Bela here. We fact check some of the (many) ridiculous things said by Lily
Orchard, aka CD-Call.
Regarding asks; we don't speculate without evidence, and we don't answer leading questions.
Lily's throwing a hissy fit over one of your posts.
Really now? And by name, you say? My goodness. What a wonderful gift to wake up to.
To anybody, particularly any questioning Lily/CD fans, who stumbled on this blog thanks to her shout-out, welcome! Our little corner of tumblr is here to provide the honest critique and dry fact-checking that Lily's output is sorely lacking. We don't cover the more serious stuff; for that, I strongly recommend you check out:
Bumbled-Bees, run by one of Lily's former fans, and who does a great job deconstructing Lily's methods of abusing and controlling her audience.
Confused-Rat, who has done an exceptional job cataloguing the many times Lily has lied about her own past.
As for us, we're happy to provide running commentary on Lily's god-awful D&D opinions as long as Lily keeps making them. It's not like there's a scarcity of things to talk about, either; we have some thoughts on Lily's ideas for character creation, after all. (3d6 per stat in a system where a score of 8 or lower permanently cripples your character? Really, Lily, it's like you don't want anyone to play your game)
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Don't get me wrong, I'm thoroughly enjoying Lily revealing how little she knows about D&D in real time, but as someone who's played a bit of every numbered edition of D&D, I really need to address her misconceptions regarding 2nd Edition's attack metric, To Hit Armor Class Zero (THAC0, usually pronounced thack-oh)
(caution: old-school D&D autism ahead)
Here's the simple, straightforward explanation of how THAC0 works:
A given player character will have a set THAC0, which represents the score they need to roll on a d20 to successfully hit an enemy with an armor class of zero. To figure out what number you need to roll to hit a given defender, simply subtract the armor class of the defender from the attacker's THAC0.
Thus, to hit an armor class of 4, an attacker with THAC0 of 10 would need to roll (10 - 4) = 6. To hit an armor class of -2, that same attacker would need to roll (10 - [-2])= 12.
Perhaps you can already see some issues with this. Let's run through two of the most common:
1: The attacker doesn't always know the enemy's Armor Class; Oftentimes, to add suspense to an encounter, the DM will withhold an enemy's exact AC, instead choosing to tell the players only if their attack is a miss or a hit. This is especially important in scenarios where an enemy possesses unknown defenses, such as enchanted armor or a spell's protection.
Here's how a common to-hit scenario might occur with
THAC0:
Player: "I swing my sword at the beast. I roll... an 8!"
DM: "Okay, and your THAC0 is...?"
Player: "It's 11. Is that enough?"
DM: (Okay, so this thing has armor class of 2, so take 2 from 11 and we get 9, and he rolled...) "It was 8, right?"
Player: "No, 11"
DM: "I mean your roll"
Player: "Oh yeah, 8".
DM: "Cool. Your attack whooshes past. Sorry buddy."
(note that every player in the combat will have a different THAC0, leading to the DM having to run this calculation with different numbers for every player)
Now, here's that same scenario in the "Attack bonus vs Armor Class" paradigm of 3rd edition onwards:
Player: "I swing my sword at the beast. I roll an 8, and my attack bonus is plus 9, so... 17?"
DM, who knows this thing has an armor class of 18: "Oooh, it comes close, but no dice. NEXT!"
Notice just how much more math the DM had to do in the second scenario. Poor guy.
2. Perhaps THAC0 would be fine if attack bonuses were static, but D&D is chock-full of buffing spells and effects. Players will often have multiple temporary bonuses to keep track of on top of their base attack bonus. The difficulty of keeping all of these bonuses in mind is a long-running joke amongst D&D players:
Now, compound the fun of cumulative bonuses with the framework of THAC0:
"This enemy has an Armor Class of 4, and my base THAC0 is 16, so I hit on a 12. Except that I have a magic longbow +2, which raises- I mean lowers it down to 10. I also have +1 to attack from the bard song, that lowers it again to 9. Wait, does that armor class include a shield? That's a bonus to missile attacks, so the base to-hit is 13 now, which goes down to 10... or is it 11? Oh shoot, I'm attacking from long range, so that's another -2, I guess I have to roll 13 then."
