An advanced technique: ask your players to make shit up.

Like, the players decided to go to the wizard university the wizard PC graduated from. So I ask him, “what’s their entrance hall like?” and let him just riff on it for a while. Players feel more engaged with the world, and it’s a little less work for me.

Warlock is trying to commune with his patron. I ask, “what is your patron usually like?” and the player is delighted to describe “the great sculpin” in detail. This then inspires me further.

Note that some players are very much “just tell me a story” and don’t want any input, and won’t like this. Some players are also shy and don’t think well on their feet. And some players are just really bad at staying on theme. But if you know your players , this can be a powerful technique.

I would probably make spells easier to interrupt like they were in 3e.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm

These two things were key:

• Casting a spell provokes an opportunity attack
• Taking any damage requires a check or you lose the spell

Now casting when the orc warlord is up in your face is a lot riskier.

I think I get why they got rid of this system. It was more to think about, and I think they wanted the game to generally be easier so more players could enjoy it. Certain classes of player don’t want to think about tactics and positioning. They want to cast fireball. But as a result, the whole game is kind of shallower sometimes.

For mages countering mages, I’d probably give it a rework. It shouldn’t just be its own spell. It should be an action. Maybe have a separate check to identify the spell, or maybe just tell the player to skip double rolls. Then make some sort of opposed check. Use the spell level delta (and if you had them roll to identify, how thematically opposite the spell is. Like a fire and ice spell, or shield v magic missile).

Musk seems like the kind of D&D player who would

• Build a horrible character (frankly impressive in 5e, which is pretty simple in terms of choices to make at the start). Like, a bard with 8 charisma, or a rogue with no dex
• Or, pay someone else to build their character, and then not know how to play it.
• And/or induce the other players to murder him (in the game)

I’m not a young man so I can’t really talk about the youths, but from what I’ve heard and seen a lot of people are just bad at dating. Garbage profiles, poor message writing, poor in-person behavior.

I don’t really like this article’s “both sides are equally bad” subtext. Well, text. It’s kind of just there in the text.

It was kind of wild going from D&D to games that don’t have tons of HP.

Players make different choices when they have a maximum of 7 health, and a random mook with a baseball bat hits for minimum 2, maximum “well if the dice keep exploding…”

I kinda like this idea that the players will be so responsible and active over their own entertainment that they’ll pick something to actively do to make something happen

This is the dream.

Sometimes I get players that have ideas, but then they’re like “oh that sounds too dangerous, nevermind”, and I’m like “it’s not going to be much of a game if we don’t take any risks”

It’s probably partly my fault for making the dangers clear to the players. I wanted them to have an understanding of the risks and factors!

Like one time, the players were told another faction would only help them with their problem if they dealt with a vampire that was in the local cemetery, and his little cult. This was a game of Mage, where even starting tier characters have a lot of strong options. One of the players just was like “you’re asking us to punch Cthulhu in the face! I don’t understand what you want us to do!”

I was like … there are so many options. Your character can literally control flame, a major weakness of vampires. You also have a strong alliance with a paramilitary group. You can go during the day. You have 3 other party members. One of them can open portals. Like, to places where it’s daytime. Trust me, you can win a 4 v 1 fight. Maybe deal with his cult first if you don’t want civilian casualties. Or maybe talk to him and see if you can negotiate.

But she just wanted to spin her wheels and complain. Worst player I’ve ever had, honestly.

I usually just kept a list of what the various factions are up to. If the players were like “ok let’s go see if we can convince Priscilla to smuggle the uranium with her drug stuff” I have a rough idea of what she’s up to and if she’d help, or help at what cost.

I want to play again with a group that comes up with reasonable plans that play to their competencies.

I think a lot about how in a modern day magic game, the players wanted to contact another (NPC) group. They learned the NPCs were like double warded against magic, but spent a lot of time trying to punch through the wards to teleport to them. After two expensive, failed, attempts I was like “do you want a clue?”. They were like yes. I was like “if you just want to talk to them, why don’t you try calling them on the phone?”

I want to play again with a group that comes up with reasonable plans that play to their competencies.

I think a lot about how in a modern day magic game, the players wanted to contact another (NPC) group. They learned the NPCs were like double warded against magic, but spent a lot of time trying to punch through the wards to teleport to them. After two expensive, failed, attempts I was like “do you want a clue?”. They were like yes. I was like “if you just want to talk to them, why don’t you try calling them on the phone?”

I’m aware but worth pointing out. It’s easy to forget. Also to forget that our personal experience is not universal.

I had really bad anxiety in my youth. I’d get nauseous. Staying inside alone made it worse. So much worse. Taking the plunge and actually going out, talking to people, engaging, regularly, that lead to progress. Even if it meant throwing up in the bathroom sometimes. But that probably won’t work for everyone.

But I guess some part of me has a visceral reaction that’s just like “you’re making it worse! You’re just hiding from the problem and it’s never going to get better this way! Just go outside and nothing bad will happen, and you’ll stop freaking out eventually!”. But that’s not everyone.

But yes, to your point, a lot of the time it seems like they’re not even trying, and I can’t know their inner world. Sometimes they’re not, sometimes they are.

I don’t think it’s an accurate assessment to say “everyone is doing their best” though because some people certainly are not.

This was a useful perspective for me. Thanks.

No, it’s “I don’t think you’re doing enough to deal with your problems” first.

Because a lot of people I know and see are like “lol I’m a mess” without seeming to do anything to address the situation.

Though that’s aggravated by the capitalist hellscape that makes getting health care difficult.

But also I’m less generous about this because it’s frustrating to be on the receiving end of someone’s crippling anxiety.

And this comic is a cutesy, romanticized if you will, representation of it.

…why though?

Reminds me of a favorite line from a song, “I don’t want you to romanticize falling the fuck apart”

I don’t get it. Are they afraid of possibly having a brief interaction with a neighbor?

At one of my jobs there would be like Important Requirements because someone said something to someone, but if you actually skipped the layers and just asked “is it important this be like this?” they usually didn’t care.

If there’s going to be fantasies about murder, can his whole posse go out?

We should break up match group. With hammers, if needed.

But I do think a lot of people self sabotage on the apps. They’ll be like “no one has an interesting conversation with me” but their profile is like 3 bland photos and “I like to have fun”. My guy, you need to give people something to work with.

But also I don’t trust that the app is actually showing profiles to anyone with a reasonable algorithm. They probably could actually show me people I’d be compatible with. They chose not to.

There’s probably some blood on their hands, thinking about it. Lying to people that this app will lead to relationships when they intentionally sabotage that for profit means people are unhappier, more frustrated, and some of them probably go on to do violence. It’s probably producing incels.

If we’re waving magic wands around, change the tax laws to limit how much you can inherit.

Changing the step up basis thing is actually pretty low hanging fruit.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stepupinbasis.asp

https://smartasset.com/investing/buy-borrow-die-how-the-rich-avoid-taxes

Where would you lay the blame?

And how is that hypothetical response “intellectually dishonest”?