|
Covok posted:This is an odd question, but I'm wondering how people treat kickstarter proceeds on their tax returns. It's clearly taxable income as income tax is a tax on income "from any source derived" in the United States. It is also a business expense so it can be deducted. That said, some proceeds from a kickstarter tend to cover the creator's living expenses which would void that portion's validity as a business deduction, in my inexperienced mind. If nothing else, there is a limit on what you deduct for meals and travel. I feel this portion of the KS funds would also be subject to self-employment tax section of Social Security. I believe the general advice is "Form an LLC, the kickstarter revenue goes to it, and any money it passes to you gets reported on a K-1." Deeper knowledge than that is probably best left to the folks who've actually run kickstarters, though.
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
kaynorr posted:The interesting thing about 3.5/Pathfinder is that the best thing you could do to the crunch would be to release anti-content - strip out all the thousands of terrible feats and publish a new feat list that is slimmer and more focused. You can't really fix QWLF without a new edition, but feat bloat isn't a mechanical change so much as a content one. The framework is sounds, it's just been very poorly managed over the years. This is one of those things that is probably a good idea, but everyone goes Palladium over it right up until they just make a new edition anyway. Well, I guess Onyx Path sort of did it with the initial Chronicles books, but that was dumb for different reasons, and they didn't really do away with cruft so much as shuffle it around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
kaynorr posted:The interesting thing about 3.5/Pathfinder is that the best thing you could do to the crunch would be to release anti-content - strip out all the thousands of terrible feats and publish a new feat list that is slimmer and more focused. You can't really fix QWLF without a new edition, but feat bloat isn't a mechanical change so much as a content one. The framework is sounds, it's just been very poorly managed over the years. I mean, this is another good reason to get a new edition going. As just about any system gets older, it gets increasingly bloated with new materials being pushed for it. It's inevitably that for every good mechanic, there's gonna be some bad ones. Ideally a new edition is a chance to shake things up a bit, remove some of the poo poo that didn't work, try to refine on what did. Tabletop games suffer really hard from people developing emotional attachments to certain mechanics though. Like, there totally was outrage at first when Skyrim announced it was ditching the attributes it used to have, but by the time it came out that was all gone. D&D is stuffed to the goddamn brim with sacred cows, to the point where the game can't make new iterations. To a certain degree a lot of this boils down to generational idiocy. It's no real surprise just about any given conversation about D&D ends up with one side sneering at "the MMO generation" or "the new generation with their cell phones" or fuckin' whatever, said without a trace of self awareness. Little is more pathetic then old nerds who can't let go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Admittedly part of why I haven't jumped on Onyx Path's nWoD 2.0 is that I want to run nWoD at some point, but I still want to be able to dig into the wealth of old material without worrying about conversions. nWoD's changes are mostly positive, but I'm not wholly convinced my players would ever notice or care.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
unseenlibrarian posted:I believe the general advice is "Form an LLC, the kickstarter revenue goes to it, and any money it passes to you gets reported on a K-1." Deeper knowledge than that is probably best left to the folks who've actually run kickstarters, though. This makes a lot of sense, honestly, but there is limits on its effectiveness. If you are a one member LLC, it essentially provides no benefit as you are taxed like a sole proprietorship: business income is your income. For multi-member LLCs, you would just be taxed on the income you receive personally which lowers the individual burden. That said, CCA 201436049 from the IRS makes LLC's distributive income subject to self-employment tax so it isn't as protective as it might have been prior to 2014. See, LLCs aren't separate legal entities for tax purposes so, depending on structure, you still declare a share of its income on your returns and that amount depends on the amount that passes to you, like a partnership. This also makes me wonder even more about things like Paetron. I wonder how many people know they have to double their social security dues if they are supporting themselves solely through paetron, which would make them self-employed, and other such little legal technicalities. Heck, I wonder how many people know they owe social security as that is normally taken out by their employer in a piecemeal fashion. For non-US users, since Kickstarter and Patreon are US companies, I wonder if this makes them subject to US Income tax for the income they earn there. I believe it does and I wonder if the users know this, if true. What I'm getting at here is I wonder how an audit of their returns would go for a lot of people who use crowdfunding. Maybe I'm underestimating the tax savy of crowdfund users. Covok fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Covok posted:Maybe I'm underestimating