Not that the underlying math is particularly complex- it's all simple addition and subtraction, after all- but the more steps you add in, the more risk there is of something important being left at the wayside.
as an aside, the tendency for characters to stack up ridiculous bonuses was one of the driving forces behind 5th edition's concentration mechanic- there is a world of difference between a high level party who's had time to buff before a fight, and a party who hasn't. When you're DMing for said high-level group, you need to know what your players are capable of dealing with, and that can change drastically with what buffs are active. By limiting spellcasters to one concentration spell at a time, the DM has to deal with a lot less guesswork as to how strong the party is going to be today (and if the party is caught unawares, it takes them far less time to get up to full strength).
So, all that being said, what is the reason Lily gives for people disliking THAC0?
"The only reason people don't like THAC0 is because it means low THAC0 good, low saving throws good, low armor class good. What it doesn't mean is, big number go brrrr, right?" - Lily, during a BG1 stream (and many times before and after)
This argument might hold water against 3rd edition D&D, where attack and skill bonuses went up every level (and good saving throw bonuses went up every other level). It's not uncommon for a 6th level character to rock an attack bonus of +15 in 3rd edition, and that number will only continue to increase. It's worth mentioning that similar ridiculous bonuses were possible in 2nd edition; the numbers were just flipped in the other direction (which power gamers of the time were totally fine with, believe me)
However, Lily is making the "Big number go brrrr" argument against 5th edition D&D. You know, the one which famously curtails bonuses, such that you're lucky if you have a +15 to attack at level 20. 5th edition is the least "Big number go brrrr" edition of D&D to date.
Look, I'm not going to pretend that 5th edition (or any edition of D&D) is perfect; D&D is a game that has been organically developed through perpetual playtesting for 5 decades now. Every edition is full of flawed answers to the biggest problems of the edition prior; even THAC0 was a hasty revision of 1st edition AD&D's attack matrices. I also have no problem with Lily preferring 2nd edition over 5th. It's clear that the early Baldur's Gate games are a source of great joy for her.
But of course, Lily cannot simply enjoy 2nd edition, not when so many people are happily playing the wrong version of the game. No, she has to insist that 5th edition D&D is a fundamentally broken game in dire need of fixing, and in revealing her fixes... well, she's proven just how little experience she has with any version of Dungeons and Dragons.
It's not that hard to (from the perspective of someone who played a lot of AD&D in the day) in that first scenario, when you roll the 8, to just say "I git AC 3". You don't need any info past your own thac0, the roll and any bonuses you may have to give that info. The DM can then just give hit or miss based on that. That's how we did it, generally speaking.
That said. the shift to plus bonuses and looking for high numbers was much more intuitive.
Don't get me wrong, I'm thoroughly enjoying Lily revealing how little she knows about D&D in real time, but as someone who's played a bit of every numbered edition of D&D, I really need to address her misconceptions regarding 2nd Edition's attack metric, To Hit Armor Class Zero (THAC0, usually pronounced thack-oh)
(caution: old-school D&D autism ahead)
Here's the simple, straightforward explanation of how THAC0 works:
A given player character will have a set THAC0, which represents the score they need to roll on a d20 to successfully hit an enemy with an armor class of zero. To figure out what number you need to roll to hit a given defender, simply subtract the armor class of the defender from the attacker's THAC0.
Thus, to hit an armor class of 4, an attacker with THAC0 of 10 would need to roll (10 - 4) = 6. To hit an armor class of -2, that same attacker would need to roll (10 - [-2])= 12.
Perhaps you can already see some issues with this. Let's run through two of the most common:
1: The attacker doesn't always know the enemy's Armor Class; Oftentimes, to add suspense to an encounter, the DM will withhold an enemy's exact AC, instead choosing to tell the players only if their attack is a miss or a hit. This is especially important in scenarios where an enemy possesses unknown defenses, such as enchanted armor or a spell's protection.
