Live data from Hacker News

Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

loskutoff.com

11–20 of 78 posts

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#11
Converting DnD rules and edge cases was always a bit of fun and became my "hello world" as I was learning stuff.

Years back, I worked at a company where the agreement required them to review any personal application that I created for a year or so after I left. I was super happy to send them iterations of my DM'ing tools - written for Java (micro edition), WinCE, Palm, and any other mobile gadgets I could get my hands on.

Around the 4th application I sent, the pharmaceutical company released me from the non-compete clause. I've always wondered if they were required to try and run the applications.

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#12
post #9

Maybe the content is great, but the AI writing style is really grating with its staccato sentences and faux-"profoundness". Can't bear it any more, stopped reading. "You’re not checking logic. You’re checking shape.". Ugh.

This and subheading like “the problem” “The feature space” bother me for reasons I can’t fully explain.

It feels like the laziest possible section separator and generally would be better with an extra space divider or something.

It’s so prevalent in AI writing.

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#13
Someone please explain the grapple leapfrog example and why that "exploit" is interesting. If my players tried that, I'd happily let them use their full turns to do some crazy trapeze act across the battlefield.

And then I'd remind them that they could have just dashed normally.

Moreover, how do the new rules close the "exploit"? You can still move 30ft while carrying someone. (60/2 - 30 vs 60 - 30*2) How is that difference meaningful in this case?

(Also, wouldn't you need something like rogue's dash-as-a-bonus -action to grapple and dash on the same turn?)

The article is pretty interesting overall but this example mystifies me. Am I missing something obvious?

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#15
I have a couple players that aggressively press for edge cases all the time. I encourage it, as it gives me the chance to push back with "ok, that's fine on flat ground but your in thick underbrush," which seems to be more immersive and encourages more roleplaying. Fun stuff.

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#17
post #13

Someone please explain the grapple leapfrog example and why that "exploit" is interesting. If my players tried that, I'd happily let them use their full turns to do some crazy trapeze act across the battlefield. And then I'd remind them that they could have just dashed normally. Moreover, how do the new rules close the "exploit"? You can still move 30ft while carrying someone. (60/2 - 30 vs 60 - 30*2) How is that dif…

Yeah, both players were either rogues or tabaxi (although feline swiftness isn’t dashing)

This is also directly why I don’t like D&D. It is way too combat focused and video gamey. If your combat system is so complex that people find (or even feel that they need to find) “exploits” in it then your system probably sucks. So many class features are purely combat focused completely ignoring the actual roleplaying part of role playing games.

Also the “counter chaining” feels odd to me, is this something that actually happens? Like people waste spellslots counterspelling a counterspell?

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#18
post #9

Maybe the content is great, but the AI writing style is really grating with its staccato sentences and faux-"profoundness". Can't bear it any more, stopped reading. "You’re not checking logic. You’re checking shape.". Ugh.

The way things are headed, people with the ability to write on their own are going to be the hottest job in the 2030s.

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#20
post #9

Maybe the content is great, but the AI writing style is really grating with its staccato sentences and faux-"profoundness". Can't bear it any more, stopped reading. "You’re not checking logic. You’re checking shape.". Ugh.

This and subheading like “the problem” “The feature space” bother me for reasons I can’t fully explain. It feels like the laziest possible section separator and generally would be better with an extra space divider or something. It’s so prevalent in AI writing.

I'm worse than you: the quotes are what drive me insane:

> . “HP never exceeds max”

I think it's because its such a braindead thing to fix that when I see them, it's clear the "author" hasn't even read their own "work".

Like, you're not even trying to hide it at the laziest level possible. Blegh.

(See how you can tell a human wrote that?)

Post reply on HN