the tax savy of crowdfund users. Probably you are not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Tabletop games suffer really hard from people developing emotional attachments to certain mechanics though. I think this is (in part) because the ease by which people can, and have, and maybe should, houserule various things make them much more emotionally invested in something that is essentially static and under glass. Complain all you want about the Elder Scrolls attributes system, unless you're in the 1% of people who can mod that poo poo you're going to have to live with it. Eventually you build some familiarity and assuming the game designers were right and the new system IS actually better, everyone goes on to live their lives until the next E3 announcement. But with tabletops there is a cultural tradition (partially brought on by lazy and/or terrible design) of "don't like it, change it!". Encouraging generation after generation of mediocre armchair designers to make tweaks and become invested in the game as a whole much the same way a player becomes invested in a character. Stockholm Syndrome sets in hard because not only do you live in that prison but you helped renovate it. That said, I think it's also something specific to RPG fans even in the computer genre. For various reasons I found myself browsing threads on RPGCodex recently and holy poo poo; the elitism and distain for practically everything released since 2002 is staggering. These people are profoundly invested in a paradigm only exists in their heads and yet devote a great deal of energy to being outraged year after year at all the games that don't match up to their perfection.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Covok posted:This makes a lot of sense, honestly, but there is limits on its effectiveness. If you are a one member LLC, it essentially provides no benefit as you are taxed like a sole proprietorship: business income is your income. For multi-member LLCs, you would just be taxed on the income you receive personally which lowers the individual burden. That said, CCA 201436049 from the IRS makes LLC's distributive income subject to self-employment tax so it isn't as protective as it might have been prior to 2014. See, LLCs aren't separate legal entities for tax purposes so, depending on structure, you still declare a share of its income on your returns and that amount depends on the amount that passes to you, like a partnership. This is why I pay for an accountant to do my taxes. They can help out by letting you figure out what you can deduct as a business expense and what you can't. If you work at home, you can deduct part of your rent, internet bills, etc as a deduction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
clockworkjoe posted:This is why I pay for an accountant to do my taxes. They can help out by letting you figure out what you can deduct as a business expense and what you can't. If you work at home, you can deduct part of your rent, internet bills, etc as a deduction. "But doctor...I am Pagliacci.” What I mean is that I am an accountant who plans to focus on tax myself and am asking more from a professional curiosity standpoint. See, my prior internship experience didn't give me any clear cut rulings on how to handle crowdfunding. I was more asking, like I said, because this tangentially related to the field of employment that I'm going into to within a year and thought someone here might be able to satisfy my curiosity. Just for the record. Edit: Also, yeah, you're right. You can deduct some of your living expenses if you work from home, but not all the KS money reserved to life expenses would be deductible. Covok fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Oct 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Admittedly part of why I haven't jumped on Onyx Path's nWoD 2.0 is that I want to run nWoD at some point, but I still want to be able to dig into the wealth of old material without worrying about conversions. nWoD's changes are mostly positive, but I'm not wholly convinced my players would ever notice or care. Conversion of stuff apart from core splat books is fairly easy. Most of the genuinely new stuff I'd even say is very good. I'm primarily salty that nWoD 2 basically reintroduced the extremely lopsided level of crunch to combat that was one of the things nWoD 1 pulled back on that I liked, even if the implementation was, as ever, not perfect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure if you do a kickstarter, the money you are getting isn't income (profits); it's just accounts-receivable (revenue). E.g., payment for a product, mostly. All of the costs of making and delivering that product come out of that money first, and only the remainder - if there is any - is income. Which you'd pay taxes on. I don't know how this works over a multi-year project, though; I think it comes down to the type of accounting you use.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I'm pretty sure if you do a kickstarter, the money you are getting isn't income (profits); it's just accounts-receivable (revenue). E.g., payment for a product, mostly. All of the costs of making and delivering that product come out of that money first, and only the remainder - if there is any - is income. Which you'd pay taxes on. The U.S. tax system works off the cash basis. This means that, when money that could be considered income is received, it is taxable. While, under the accrual basis that financial accounting works under more often than not in bigger corporations, you would be correct, but it is not the case for taxes in the U.S. This difference in preferred systems and differences in intent -- accurate reporting vs gathering government revenue -- leads to temporary and permanent differences. You are right that spending the money could lower your taxes as those would be deductible expenses, but that would need to be spent before December 31st. This does suggest it might be better for your taxes to have the KS earlier in the year so you can spend the money before December 31st and, thus, be able to deduct it. I am still in college and still learning this stuff so I could be messing stuff up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