Here's how a common to-hit scenario might occur with
THAC0:
Player: "I swing my sword at the beast. I roll... an 8!"
DM: "Okay, and your THAC0 is...?"
Player: "It's 11. Is that enough?"
DM: (Okay, so this thing has armor class of 2, so take 2 from 11 and we get 9, and he rolled...) "It was 8, right?"
Player: "No, 11"
DM: "I mean your roll"
Player: "Oh yeah, 8".
DM: "Cool. Your attack whooshes past. Sorry buddy."
(note that every player in the combat will have a different THAC0, leading to the DM having to run this calculation with different numbers for every player)
Now, here's that same scenario in the "Attack bonus vs Armor Class" paradigm of 3rd edition onwards:
Player: "I swing my sword at the beast. I roll an 8, and my attack bonus is plus 9, so... 17?"
DM, who knows this thing has an armor class of 18: "Oooh, it comes close, but no dice. NEXT!"
Notice just how much more math the DM had to do in the second scenario. Poor guy.
2. Perhaps THAC0 would be fine if attack bonuses were static, but D&D is chock-full of buffing spells and effects. Players will often have multiple temporary bonuses to keep track of on top of their base attack bonus. The difficulty of keeping all of these bonuses in mind is a long-running joke amongst D&D players:
Now, compound the fun of cumulative bonuses with the framework of THAC0:
"This enemy has an Armor Class of 4, and my base THAC0 is 16, so I hit on a 12. Except that I have a magic longbow +2, which raises- I mean lowers it down to 10. I also have +1 to attack from the bard song, that lowers it again to 9. Wait, does that armor class include a shield? That's a bonus to missile attacks, so the base to-hit is 13 now, which goes down to 10... or is it 11? Oh shoot, I'm attacking from long range, so that's another -2, I guess I have to roll 13 then."
Not that the underlying math is particularly complex- it's all simple addition and subtraction, after all- but the more steps you add in, the more risk there is of something important being left at the wayside.
as an aside, the tendency for characters to stack up ridiculous bonuses was one of the driving forces behind 5th edition's concentration mechanic- there is a world of difference between a high level party who's had time to buff before a fight, and a party who hasn't. When you're DMing for said high-level group, you need to know what your players are capable of dealing with, and that can change drastically with what buffs are active. By limiting spellcasters to one concentration spell at a time, the DM has to deal with a lot less guesswork as to how strong the party is going to be today (and if the party is caught unawares, it takes them far less time to get up to full strength).
So, all that being said, what is the reason Lily gives for people disliking THAC0?
"The only reason people don't like THAC0 is because it means low THAC0 good, low saving throws good, low armor class good. What it doesn't mean is, big number go brrrr, right?" - Lily, during a BG1 stream (and many times before and after)
This argument might hold water against 3rd edition D&D, where attack and skill bonuses went up every level (and good saving throw bonuses went up every other level). It's not uncommon for a 6th level character to rock an attack bonus of +15 in 3rd edition, and that number will only continue to increase. It's worth mentioning that similar ridiculous bonuses were possible in 2nd edition; the numbers were just flipped in the other direction (which power gamers of the time were totally fine with, believe me)
However, Lily is making the "Big number go brrrr" argument against 5th edition D&D. You know, the one which famously curtails bonuses, such that you're lucky if you have a +15 to attack at level 20. 5th edition is the least "Big number go brrrr" edition of D&D to date.
Look, I'm not going to pretend that 5th edition (or any edition of D&D) is perfect; D&D is a game that has been organically developed through perpetual playtesting for 5 decades now. Every edition is full of flawed answers to the biggest problems of the edition prior; even THAC0 was a hasty revision of 1st edition AD&D's attack matrices. I also have no problem with Lily preferring 2nd edition over 5th. It's clear that the early Baldur's Gate games are a source of great joy for her.
