writera

[writera]

You Are Not a Liar

In the podcast Conversations with People Who Hate Me by Dylan Marron, Marron, the moderator, gets two different people on the phone at the same time, when one has said something mean to the other on the internet.

The latest episode, You Are a Liar, involves two conversationalists: Emma and Benjamin. Emma is a rape survivor, and when Benjamin read about her in the news, sent her the titular message, “You are a liar”.

Unlike some other conversations, at the end of this podcast, the phone conversationalists are at an impasse. Neither one has achieved what either of them would describe as an ideal outcome. On one hand, Emma is within her rights not to be compelled to remain quiet, and is within her rights to raise awareness on this issue. On the other hand, Benjamin ideologically believes that rapists should be treated as innocent until proven guilty.

I believe Emma behaved reasonably and correctly given the circumstances, and side with her in this story. But I think I know where Benjamin is coming from.

I will engage in a speculative discussion of Benjamin's position in order to deliver a point.

Benjamin repeatedly expressed that he needed "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt" to believe the allegations. This is not taking place in a court of law. If it were, it would be relevant that the allegations are to be shown "beyond a reasonable doubt"; a different statement, with different ramifications. Noting that there are no such protections for individuals in the court of public opinion, it is obvious that the standards "beyond a reasonable doubt" do not apply.

However, it may be argued that the court of public opinion can be more hurtful to the defendent than the court of law. Felonies, fines, and jail time temporarily affect a convict's life. However, they also permanently affect a convict's life. Beyond legal barriers imposed after sentences are served, a convict's image is permanently marred. The way people treat them and the opportunities afforded them are much inferior to the way an innocent person would be treated. The morale, self-image, social network and social viability of a convicted person can be permanently crushed. A convicted person can see themselves as an outcast, and live the rest of their life in obscurity, shunning connections to their old life; never trying to raise their profile.

Benjamin's position brings to mind the famous quote "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" (which I was taught rephrased as "It is better than ten guilty persons walk free than that one innocent be convicted"). This seems to be the sentiment evoked. This aphorism comes to mind because the criminal justice system is not a friendly thing.

It could be said that the criminal system is set up to crush and destroy those who enter it, not to build them up. This can be defended; it makes sense that the flawed individual who enters prison should be different than the individual who exits prison. The society desires that the individuals be corrected. This can be, in part, an emotional punishment. Those who do not show submission and contrition, but instead remain defiant, can be looked at with derision by the public: those people do not feel sorry for what they did. Furthermore, we study the convict for sincerity, to see if they truly feel that submission and contrition, and that they are not merely going through the motions. Those who have had associations built between what they did and feeling awful are freed sooner (parole) than those who are unapologetic. I would argue that being bullied into submission is quite a punishment. It is not effected by bars, but by people.

Perhaps Benjamin's concern involves not invoking the wrath of society upon a perpetrator who has not been shown in the court of law to be guilty. If all the ramifications of the justice system are invoked without the justice system, that can be said to be unjust. They are not however — the legal ramifications of a conviction are not necessarily invoked when public opinion goes against him. However it is possible that the emotional and social components of a conviction could be invoked, although most probably to a lesser degree, if at all, than when convicted.

It is also possible that the rapist lives an unapologetic, high life, without caring for the hurt he inflicted on another being. This outcome sets an example to other men that when they consider their behavior borderline, they can error on the side of stepping over the border. It also sets an example that such men can be unapologetic afterwards. Being unapologetic hurts the aggrieved.

Finally, my point. It seems that both the perpetrator and the victim are being chastized by the public. The victim certainly does not deserve this. How can we support both the notion of the benefit of the doubt, while loving and supporting those who are hurting? We must remember that the public, their opinion, society, and its punishment is entirely a construct of the sea of individuals. How can we support both our ideals and those who have been victimized? It is by each member of the greater public exercising prudence. When knowingly interacting with the alleged perpetrator, one should behave as if it is both possible he is a bad man, and that it is possible that he is a good man; this is called skepticism. Upon extensive personal interactions, one might form their own opinion, or reach their own peace with reality: this is called the benefit of the doubt. When knowingly interacting with the victim, one should behave civilly and compassionately, as opposed to dispassionately. As if the victim is justified in their truth. Bearing in mind that taking up the cause of the victim subjects your credibility and honor to the credibility and honor of the victim. Telling a traumatized person that their trauma is unjustified; taking the attitude towards them that they are wrong for expressing their truth: this is not the benefit of the doubt. If you are to extend the benefit of the doubt to the alleged perpetrator, I ask you to extend the benefit of the doubt to the alleged victim.