kaynorr posted:I think this is (in part) because the ease by which people can, and have, and maybe should, houserule various things make them much more emotionally invested in something that is essentially static and under glass. Complain all you want about the Elder Scrolls attributes system, unless you're in the 1% of people who can mod that poo poo you're going to have to live with it. Eventually you build some familiarity and assuming the game designers were right and the new system IS actually better, everyone goes on to live their lives until the next E3 announcement. But with tabletops there is a cultural tradition (partially brought on by lazy and/or terrible design) of "don't like it, change it!". Encouraging generation after generation of mediocre armchair designers to make tweaks and become invested in the game as a whole much the same way a player becomes invested in a character. Stockholm Syndrome sets in hard because not only do you live in that prison but you helped renovate it. What always kills me about this is that with so many of those people, once you see their actual houserules, you realize the houserules are also terrible. Because, as it turns out, game design is an actual thing that exists, and you can absolutely be poo poo at it. And when all you play are restrictive systems with nonsensical mechanics, that becomes all you know how to make. quote:That said, I think it's also something specific to RPG fans even in the computer genre. For various reasons I found myself browsing threads on RPGCodex recently and holy poo poo; the elitism and distain for practically everything released since 2002 is staggering. These people are profoundly invested in a paradigm only exists in their heads and yet devote a great deal of energy to being outraged year after year at all the games that don't match up to their perfection. I mean, the venn diagram for "grogs with dumb ttg opinions" and "crpg shitlords" is basically just a circle. It's the same crowd. ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Oct 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
"Impromptu seminar on vampire lore" is one of my favorite strings of words to enter my brain in ages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I'm surprised at the idea that the main complaint against the new WoD would be that it made too many concessions to the old. That sounds like it could be a recent development in the wake of the new Mummy and the circus surrounding the development of Beast. I also suspect that animosity toward the new WoD may have cooled down thanks to Anniversary Editions of the old stuff, and there's a ton of old WoD content which is mostly available in PDF format. This lines up with what I've seen from people with an axe to grind against the nWoD...that the criticisms boiled down in large part to "it's too boring/bland/cardboard" because the nWoD seems to be more concerned with "okay, how do we make this into a game people can readily grasp and feel invested in?" than as a vehicle for metaplot shenanigans. Also people complained that things were less over-the-top and painted in super-broad strokes, that Werewolf was no longer about battling crazy Captain Planet villains with savage genitalia in your 10-foot-tall murder machine form and Mage was no longer the adventures of Captain Steampunk, z3r0 c001 the reality hacker, and Generic Kung Fu Wizard fighting Terminators on a zeppelin in space. The other major line of criticism I've seen leveled at the nWoD is from people who were angry about what they perceived as White Wolf cancelling the World of Darkness only to turn right around and start selling you the World of Darkness all over again like they were trying to sell you the same horse with a new coat of paint. It was your usual "this is just a money-grubbing ripoff!" rant writ large since it was occurring with an entire multi-game line rather than just a single game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Mage was no longer the adventures of Captain Steampunk, z3r0 c001 the reality hacker, and Generic Kung Fu Wizard fighting Terminators on a zeppelin in space.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Covok posted:"But doctor...I am Pagliacci.” I treat it as self employed income and I deduct as much stuff as I can - I pay writers and artists ASAP, web hosting, printing costs for books, new computer equipment, services like remote backup hosting, travel to Gen Con, and so forth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Covok posted:The U.S. tax system works off the cash basis. This means that, when money that could be considered income is received, it is taxable. While, under the accrual basis that financial accounting works under more often than not in bigger corporations, you would be correct, but it is not the case for taxes in the U.S. This difference in preferred systems and differences in intent -- accurate reporting vs gathering government revenue -- leads to temporary and permanent differences. Sole proprietors have the choice of using a cash or an accrual accounting method. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p334/ch02.html Also read "Advance payment for sales" in that publication. You can avoid paying taxes on revenue for kickstarter rewards if you use the right accounting method and deliver in a reasonable amount of time. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Oct 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Sole proprietors have the choice of using a cash or an accrual accounting method. I think I might have mixed things up a bit there. More accurately, I misunderstood what my professor said. He probably just meant most companies use the tax basis as it should help them save money (accrual would make them be taxed on whatever money they were promised regardless of what they get and before they receive it). Oh well, best to mess up here and not somewhere important.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Everblight posted:More's the pity, that There's always Exalted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
clockworkjoe posted:I pay writers and artists ASAP,
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Covok posted:I think I might have mixed things up a bit there. More accurately, I misunderstood what my professor said. He probably just meant most companies use the tax basis as it should help them save money (accrual would make them be taxed on whatever money they were promised regardless of what they get and before they receive it). Oh well, best to mess up here and not somewhere important. No worries. The only reason I knew about this was because my wife was a business for a few years and I did our taxes. We used the cash method but I vaguely remembered reading this publication before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
kaynorr posted:I think this is (in part) because the ease by which people can, and have, and maybe should, houserule various things make them much more emotionally invested in something that is essentially static and under glass. Complain all you want about the Elder Scrolls attributes system, unless you're in the 1% of people who can mod that poo poo you're going to have to live with it. Eventually you build some familiarity and assuming the game designers were right and the new system IS actually better, everyone goes on to live their lives until the next E3 announcement. But with tabletops there is a cultural tradition (partially brought on by lazy and/or terrible design) of "don't like it, change it!". Encouraging generation after generation of mediocre armchair designers to make tweaks and become invested in the game as a whole much the same way a player becomes invested in a character. Stockholm Syndrome sets in hard because not only do you live in that prison but you helped renovate it. One of the houserules my first D&D group used was rolling 1d12 for initiative. I don't know where they got the idea to do that but it's what happened so much that I accepted it as a real rule. Then one day I looked at the back of the 3.5 PHB and what do you know, we should be rolling d20s for initiative. When I brought it up to the group they didn't believe me. When I opened up to the page and read the rule they got mad and told me I'm too "by the book" They didn't even seem to like it that much since it meant the players won initiative 99% of the time (they also did one roll for the whole group)
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Also read "Advance payment for sales" in that publication. You can avoid paying taxes on revenue for kickstarter rewards if you use the right accounting method and deliver in a reasonable amount of time. This. This is what our accountant introduced us to, it deferred our tax burden until after we delivered our product (which meant we didn't have to pay taxes before spending most our money). Like other people have said, incorporate as an LLC, and get an accountant who's knowledgeable about Kickstarters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
What follows is a work-in-progress from an FAQ that I'm writing, when people ask us questions about our tabletop RPG. Speaking of "The future of tabletop", the purpose of this FAQ is to be accessible to newbs (who've never played tabletop or barely know it) and to pros (who may have played both crunchy and fluffy stuff.). Quote: _________ At the tabletop, two kinds of players often show up. Let's call them the "informal" and the "formal". The informal player wants to play a character who matches their description. They want to be the strong-jawed hero, the lemme-fatale, the jaded grifter, etc. This player will focus on informal descriptions like "tough as nails", "sly and sultry", "not as dumb as they look," etc. The informal player is not as interested in juggling numbers, in reading complex rules, or in maximizing effectiveness for minimal point cost. The formal player enjoys the challenge of a game. They like to work within the framework of the rules to make someone who is the best at what they do... or maybe just good enough at a lot of things... or maybe they have a surprise or two. A formal player will make sure their detective has high numbers in investigation abilities, that their combat statistics have respectable numbers, that their talent trees line up to give them extensive abilities... all in the formal framework of the game. The formal player and the informal player are both players. They want to have a fun time, and they want