterans was that it felt pretty consistent and predictable.

So the bottom line is probably just that deciding to follow certain rules of thumb to standardize your approach to the game works, whether or not you mess with the Moves themselves or what the rules of thumb you develop happen to be. One thing we tried to do to minimize sessions that were a bust was to ask for not only one plan of action, but a backup plan of action in case the main plan was a bust.

So not enough transparency of method…? D and some pals were exploring some crypts near the town when one of his pals has to leave unexpectedly. D is a bit of a power gamer so this is no problem, he can run any character in a combat. This was the singularly most deserved PC death I have witnessed in thousands of hours of RPG play except perhaps the time a Barbarian drank from a clearly labeled fountain of acid with a skeleton in it.

They had already guessed successfully that a big scary monster was behind this next door, their friends urged them not to, and they ran ahead into a trap I was in the middle of describing. Technically it was my fault: I built the whole world they were playing in, and I could have given every monster 1 hit point and 0 damage if I wanted.

I had already run a West Marches style campaign and decided I wanted to run another, but bigger and better. And looking at all of the games I could use to run it, I settled on Dungeon World as the best fit for my needs. Dungeon World is a poor fit for West Marches on first impression, no doubt. One time I tweeted Ben about that and he basically said the same thing. I decided that the way I played Dungeon World and the changes I had made to it would suffice for as far as I was willing to bend over backwards to facilitate that, and players would just have to do the rest.

The game had tools for the players to access GM-provided hints if they wanted them things like Spout Lore and Discern Realities. Here are all the things Ben said were key to a West Marches game listed explicitly: No regular time. No regular party. No regular plot. Exploring a fantasy wilderness using first person turn-by-turn navigation referencing a GM-kept vector map.

A table map. Session summaries. Random encounter tables and restocking locations. Things getting more dangerous the farther from town you go, with pockets of danger nearer by that are well telegraphed. A safe town and wild wilds. No NPC adventurers. A treasure map to get them started. No town games. Players who try to out-do one another. A meta-game scheduling location like a forum or mailing list.

The rules are available in a player-facing document. Combat is a tactical puzzle with little hidden information. What made 3rd edition revolutionary in — having clear rules that anybody can look up whenever they want and expected wealth by level tables and encounter building rules — is just normal practice today for a whole swath of games. Join me soon for part 2 where I cover monster design and the challenges of running West Marches, which needs consistency, with multiple game-masters who might be anything but consistent.

Oct It seemed like taking a minor problem and exaggerating it into overkill proportions. Who needs this many notecards? Bluntly, I was wrong. By moving the information onto notecards instead of holding it in your head you can manipulate a lot more of it at once without having to first memorize it all.

Think of it like that cork board filled with news clippings and photos and red string connected by thumb tacks in police procedural TV shows. Those detectives know how important it is to externalize the vast amount of information in their cases, and the same goes for you and your campaign! This is why assembling all that information before the game began was so important.

The players have by this point told you what they want: the NPCs, the kinds of challenges, and so on. Changing game prep from inventing new content to instead merely inventing a new presentation is how Jamison can say with a straight face that he can prepare a 4 hour game every week in only 15 minutes.

The result of the method is what I consider a nearly air-tight adventure design. Here is a dumb example to bluntly highlight how it works:. Jumpman PC is a superhero who can jump really high skills. He needs to defeat his nemesis Runman Foe NPC who is wrecking Peaceburg starting location , but he can never catch him and needs some help.

However, first he needs Jumpman to go retrieve the Widget of Goodness from the top of a mountain obstacle resolved with skills so that he can recharge his super powers and come out of retirement woe. While hopelessly boorish by actual writing standards I think it illustrates my point nicely. You get to do something challenging, show off how cool you are, and achieve your goals if all goes to plan. The players tell you what they want, and then you spend a few minutes a week shuffling notecards around a table and — voila — out pops an irresistible, bespoke adventure better than any you could have ever bought at a store.

Oct 9. Of course, no teacher can force a student to learn — they do have free will, after all. What is the thing most GMs do when they first make an adventure and only then get their friends to make some characters? More commonly they just make something they think is cool and hope the players think so, too.

The last blue moon, maybe? But in a more traditional game your campaign will only ever be fun by luck. They can easily be too weak, or too strong, or so on. Much easier to build them by hand. Regarding likable characters this is much less obvious advice than it appears. I have heard a lot of stories over the years of chaotic evil loners, and even seen one or two myself.

Chaotic evil loners. Finally, Jamison insists that characters begin relatively weak. It allows for a wider variety of challenges across the length of a campaign, players like becoming more powerful the SAPS — Status, Access, Power, Stuff — model describes this particular form of player motivation. Sounds reasonable to me. I think a lot of what Jamison wrote in this box is, to be blunt, extremely inconsistent. Is it very hard to play a character of another gender or with a mental illness convincingly?

We expect the GM to play dozens of characters like this throughout the course of a campaign. Be cautious? But disallow it? Seems invalid to me. The character creation method, however, is both very consistent and very useful. These are all useful information, both for the player and for the GM.

Baby Orcs in particular may be overdone, but utilitarian dilemmas are a classic of drama: will you do the wrong thing for the right reason? Six point scales force people to pick sides, sides lead to conflict, and conflict leads to a good story.