Benjamin seemed hurt and put upon when he apologized. As if he was apologizing for accidently hurting Emma in the course of perceivedly justified action. This is not an apology for the action, this is an apology for the "inevitable" outcome of the action, which is not an apology at all. Benjamin could not sincerely apologize, I believe because he retained unstated assumptions which were not discussed. To someone who doesn't see any flaws in their argument, being socially pressured into apologizing doesn't feel good (although ... it could be worse ... ).

Benjamin believes that he has to take sides. He believes that something is either true or untrue; and also that the allegation of rape has to be decided in the court of public opinion as true or untrue. He believes that because he believes that only one of two things can happen: that the man's life will be ruined possibly without cause; or that the victim can be validated in her experience. The moderator inexpertly attempted to separate these two outcomes. Benjamin is focused on the act: it either happened or it didn't. I agree that this is the case. One can't assert that it happened while also asserting that it possibly didn't happen: because those are different statements and they can't both be true. But one doesn't have to assert anything. Maybe this seems like a cop-out, but it isn't. And the reason it isn't a cop-out, the reason it isn't the same as passive, unvigilant, wishy-washy-ness, is that the court of public opinion isn't external. The court of public opinion is in the hearts of everyone.

Benjamin believes that he has to take sides. He believes that something is either true or untrue; and also that the allegation of rape has to be decided in the court of public opinion as true or untrue (perhaps so that everyone can know how to act). He believes that because he believes that the undisputed contest in the court of public opinion defaults to a victory for the aggrieved, and that this will ruin the rapist's life. But the court of public opinion is in the hearts of everyone. Instead of taking sides, you can change the court of public opinion. You can do this by changing your own opinion, and by helping others change theirs. Not to take sides, but to be supportive, and true to others.

When there are factions, and when we take sides, there are ramifications to taking sides. Who would want to be grouped in with rapists? If one gets a gut feeling that a statement they make might get them grouped in with rapists and subjected to public ire, then perhaps that should signal to you that perhaps it is time to pause and think — to build yourself into the best person.

I would assume Benjamin feels hurt that any of the societal corrective pressure would be exerted on him, when he feels his actions don't warrant it. This may seem especially poignant here to him, because probably, to him, Emma's side seems justified, but the rapist's side seems ideologically correct: this is a definition of conflict, and he is conflicted. He thinks because there is free speech, and he has good intentions, that he should be morally right to say any alleged truth he wants. He thinks that perhaps if he worded the same sentiment in a softer way, everything would be okay. Perhaps he and Emma would even be friends. ... This is not true, everything would not be okay, it would just appear to be okay. Diplomacy is not all about appearances, but they are an inimitible tool. Finding the right words authentically is different than finding the right words inauthentically.

But we can just love unconditionally. And be tolerant. And kind. And that is what it means to be supportive.

I believe you, Emma.

[writera]

There’s an alien in my mirror!

It is so strange.

I look in the mirror; I look like a real person. I want to keep it that way. Always looking like a real person. That will serve me well in life, as others will see me as the real person I am. And it will serve my body well, as it will last longer in better health. There are those who do not strive to keep their body healthy, and their bodies do not remain so. And it is so easy to be one of those; I must strive to do that which will be good for me.

When I was looking in the mirror earlier, it was as always — the face that is you in the mirror. And as if seeing one's self for the first time — as always.

I thought today about how by all rights, nothing at all should really exist. I mean, what business does the universe really have being here anyway. Humans follow naturally from the universe, sure. And that's pretty weird but totally believable. But, how can the universe have a beginning, but ... no outside of the universe is defined?