But of course, Lily cannot simply enjoy 2nd edition, not when so many people are happily playing the wrong version of the game. No, she has to insist that 5th edition D&D is a fundamentally broken game in dire need of fixing, and in revealing her fixes... well, she's proven just how little experience she has with any version of Dungeons and Dragons.
So in the past I've highlighted how Lily Orchard has no actual D&D experience; how everything she knows comes from the early Baldur's Gate games. I've never really gone into the specifics of why that matters, though. It feels like a disservice to assume that it's self evident; after all, the people most likely to eat up Lily's D&D takes are those who don't have much D&D experience themselves. With that in mind, let's talk about why Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 are bad substitutes for D&D.
Of course, there's all the social elements; BG1/2 are single player experiences, D&D is a collaborative game. BG1/2 are pre-set adventures with strict resolutions to every conflict, while D&D puzzles are invariably more freeform in their solutions. BG1/2 lets you save your game before tricky fights, meaning even the riskiest fight isn't half as devastating as the same fight would be in a tabletop game.
I could go on, but today we're going to focus on something else entirely. Today, we're looking at one of the ways BG1/2 completely misrepresents its progenitor game, and it's something that comes up before you even start your quest:
Baldur's Gate is lying to you
(at least, about how it generates your ability scores)
So, cliff notes; when you play D&D, you make a character, and that character is defined by their race (or heritage, in newer editions), their class (or classes), and their ability scores. Ability scores can be generated in a number of ways, but Lily prefers the harshest method; 3d6 in order.
Why? According to her, it reduces minmaxing. Most likely she prefers it because that's how Baldur's Gate generates abilities:
Excerpt from the Baldur's Gate game manual
Or at least, that's how the manual says abilities are generated. If that were true, then I wouldn't be making this post, but before that, let's run through the obvious caveats:
The Ability Score page in Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition
You can reroll your stats as many times as you like without penalty. Each reroll takes only the click of a button, so you can go through hundreds of randomly generated stats in the span of a minute, before settling on ones you like.
Secondly, you can trade points between ability scores on a one-for-one basis. Did you roll two 13s? Why not make that an 18 and an 8 instead?
I should mention at this point that ability scores in 2nd edition AD&D only give bonuses and penalties if they're very high, or very low. Most scores will only provide bonuses to attack rolls, armor class and hit points if they're 15 or higher, and likewise you won't suffer any penalties to scores unless they're 7 or lower.
For 99% of cases, these two characters would be functionally identical. In other words:
Baldur's Gate's game design passively encourages you to create a character with stats like these.
These opportunities are not afforded to someone creating an AD&D character in the traditional way. Perhaps a generous DM would allow a player to reroll a character with truly abysmal stats, but the idea of trading points in ability scores, one-for-one? Well, that's suspiciously similar to Point Buy, the method that Lily opposes.
Now, let's go back to the manual's original claim, that ability scores are generated by rolling 3d6 in order. How can we interrogate this claim?
For this, dear reader, I'd like you to join me in a little experiment.
Let's make some D&D characters.
Grab three six-sided dice if you have them (If you only have one, that's fine). Roll them, note down what you got, and the total between them. Do this six times, then combine all of your totals to get a combined score (you're effectively rolling 18 dice altogether)
(Hey Hearts? You only have to do this once~)
Now, I'd like to make some assumptions about what you just rolled;
Your highest score is no higher than 15 (this will be true for 75% of you)
Your second-highest is no higher than 13 (75%)
Your lowest score is no higher than 7 (65%)
Your second-lowest score is no higher than 9 (72%)
If thirty six people do this experiment with me, then one of you will roll an 18 (and one of you will roll a 3). Half of you (myself included) won't even manage to get a high score above 14; the characters you generate wouldn't even qualify for the most basic bonuses under AD&D 2nd edition rules.