Goals are necessary because they are literally what the character and thus the player is interested in doing. Quirks and traits are mostly helpful for the player because they are a list of things the player should keep in mind while play-acting as their character, like accents, temperament, and common behaviors.

Together with character goals I think this is one of the best ideas in the whole book when it comes to minimizing wasted prep work. How many times have you tried to introduce a villain and the players all just made fun of him? It sucks and it happens all the time. How do you get instant player buy-in? You get them to make the villain themselves! Nobody thinks their own creation is stupid, after all. With a player and the GM instantly bought in that makes buy-in from everyone else a lot easier to come by.

The reason I like this trick so much is that it completely generalizes. Anything that really needs player buy-in should be something you try to get the players to have a hand in making. The preparations really heat up! Sep To wrap up chapter 2 I want to talk about something Jamison wrote that reminded me of my theory of Game-as-Training-Wheels. I have noticed the trend he references — heavier systems being deemed less useful for experts — in myself as well as in many people I know.

Even just with house rules something I tried to do in my last campaign was to make them as GM-facing as possible. Nobody likes to be confronted with a 20 page errata booklet. Learning rules from a book is tedious and hard and takes too long. Jamison is right. Most GMs do spend too long making the universe. Jamison recommends making at most two societies: the one the characters are from and the antagonist society. You need to know how to tell different people apart in terms of social class and beliefs and so on so you can describe them, and how they speak so you can act them out.

The economics is similarly basic: what does the society make and what do they need on the whole? Conflict is created by scarcity, and good stories are driven by conflict because conflict is action. Is every conflict going to be about mustard smuggling? The map-making procedure is similarly utilitarian.

You can make a visually brilliant map if you like, but that really brings us to two major understandings of world building that are critically important:. As demonstrated, you can crank out the important details of a society village, town, city, empire, these things scale up and down as you like in, like, an hour. Then you can sketch a map in another hour or so. Maybe spend a third hour on an antagonist faction and boom your world is ready.

So why do we spend weeks on this stuff? Additionally, if you look at how people value things one important fact that stands out is the IKEA effect. Basically, people strongly over-value things that they make compared to identical items they did not make. Similarly, the same team that discovered the IKEA effect went on to do more experiments in a similar vein. For example, having people construct LEGO robots for 2 dollars a piece. In one condition they were disassembled for parts and you could build another if you liked, while the other you could build another out of entirely new parts while the original remained assembled.

The point is that this goes both ways. Similarly, GMs, try not to value your world too much — and know that players value their own creations as much as you do, even if you are putting in more work than they are overall. Should be interesting! So, here we are: the very beginning of a campaign as according to Jamison. Probably the most important thing he says in this chapter is his introductory note, I would wager — that people like to classify things, but that commonly when it comes to categorizing people we tend to not do a very solid job.

Nonetheless, Jamison offers his reduction of players into the categories that he finds to be most useful in preparing a game. He divides players into three dichotomies leading to eight possible combinations: chaos vs. Chaos vs.

When you ask people what kind of coffee they like they will usually report that they like bold dark coffee. I have similar worries, sometimes, about player preferences. How do we most often report them? We just ask the player. Their go-to story tends to be related to their preferences in a way a simple self-report would fail to capture but telling a story is a lot less obnoxious than a questionnaire. The game was advertised as emphasizing simulation. That combination did not last long.

In my time researching game design I have found numerous different taxonomies of player desires. Raph Koster suggested in A Theory of Fun for Game Design that really all games are fun because they are about learning in a particularly interesting way. Rigorous attempts have existed since at least the s.

Lots of people have heard of the Meyers-Briggs personality test. Those of you keeping up with your academic psychology will know that it has poor test-retest reliability, which makes it a very poor test of character traits which are supposed to be stable across time. These gaming motivation tests are probably pretty similar in that regard: they are not very reliable or highly accurate. Even if the box you use is stupid and arbitrary and not very reliable, the very fact that you introduce boxes into which to sort players provides a sort of service.

At the very least it will get you the equivalent of the Robbers Cave experiment and get you a feeling of being an in-group together. Now, do I recommend throwing personality surveys at your players? But you can certainly ask your players a couple questions and, assuming their self-reports are accurate, you can get a pretty alright idea of what they want based on what they say they want, or what they have enjoyed in the past.

Finally, Jamison ends his section on players with a few small asides. First, he claims wargamers care too much about winning to be effective RPG participants. First, the original RPG inventors and players were all wargamers. Then find HydraVision Desktop Manager in the list of installed programs and uninstall this application. This process is not considered CPU intensive.

Most hydradm issues are caused by the application executing the process. The surest way to fix these errors is to update or uninstall this application. Process Library. Home Process Directory Blog About. What is hydradm. Can I stop or remove hydradm. Is hydradm. Why is hydradm. Previous Process Library is the unique and indispensable process listing database since Now counting , processes and 55, DLLs.

Toolbox ProcessQuicklink. All rights reserved. Website protected worldwide by official registration.

Hydra dm hydra ссылка на сайт зеркало linkshophydra

CHEAPEST Fuse Method to Get DM ASTRAL AXOLOTL - Pet Simulator X

Следующая статья hydra официальный сайт hydra9webe

Другие материалы по теме

  • Tor browser у flash hidra
  • Tor browser у flash hidra
  • Вырастить марихуану без оборудования
  • Замена тор браузеру вход на гидру