... I've wondered this from a very young age. I asked, when I go to the edge — well what's there, what if I cross that edge, dad? Come on, it has an edge, so, I'm at the edge. Now, I'm at the edge, so I cross it. Where am I? ...

I guess, well — ... the universe goes with you. Either that or it doesn't. You cease. Or, it wraps. Or, something. Well, anyway, something happens at the edge, I'm sure of it. Maybe you get to spend a few second-things or a blink of existence in another reality with other laws — or in a computer, or whatever — or maybe no blinks of anything, not enough time to know the new world dissolved you. Anyway, that is just enumeration again, not actual thought. Whatever actual thought is, if anything.

I am so wreckless. In all manners of self-care. I have some behaviors that preserve me, but I give no thought to my actual preservation. I just apply the rules I was taught maximally, to get what I want ... sometimes at the expense of my self health. It's not as if anyone else is actually looking out for me, I/you know. ... Sometimes one just has to realize/know that.

I'm not sure teaching is possible. I don't think knowledge can really be communicated. In fact, I was just thinking that communication isn't possible. I mean, obviously, what is this right now? But does it mean the same thing to you? It's not really possible for me to stick you inside my head. Just by careful continuing trickling of the pattern streams to let you observe some of things I did, and perhaps you will see the same thing I did. ... But we all have blind spots, even when presented with the obvious. So, communication is ... incidental.

We are such alien beings.

I love being human with all my heart. And all the things that go with it. Sitting, thinking, being alien. I want to communicate everything I see, everything that is communicated to me. Every pattern I see. But I know, all I can do is hope to accelerate the perception of some patterns — and the acceleration comes at the price of communicating other patterns. Patterns I might not have realized needed communication. Or even realized I absorbed. ... And our lives are finite, so we will never achieve the harmony of pattern viewing. The harmony which makes us truly alike, in some very silly unmeaningful way. We are left with minor harmonies. And the thought that perhaps some of us are more alike than others. And that it is hard to know which of us are alike based on ... anything. Although there are indicators. That may be completely the wrong ones to use.

We are sentient. Self-aware. What is the thing/s we are not!

I was trying to come up with a new fairy tale creation story that suited my tastes for a fictional cosmology. ... Turning anywhere for inspiration is very unsatisfying.

Probably, we can pick a date where our ancestors were not like us, not sentient. And a date where they were. Dates for language, dates for thoughts, dates for patterns, probably dates for first recognition of some pattern; dates in which the humans become a species. And in which we form ... language, and ... at some point before or after that process, or during, have the thought ... what is all this weird shit around me? How come it's really here, going all the way to the end of the railroad? Anyway, it's been 100,000 years at least of storytelling. (Well, I like that number I picked up from some study of linguistics, and don't want to hear otherwise.) I'm sure my story is perfectly boring and ... outshone by some ancestor's tale.

But almost all of what I see and hear around me is communication. Distilled patterns by others, consciously and unconsciously. If that's the case for everyone, then I can be one of those patterns. I can be the source of the communication, the source of the information. And in that way, man do I have power! Massive power, to tell people exactly what I think, all the thoughts and notions I've had. ... Just, some of them might not have the effect I was hoping for ... due the nature of communication. ... Or whatever, that's a simplistic way to say it. Due to the nature of ... well everything — is a better way to say it.

Once when I was talking with my father about these things, on which so many people have an opinion, often one nearly word-for-word alike one written in an influential article, I had a thought. One of the few original thoughts I've had in my entire life, which isn't to say plenty of other people haven't had it. But I had it independently! ... Dragons, perhaps their story is spread across the world so widely because ... it's an ancient story. And I really do like this thought, that perhaps we have retained some stories that are unimaginably old. I don't care if it's true, I just am extremely pleased with the idea of it. Actually, I do care that nobody bothers trying to explain to me that it's not true. I like it, be quiet.

It's friday night and I sat down to write a creation story. I stopped, went to the bathroom, sat on the throne of philosophy and pondered these things. Then, I got up, stared in the mirror for a long time, admired the mirror, and sat down to write the creation story. And wrote this instead. Perhaps these words will last for some time.

[writera]

Becoming a Dungeon Master

I feel like a fairly new DM. And most of my RPG experience is as a DM. However at this point I have years of experience, so I'm not sure how long I get to hang on to that moniker.