As for the total number rolled between all 18 dice, it will vary a lot between you, but your totals will average out to somewhere around 63. For every person who rolled higher, there will also be a person who rolled lower. One in twenty participants will be stuck with a total below 52, and one in twenty will manage a total at or above 75. That's basic statistics for ya~
Now, let's go back to Baldur's Gate. I'm going to click the "reroll" button a bunch of times. See if you don't notice a pattern.
No matter how many times we click "reroll", we can never generate a set of scores with a total lower than 75. This is deliberately coded into the character creator; despite the average roll of 18d6 being 63. In other words, the weakest Baldur's Gate PC is already stronger than 95% of AD&D 2nd edition PCs.
If your only experience with AD&D 2nd edition is through Baldur's Gate, then your perceptions of average character strength are going to be incredibly skewed. In Lily's case, it means that she looks at the following ability scores, and thinks they're unplayably bad...
... when in truth, these ability scores come straight from the 2nd edition player's handbook
Have you really played this game, Lily?
A couple of post-scripts:
you could argue that the BG is only partly dishonest about how abilities are generated; it technically uses the 3d6-in-order method, it just quietly discards any result that would give the player ability scores below 75. The output is very similar to that of an 18d6 bell curve, with any result below 75 chopped off- your odds of getting a total of 80 in the character creator (0.35% on a normal 18d6) are about half that of getting 78 (0.67% on 18d6) and one third that of getting 76 (1.12% on 18d6)
Yonks ago, Lily suggested the following:
If you were to take Lily's advice while using the 3d6-in-order method, then 48% of all characters would be functionally crippled in two different ability scores. 18% would be crippled in three. You can't push players to have balanced abilities while using 3d6-in-order; they have no control over the abilities they roll!
When discussing characters with bad ability scores, Lily specifically highlights the character Anomen:
With combined ability scores of 79, Anomen is stronger than 99.5% of all AD&D 2nd edition characters.
In Lily's recent video on Ghibli films, she refers to My Neighbours the Yamadas as a Dom Com, a subtype of Situational Comedy (ie Sitcom) based around family or household life. While not as common a term as Sitcom, Dom Com is nonetheless a perfectly reasonable and established name for a common setup in film and TV.
It is not a BDSM term, aside from being used as the title of an unrelated romance novel, published in January of this year.
So if you were to, say, stream yourself reacting to Lily's Ghibli video in order to guffaw at it, perhaps you shouldn't rely on Google AI to tell you the meaning of words you don't understand.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I'm pretty sure the EarthBound hack made by Toby Fox was more influential and controversial than the Imoen incest mod.
Influential? Definitely. Controversial? I'm not sure, unless there's controversy that I'm not privy to.
This is why I mentioned GTA:SA's Hot Coffee mod in the tags. Lily, get back to me when Hillary Clinton comments on the Imoen mod.
Disclaimer; this is the sort of shit I normally don't want to comment on, and I'm only doing so because the alternative is to let claims like Lily's go unchallenged.
First things first; the above are self-asks. The someone who said "Hbomberguy is a piece of shit" on Bluesky? That was Lily herself.
Now as to what actually happened:
Somewhere around the 14th of May, 2026 (exact time unknown), Harry (HBomberguy) posted the following skeet to Bluesky. Very shortly thereafter, he chose to delete it. We're talking like 10 minutes.
Harry has made no other public statements in the last month. This is it.
Unfortunately that was enough time for a few people to see it, and for at least one person to screenshot it (although that person decided not to share it publicly, at the time). More importantly, it was enough time for people to figure out what the skeet was referring to; this recent skeet by Harry's former collaborator, Patricia Taxxon.
The above skeets are being provided purely as evidence. I'm not here to comment on what Patty says. This ain't the Patty Pit.
The above would have sat dormant and unnoticed were it not for commentors on Bluesky, and eventually, Reddit. It is only because of a thread made on r/youtubedrama that we have access to HBomberguy's post.
Quickly breaking down the original (and only) contribution by Harry;
- It can be reasonably inferred to be about Patricia. Despite not naming or referring to her directly, it does contain an almost direct quote from her.
