A family of N people (where N >= 3) are members of a cult. A suggestion is floated anonymously among them to leave the cult. If, in fact, every single person secretly harbors the desire to leave, it would be best if the family knew about that so that they could be open with each other and plan their exit. However, if this isn’t the case, then the family would not want to know the actual results, in order to prevent infighting and witch hunting.
Therefore, is there some scheme by which, if everyone in the family votes yes, the family knows, but all other results (all no, any combination of yes and no) are indistinguishable from each other for all family members?
- N does have to be at least 3 – N=1 is trivial, and N=2 is impossible, since a yes voter can know the other person’s vote depending on the result.
- The anonymous suggestor is not important – it could well be someone outside the family, such as a someone distributing propoganda.
- It is important that all no is indistinguishable from mixed yes and no – we do not want the family to discover that there is some kind of schism. However, if that result is impossible, I’m OK with a result where any unanimous result is discoverable, but any mixed vote is indistinguishable.
Some things I’ve already tried:
- Of course, this can be done with a trusted third party – they all tell one person their votes, and the third party announces whether all the votes are yes. However, this isn’t quite satisfying of an answer to me, since the third party could get compromised by a zealous no voter (or other cult member) to figure out who the yes votes are. Plus, this person knows the votes, and may, in a mixed vote situation, meet with the yes voters in private to help them escape, which the no voters won’t take kindly to.
- One can use a second third party to anonymize the votes – one party (which could really just be a shaken hat) collects the votes and sends them anonymized to the second party, who reads them and announces the result. This is the best solution I could think of, however I still think I want to do better than this – after all, in a live-in settlement cult, there probably isn’t any trustworthy third party you could find. I’d like to find a solution that uses a third party that isn’t necessarily trusted.
- However, I do recognize that you need at least something to hold secret information, because if you’re working with an entirely public ledger, then participants could make secret copies of the information and simulate what effect their votes would have, before submitting their actual vote. In particular, if all participants vote yes but the last one has yet to vote, they can simulate a yes vote and find out that everyone else has voted yes, but then themselves vote no – they are now alone in knowing everyone else’s yes votes, which is power that you would not want the remaining no voter to have.
An employer (someone’s employer) issued an android app and requests that all of the employees install it. During installation the app requests access to all of the phone’s resources and it wouldn’t work if the access is declined.
The official purpose of the app is sending some internal requests concerning work-related stuff. But, who knows, maybe an employer has some additional goals.
What is the risk for employees when installing such an app on a personal phone? What an employer might see on an employee’s phone? Could it see the employee’s location? What files or personal data can it get access to?
What can an employee do to restrict the employer’s access?
The question is not about using a separate phone. A separate phone for each app is not what the question is about. It is about a 3rd party app on a personal phone.
I have a question regarding how a Hallow spell affects a T1 party. The most obvious interaction would seem to be blocking familiars since they are fey, fiend, or celestial.
Does the Hallow spell with all of its potential creature types designated stop familiars from entering the area? Does it stop them from being summoned in there? Stop them from being brought out of demiplane into it? Do any of those answers change when it has the additional extra-dimensional interference effect?
I’m currently running a campaign with 5 players at level 3, one of which is a Wizard Dragonborn who’s entire character is devoted to becoming a real dragon by the end of the campaign through some kind of magic or holy gift or something.
As part of this, the player has decided that he absolutely MUST have a Pseudodragon and has decided that next session, as the players have finally returned to town after leaving at level 1, he is going to spend a few days resting before setting off alone to explore the forests of the nearby area to find a Pseudodragon.
I explained to him that on foot, sweeping the whole forest systematically (in a frontier part of the world where the majority of the land is forested) will take literally weeks for his character to do, as he has no spells that can assist him except find familiar (which he could use to sweep the air with a hawk).
When I explained that, this would involve him as a player turning up to the session (online) and contributing essentially nothing for extended periods of time over the course of several sessions (my players have decided they will be leaving town soon and our sessions have very little time between them in the world) he decided that he was fine with that.
I really don’t think that he will be and I’d hate to lose one of my players because in two session’s time he decides that he is really bored and doesn’t want to keep playing but on the other hand I really don’t feel like it’s fair for the other players just to give him what he wants immediately because I’m scared to lose a player.