some ground rules on what can happen and what can't happen in the story. They both enjoy the random elements that die rolls can produce. They're both here to have fun. The difference is that the formal player enjoys working with numbers and with rules more than the informal one does. A game that caters to the formal player — with lots of rules, numbers, combat modifiers, multipliers, etc. — risks losing the informal player, who might be confused by all this math that gets in the way of their creative enjoyment. A game that caters to the informal player — with few rules, and lots of "make it up as you go along!" — will lose the formal player, who can be disappointed that all these rules don't make much difference, and that the fun of building a character is just a trifle when the game rules are so slight. _________ Commentary: This text is supposed to be easy to read and to be informative. It's probably already TL;DR. I used the terms "formal" and "informal" from the lawyer's idea of FORMALISM -- that is, someone who goes by the letter of the rules, instead of what might be its "true intent". I'm sure you've all had at least one argument over, "What did the designer INTEND". I don't like using terms like "rules lawyer" or "munchkin". If you're playing a tabletop game, you're buying into a set of rules for how you play make-believe. Telling people to buy your rules, then yelling at people for reading your rules of the play-ground literally, is stupid. Some people have genuine fun going through your rules and making the most powerful character they can. And a designer who tells people to "use your imagination" ... and then sells them a 400 page rule-book to keep that imagination from happening ... is a crappy game designer. I avoided using "fluff" or "crunch" partially because I'm worried that they're too much jargon, and partially because calling someone a "fluffer" is a porn term. I also avoided using "casual player" and "hardcore player", because of the connotations with those, too. Plus there's all kinds of players who write up 4,968 words of backstory for their character without invoking one formal rule. (World of Darkness, anyone?) Is that kind of player "hardcore" or "casual"? I'd like to make this shorter, easier, and better. Thoughts? Thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
That's an incredibly rigid binary.... so in a way I guess that accurately represents the approach many people take to tabletop games
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Nuns with Guns posted:That's an incredibly rigid binary.... I did want to keep it simple.  There are certainly different degrees of formalism. Heck, the mere idea of having rules for make-believe in the first place is a formalism.This model doesn't include what might be called the "tryhard" -- that is, the player who worries they're not building the best character they can. A tryhard might talk about "trap builds", where they make a character that's not as powerful as it should be. Tryhards are almost always people who've played some other game first, and (as veterans) they're usually more into crunch than fluff... but not necessarily. Ironically, a tryhard might prefer a rules-light system, because it's less likely to have "traps".
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
The basic point is fine, in that you are saying that different people have different approaches to roleplaying, and RPG rules. The problem with all "there are two kinds of thing, a and b" is that if the reader isn't a or b - which is extremely likely - you have instantly lost them, because they know you're wrong. If you're asking for advice on how to present your thoughts, I would say to eliminate the language that sets this up as a one-or-the-other case. You can accurately say that some players approach the rules with an eye to rule mastery, enjoying engaging with the rules-writer's complex, interesting, innovative, challenging, elegant, simple, or comprehensive system. And many games cater to players like that, by taking great pains to present a rule system that has a lot of "depth" - interesting or surprising choices, combinations, etc. Meanwhile, many players enjoy the process of imagining and developing a fictional character, using the rules to provide context, interesting constraints in which to work, or (especially) ideas and seeds that inspire them. These two ways of engaging with a game are not necessarily exclusive, and most people who play RPGs enjoy at least some aspect of both. There are some players who manage to do both with equal relish, becoming engrossed in both system mastery and abstract character conceptualization. The important thing is for everyone playing a game to communicate expectations; players and game masters need to be on the same page, with regards to what the game is going to be. Irrespective of the system, some kind of compromise between different players' playstyles and preferences needs to be reached, for a game to be successful and enjoyable for everyone. Sometimes, a group who has played many games together already understand one another well enough for an extended conversation about play style to be unnecessary... but when trying out a new game, or especially when trying out a new player, it's not that hard to discuss for a few minutes, what each person wants out of the game, and how they like to play.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The basic point is fine, in that you are saying that different people have different approaches to roleplaying, and RPG rules. The problem with all "there are two kinds of thing, a and b" is that if the reader isn't a or b - which is extremely likely - you have instantly lost them, because they know you're wrong. This post is a good post. Rafferty, you could do a lot worse than just pasting the above into your FAQ with an attribution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