Getting started as a DM is pretty intimidating, foremost because there is just so much you don't know about — if your players know more about the setting or the canonical character/spell/narrative tropes than you, its easy to let them push you to make calls you wouldn't otherwise make. Trying to adjudicate for very smart, rules lawyering [fill-in-the-game] buffs sounds like an uphill battle.

Briefly, I got my start with 3.5e in college, subsequently played 40k, World of Darkness, a homebrew system, and DM'd two 5e D&D games. I've been a part of four different groups. I had some trouble running good 5e games, and this has directly resulted in a lot of research. 

In my 40k game, the primary GM was tired of GMing, but whenever his apprentice GM ran a game, he was "corrected" on a number of things that the apprentice had pretty clearly thought out in advance. Having less experience in the setting, the corrections made no sense — "wow that's a cool idea! It doesn't even matter to the campaign, why is the regular GM nixing this?".

I toyed with the idea of running a few sessions, and studied the one rulebook I was planning on drawing from. 40k has shitty encounter-balancing tools, and I never managed to put something together before that game dissolved.

In the meantime, I was playing board games with a volatile and cliqueish meetup group. After D&D 5e came out, I thought I'd see if anyone in the meetup was interested in trying out 5e. I got a game together to play Hoard of the Dragon Queen. My first time DM-ing!

I had never played with a grid, and didn't want to. I'd forgotten most everything about 3.5, so I wasn't bothered by some of the major changes between 3.5 and 5e. Anyway 5e said all the things I wanted to hear — grid? Don't trouble yourself. Rules dispute? Make a decision, figure it out later. I tried to commit as much of the mechanics and guidelines to heart as possible — even waded most of the way through the spell list, trying to figure out each one — although I seem to have failed to pay attention to class progressions beyond a cursory glance (carefully read the class progressions your players choose, after they choose them! build the game to their abilities!).

I didn't realize that half my group were hardcore min-maxers. That half was there for the full RPG experience and the other half for a glorified tactical combat game. I was so focused on trying to memorize all the narrative and mechanical details that I didn't work on tactical scenarios. Not that I knew how to make combat interesting — for all my RTS computer games, I knew how to build tactics to the terrain, not terrain to tactics. Anyway, the group itself had some interpersonal problems that ultimately was its undoing, but we played for a while before that happened.

I was enthusiastically reading advice on hooking your players and running a good game. I put together an introductory email with some setting material, key terms and character concept ideas, and a map of Faerun (with a note that it was just for context, a character wouldn't know what Faerun looks like). One thing I stressed was creating bonds and flaws that you wanted to see happening in game.

So first session, after my little speech about bonds and flaws, including a half-thought one-liner about "not picking something really far away or irrelevant", one player — hereafter known as Bob — asks me — "can my bond be the grandfather tree?" — and talks a little about the grandfather tree. I thought — great! I was worried they might not go along with this. So I make a point of praising the idea. Meanwhile the players are ignoring me and laughing at me, passing around my map of Faerun pointing at a little dot labeled "Grandfather Tree", as far away from our starting point as the map allows. So I say — That map is just for context! I can put the forest where-ever I want! It can be next door.

Half the table stares at me incredulously ... "are you sure you don't want to look at the map?"

For Bob and his friend Byron, the game was completely about optimal positioning. Eventually it became pretty clear that the power gamers were unhappy, and I agreed to use a whiteboard to draw battlemaps. This time, HotDQ prescribed an ambush. As usual, the game ground to a halt during combat while Bob ran around sniping enemies — with no idea that eight covered leveled bad guys might be above their power-level. I tried to drop helpful hints, and the rest of the party eventually got it together and regrouped, but Bob's character continued kiting to the long drawn-out end, and finally! by fair tactical combat got chased down, knocked unconscious, and dragged off "to the rape dungeon!" as Bob energetically interjected.