- However, it does contain an almost-direct quote. This quote has not been unreasonably truncated, and it has not been taken out of context. Third parties were able to tell that the skeet was about Patty, because Patty unambiguously said those things.
- The meaning of the skeet is easy to determine; independent of any accusations or insinuations, Harry is frustrated at the actions of a former friend. Personally, I can understand why, as a human being, Harry wanted to post this. I can also understand his regret at posting it, as a public figure. It's not a good look, but it's a human mistake.
It's also not unprovoked.
Oops this is now a teensy bit The Patty Pit, sorry folks
Patricia is also a public figure, with 120k subscribers on Youtube (almost as many as Lily Orchard) and 6k Bluesky followers. While her reach is nowhere near that of Harry's, It ain't nothing. Easily identifiable vagueposts like this do not go unnoticed, and the people they target often have to deal with all sorts of fun consequences behind the scenes. In this context, Hbomb's response isn't justified, but it's pretty damn understandable.
It's also not a new development; Patty's been throwing shade at Harry since at least 2024. Meanwhile, despite quietly deciding not to collaborate with Patty further due to well-documented behaviour, Harry has said nothing. Well, until last thursday, that is.
Either way, the cat's very much out of the bag now. It continues to be out of the bag, in part, due to Patty's constant relitigation of the matter; she's gone from acting like Harry's skeet doesn't faze her to (falsely) accusing Harry of calling her a pedophile to demanding that Harry "not let this go unchecked" in the space of a few days, and with her track record, she's not going to let this go anytime soon.
So anyway, was Harry's skeet a bad idea? Demonstrably yes. Was it an example of him "pedojacketing trans women"? Absolutely fucking not. Stop trying to stir up drama with self-asks, stop doing so without receipts, and stop lying, Lily.
Can you give us a guideline on how to tell real asks from self asks?
Truthfully? I really can’t, because it will never be guaranteed.
You can have all the likely indicators (reused terminology or lexicon, unprompted questions to open discussion for things to rant about) and still be wrong. You can be skeptical, cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 25th anon to ask for advice about IRL incest, but you will never know beyond a shadow of a doubt if it was just Lily making up shit to send herself or not.
It sucks, because we have evidence of her actually doing this with fake accounts, but with anons it’s just impossible to tell which is which.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
From the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd edition revised Dungeon Master's Guide, published 1995:
Lily continues to confirm she has never actually played D&D in her life.
under the cut: the more in-depth rules on infravision, and a brief analysis from yours truly
Also from the same DMG (the Internet Archive is a wonderful place):
So yes, there is technically a more "accurate" version of Infravision available to players. A version which tells you multiple times "hey, don't use this. You're going to have a bad time if you do." I actually kind of love that? 2nd edition is wild, man.
Anyways, Lily clearly wasn't thinking of these rules when she was talking about infravision. Remember, her most salient critique of 5th edition is that it does nothing to reduce the cognitive load on the Dungeon Master. Now I invite you to consider that criticism against a rule set that requires the Dungeon Master to consider the relative heat signatures of different types of stone.
But of course, the best (and worst) aspect of this version of infravision is how blatantly easy it is for any crafty player to abuse. "Large heat sources will temporarily blind characters with infravision just as looking at a bright light blinds those with normal vision"? Congratulations, you've just made Fireball (already an overpowered spell) into something that will blind every demihuman in an 80-foot radius.
... huh, maybe that's how 2nd edition humans are balanced.
No, Courtney Peet did not steal Lily Orchard's favorite hoodie
Long-time viewers of the blog will be shocked to learn that Lily is lying about something.
"Courtney stole my hoodie when she ran away" is one of the newer additions to Lily's self-lore, first appearing last November. It's intended to strengthen the claim that teenage Courtney was obsessed with Lily, rather than the other way round. And of course, like most of Lily's claims, it should be impossible to verify, right?
Unfortunately, I am a nosy bitch.