When you try to break things down into a "there are two people in this world" statement outside of a stand-up bit from the 90s, you've already failed. Really I think a lot of the problems being discussed over the last couple of pages boil down to the pop culture idea of D&D equaling the entire RPG hobby. All kinds of design are fine. But most people who start playing RPGs are being funneled into D&D. To many newcomers, D&D is the real deal, and everything else is some kind of weird knockoff. Some of those people dig whatever flavor of D&D is on tap, some end up hating it and get frustrated. Some of those frustrated people leave the hobby. RPGs in that regard have a lot in common with comics. Superheroes were and are so dominant that they've practically become synonymous with the medium and although it's better now, you still often have to pull teeth when it comes to showing people that there's more on offer. It creates a situation where you have to craft the way you introduce it to a newcomer very finely, because there's a lot of investment. If you mess up there's a good chance you've lost them. I think it's often a better idea to have newbies play something other than D&D, not because it's inherently bad (obviously, look who's talking here) but it usually clearer to people who start with something else that the hobby is diverse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:When you try to break things down into a "there are two people in this world" statement outside of a stand-up bit from the 90s, you've already failed. That is a good point. The purpose of this formal/informal isn't to exclude certain unbounded middles. It's taking a page from Bartle's theory about Social/Achievers/Explorers/Killers paradigm, where players can be rated in what their preferences are. If formalism is rated on an axis, then many people will fall all across the spectrum.... And that's assuming you could even measure such things on an axis in the first place. For example, the 13th Age RPG is both formal (with a gazillion rules for combat) and informal (with barely any rules for backgrounds). If readers are going to interpret this not as a scale but as a binary, then it's gotta be rewritten to say that middles exist, too, and how to deal with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
If you're trying to avoid words with negative connotations "formal" and "informal" can also also cause issues since "informal" is often conflated with "unprofessional", "bad", "slapped-together", etc. And "tryhard" is even worse. Like, what if you're trying to write up navel-gazey rpg meta theory what's stopping you from sticking with "narrativist" and "gamist"? Other than Edwards being a pretentious dongle, that isRafferty posted:If formalism is rated on an axis, then many people will fall all across the spectrum.... And that's assuming you could even measure such things on an axis in the first place. For example, the 13th Age RPG is both formal (with a gazillion rules for combat) and informal (with barely any rules for backgrounds). You know what else works on an X Y axis? The 9 alignments. That sure hasn't caused any issues Nuns with Guns fucked around with this message at 12:33 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
I do feel like "tryhard" is the insult of choice from the people incapable of achieving whatever the perceived tryhard is good at.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Quarex posted:I do feel like "tryhard" is the insult of choice from the people incapable of achieving whatever the perceived tryhard is good at. "Tryhard" refers specifically to somebody who isn't good at something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:"Tryhard" refers specifically to somebody who isn't good at something. Technically it's someone who doesn't understand the underlying mechanics or hasn't mastered them but knows something of what an "optimized" build would be by copying what the most popular pvp/tournament-level build would is for a given game or at least I think that's how it started out, now it's just one of those standard insults you throw out there when you lose and you want to pretend it wasn't because you suck at the game
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
I win at games because I try hard to improve my skills.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:"Tryhard" refers specifically to somebody who isn't good at something. I've only ever seen it used in the context of "You only won because I wasn't trying like some kinda loser would."
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:I win at games because I try hard to improve my skills. You need to stop putting effort into games because then you'll fall in love with them and they can't love you back
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Nuns with Guns posted:You need to stop putting effort into games because then you'll fall in love with them and they can't love you back Much like other people
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
senrath posted:I've only ever seen it used in the context of "You only won because I wasn't trying like some kinda loser would." Yeah I've literally never heard it any other way
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 05:02
|
|
