Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

loskutoff.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 78 posts

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#31

Post by tclancy »

heelix wrote: post #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 hand…

You should sell those as a suite of tools for people in similar situations. The Palm one in particular should make for fun.

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#32

Post by pigpop »

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #17
rjmill wrote: 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…

From my limited experience, many players and DMs seem to get things backwards in exactly the way you're describing. They take the rulebook as the starting point or the "controls" for the game and since combat is the most detailed they tend to focus on that to the exclusion of other parts of the game. I've always viewed the rules as a way of settling disputes or uncertainty instead, so you start from the role playing and only resort to rules when you need fair adjudication or clarification on complicated situations. i.e. don't give me quotes from the rulebook, tell me what your character does and we'll work it out as part of the story.

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#33

Post by embwbam »

cammasmith wrote: post #19

One of my biggest issues with playing DND is that I never fully understood the rules. I'd play with people who had been playing for years, and they didn't explain things very well, and that made it hard to play. Hopefully, this will help with that.

There are other RPGs with light rules that are WAY more fun than D&D. I've been playing "Blades in the Dark" recently, where the players run heists in a victorian ghost industrial city. It's an absolute delight.

D&D is better as a video game. Try Baldur's gate. It has the side benefit of teaching you the rules if you ever want to jump in to a local game

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#35

Post by pigpop »

krapp wrote: post #21
ghurtado wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You think there will still be writing jobs for human beings at all by then? AI will be so normalized across culture that any raw, unfiltered human expression will read as gross and unprofessional by most people.

Maybe for resume cover letters and LinkedIn posts but I haven't met anyone with half decent taste who prefers AI writing, even well prompted, to skillful human writing. I'm not a stranger to using AI for writing tasks by any means but it's only ever a starting point that gets heavily rewritten by both myself and the model.

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#37

Post by e28eta »

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #17
rjmill wrote: 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…

re: grapple leapfrog, it links to this question: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/136964

Maybe the AI used the accepted answer (with 4 votes vs the next with 39) and then mangled things from there?

re: counter chaining, I think so. I spent some time watching Critical Role and iirc they liked to counterspell a counterspell.

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#39

Post by ghurtado »

pigpop wrote: post #35
krapp wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think there will still be writing jobs for human beings at all by then? AI will be so normalized across culture that any raw, unfiltered human expression will read as gross and unprofessional by most people.

Maybe for resume cover letters and LinkedIn posts but I haven't met anyone with half decent taste who prefers AI writing, even well prompted, to skillful human writing. I'm not a stranger to using AI for writing tasks by any means but it's only ever a starting point that gets heavily rewritten by both myself and the model.

It's not even just for writers either.

If I was currently hiring, not using AI would be the cheapest, fastest way to impress me.

I'm not kidding when I say that typos are not too far from becoming a sign of higher intelligence. Or at least better taste than most.

I'm surprised tunable intentional "human" mistakes are not a core feature of LLMs. Maybe it's actually hard for them?

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#40

Post by antisthenes »

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #17
rjmill wrote: 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…

> 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.

Couple of things.

1. People will try to find exploits in just about any system. That's kind of part of the fun.

2. If the difficulty curve sucks in a particular D&D campaign - that's the DM's fault, not the system's. Plenty of tools at DM's disposal to make campaigns less combat focused or being more lenient to players.

Post reply on HN