First off, we need to accept one thing as fact: Courtney Peet ran away from home while she was still 17 years old. It's one of the few things that both they and Lily agree on. While I don't know the exact date of her departure, I do know that Courtney turned 18 years old on the 24th of November, 2011. Therefore, they had to have run away from the Peet household before that date.
Despite Lily's best efforts to strike her early material off the face of the internet, some of her old videos remain available on archive sites. Original airdates aren't attached, unfortunately, but we don't need those.
The following stills are taken from the live-action introduction to Lily's RVI videos. I've censored Lily's face (since these images depict her pre-transition self), but that's not the important part. The important part is the hoodie.
Just kidding, the real important part is the shirt underneath.
This is a Heart Pony, one of several memetic designs from the early days of the Friendship Is Magic fandom. Specifically, this is Twilight Sparkle's Heart Pony design, first uploaded to DeviantArt by BambooDog, the meme's original creator, in October 2011.
Two months later, on December 21st, BambooDog opened their Redbubble store, where Lily's shirt would become available for the first time.
"With the help of RedBubble.com, you can find some Main Cast Contours and Hearts t-shirts."
I think you can see where I'm going with this, but to spell it out;
Courtney could not have stolen Lily's RVI hoodie when she ran away, because Lily filmed herself wearing said hoodie well after Courtney was out of the house.
Hardly the most heinous of shit Lily has done, I know, but still,
A whole dungeon probably takes more than one dice roll to get through. so that anon is kinda dumb and so is Lily
That is also a good point - a die roll, in the abstract, represents a single task or a portion of a task, and even the most basic dungeons should involve a handful of tasks.
Someone asked me about this post a little while back:
and... yeah. It's pretty stupid. Let's break it down:
"A single 20 can trivialize an entire dungeon"
unlike other roleplaying systems, D&D's skill checks are a binary success/failure paradigm. Some DMs will introduce a sliding DC to a check (eg "succeed by more than 5 and you'll get a neat little bonus" or whatnot) but the core metric is "if you roll high, you succeed, if you roll low, you fail".
so if something can be trivialized by "a single 20", then it can be trivialized by any successful roll.
"Stop letting players cheat"
My Dungeon Master in christ, if you allow them to roll, then they're not cheating. They're playing the game.
And finally,
"Skill checks don't have Criticals, that's never been the rules in any edition of D&D"
3.5 Edition, Dungeon Master's Guide, page 34:
What now, dingus?
In all seriousness, if you're worried about players rolling for absurdities in game, the solution is as follows; before any rolling occurs, have the player describe exactly what it is the are trying to do. Then, also before the rolling occurs, give a brief summary of what will happen if they succeed, and what will happen if they fail.
As an example:
Player: "I sneakily scale the castle wall"
DM: "Okay, you have proficiency in stealth and athletics, so I'll only get you to roll one of them. Your DC is 15 - pass, and you can find a way over the wall without the guards noticing. Get between 10 and 15, you won't make it over, but you can at least stay unnoticed. Get below 10, your attempt will make enough noise to alert the guards.
Player: "Hrm, I only have a +7 to those scores, hopefully this will- NATURAL 20!"
DM: "Hell yes! You practically run up the wall, finishing your ascent with an acrobatic pirouette off of the watchtower's peak. If anyone was watching, they'd be astonished."
Player: "Was anybody watching?"
DM: "Well... no. You were trying to be stealthy, after all."
Player: "GOD-"
And I've mentioned this before, but a task you can succeed at with one roll is fine. You really have to watch out for tasks that can be failed forever with a single roll. If a player is stuck inside a jail cell with a single lockpick, and they end up breaking that lockpick in their attempt to pick the door, then you have to give them another means of escape, unless you want to hit them with the "you don't get to play the game now" beam.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
How can Lily be trans and transphobic and the same time?
The same way a woman can be a misogynist, or a black man a racist, or an autistic person an ableist. You stop caring about other people and relish whatever makes your words hurt more. If it works against you, why can’t it work against them?