I know he has said that he is fine with it and I’ve explained the downsides to doing what he is planning to do.
As the DM, is there a better way that I can damage control this? I don’t know if I’m making the right choices by not giving the player what they want but I just cannot see a reasonable way that a player could quickly find a rare animal in hundreds of square miles of forest.
The party in my game consists of two ‘ranged damage dealers’ and two ‘tanky damage dealers’ (resp. revised ranger and warlock + paladin and fighter), but it doesn’t have a healer. I don’t want the paladin and ranger to feel ‘forced’ to pick healing spells, especially since that’s not the type of character they want to play. The party is currently level 6, and until now they weren’t on the brink of dying too often… However, as enemies are getting smarter, the damage dealers in the back will get focused on more frequently, for being the biggest threat. And I notice I’m holding back as DM quite a lot in this regard. I’m also looking for ways that players can recover from big sudden AOE explosions, during battle, which occurs more often at this tier of play.
On YouTube I see some DMs let a party pick a support NPC to tag along. This can offer interesting options for plot development, but this also feels a bit too ‘heal-botty’. So this isn’t a solution that is satisfying for my case because it takes away quite some of the strategic decision making at the table. And we all prefer challenging encounters.
In their loot I’m including more potions than I would have otherwise, as well as Spell Scrolls with healing spells. The reason why the potions are not completely satisfactory to me as a DM, is that:
- I have the hunch that the party suffers from a dependency on Healing Potions in how this effects their ‘action economy’, and
- I’m curious to alternatives for more versatility in combat.
What do the books offer for how player characters can regain Hit Points during battle, without using class features or spells?
Do the books offer other options, without relying on dedicated support characters? I do realise that support goes beyond healing, but options for healing is the focus of this question.
I’ve been looking at the following figure which shows, with Arm TrustZone architecture, resources of a system can be divided into a Rich Execution Environment (REE) and a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE).
Here I’m trying to understand the following: Suppose a remote party wants a particular trusted application (TA) running in TEE to do some computation on his input. How can this remote party be ensured that the computation is actually done by the correct TA ?
We’re running a custom campaign in rolemaster (RM) with rather unexperienced players and an experienced GM. We did about 6 or 7 sessions, the next one will be the third for my new character – and I am basically broke. In RM you roll on your wealth upon character creation, and I scored rather low (started out with 2 silver and a bit). Also, my character can’t haggle (at all).
There is a party treasure we pay equipment for the whole group from, but it’s not overly filled. One of the other characters is rather wealthy, he has about 80 gold, but he is not overly willing to pay for the whole group. Currently we’re in a city and doing some quests/bounty hunting. The prices either get shared or go to the party treasure.
I don’t want to have to worry about how to pay for arrows, mead, food or the occasional wench – not to speak of luxury stuff like better armor.
What options do I/we have to get more money? Ideally without stealing from other party members, rather by increasing the cash flow for the whole group.
Based on some feedback from my players, I’m going to allow them to plan their next mission, which will be a ‘seemingly’ straight forward heist affair onboard a moving vehicle (limiting their geographical range).
What I’d like advice on, is how can I impose limitations on their plans to prevent them from going completely off-track?
Narratively, I’ll provide them with the objective and some key facts and stats, but what’s the best way to try and ‘plan for the unthinkable’ from my perspective? Normally as the DM, I can react to the team going off-road within the context of a quest because I can generally foresee the branches they might take, but in this instance, giving them the ability to map out their approach might make things tricky for me to manage.
Hope this question isn’t too vague!
Suppose that a member of an adventuring party has a companion. I can think of the following broad categories …
- Something that came with his/her class (familiar, beastmaster companion)
- Part of a spell (summoned/conjured creatures, raised undead, Homunculus, awakened something, etc.)
- Purchased mount (war horse, hippogriff, etc.)
- A bound golem
… then are there cases (and perhaps there are others besides the ones I could think of) in which I should I calculate the XP treshold (DMG, page 82) differently (increasing the treshold), and if so, by how much?
Personally, I feel (but I’m quite inexperienced) that companions that originate from classes and spells are already calculated into the character level of the XP difficulty matrix. And that mounts may not be powerful enough to unbalance the encounter difficulty. But a party member that brings a golem, might be a different story.
I’m fairly sure that there is no rule for this, if so, then suggestions are welcome too.