It wasn't all bad, but it was a constant fight. Worse, while the B-men were most excited about gaming the system, they had no interest in making believable choices. HotDQ has a lot of leading questions (it's a railroad as written) — and I was ready to try to round-about recyle the chapters under different conditions to make the game flow, and I even said so when Byron commented something along the lines of "gee, I wonder where we're supposed to go next?". I wish they had tried at least *somewhat* to assert their will in the storyline. But those two didn't really care. And the other two bought the story hooks.

Those other two players (Bianca and Eadward) probably didn't get the game they deserved, either; in part because I was focused on dealing with the first two. Bob took the floor, but also completely ignored the will of the other players. During a hostage crisis, for example, he got all the hostages killed when the rest of the party could taste victory. But I had recently moved to a small town and didn't know anyone else who might play.

Anyway, to me, that first campaign (which we didn't finish) felt flat and the combats tedious. I doubled down on my efforts to figure out why. Some time passed, my two favorite players moved away, and I found another group of players: a DM, a soon-to-be-DM, a Pathfinder guy, and a newbie nerd who wanted to play a powerful necromancer.

I hear a lot of advice repeated over and over again. The internet is kind of an echo-chamber — maybe nobody knows what they're doing. So here's my thoughts on the systems, and process of becoming a DM —

The process of becoming a DM sucks. Maybe you've got a supportive group of players, or maybe you are working with what you have, trying to accommodate them. I had ideas and creativity, but I didn't know how to efficiently turn them into encounters, social situations, and adventures. For my second campaign, I homebrewed the world, a metropolis, the society, an underlying plot, the traditional world-building minutiae, and monsters, dungeons, ... almost everything. I put in so much work — almost every day, and a lot of my weekends I went down to the coffee shop, researched, wrote backstory, adjusted power levels or made up new challenges. And I still feel like it was easier than trying to learn all the details of an established setting I've never played, like Faerun.

Because Faerun doesn't make sense to me. I make up part of it, only to find when I look for a detail somewhere else, it's tightly coupled to the part I replaced! Without a model of how Faerun works in my head, I'm not sure how to move my chess pieces. I need someone to break it down at every stage into the simplest pieces possible — treating a nation as an NPC, identifying important NPCs and their relationships, NPC roles, propensities/motives, and power. And then breaking down organizations into some kind of organization-space, treating them as NPCs, building a web, and mapping organization-space onto a geographical map. And then breaking down cities into NPCs and organizations, and then districts, and then guilds, and then society. Because, otherwise, it's too vast for me to understand out of context, and it's too easy to break immersion, to give too much political power to the PCs (so that there's no point to strive for anything anymore).

So of course, I was excited when the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide came out. I figured — this is the ticket for me to understand the broad strokes of Faerun! But it most definitely isn't. I'm not going to hate on the book, if you have time and money, and it seems interesting, by all means why not peruse it? I appreciate WotC's intent — but the book is more like an encyclopedia and less like a novel. A novel?

When I started out my second campaign, I handed out a detailed questionnaire. I listed scifi & fantasy books, and asked players to order them by favorite theme. I had questions testing interest in various settings, playstyles, character goals, greyscale morality vs black-and-white, miscellaneous ideas I had, and possible responsibilities players might want to take on (food, side-quest DMing, writing, etc). After the first campaign, I wanted to gauge player interests. I had been doodling setting ideas for a while, and wanted to know if the players would care. I decided my setting was an important demiplane or whatever man, and that there were secret portals typically accessible by ship (a plot point) which I could use to plug it into another setting whenever I wanted (I planned to plug it into Faerun). Interestingly, I had more than enough material in my own world, and my players never got to Faerun.

What did those questionnaires get me? Absolutely nothing. One player nixed "Game of Thrones style" on his questionnaire, for all the good it did him (it just made me fret about my grand plans, I should never have asked — how is he supposed to know my world-building secrets anyway? Also, what is Game of Thrones style?). The rest of it was just idiosyncratic preferences, although it was interesting to look at. So while it's good to feel your group out, I don't think you need to go overboard here. "Will you bring the drinks?" "Do you have to get up early the next morning?" and "Do you like hack and slash?" "Do you like political power?" "Do you like experience points?" "Do you like dungeons and treasure?" or something similar will suffice.

A novel? The Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide (SCAG) isn't a novel? When I started out my second campaign, one player asked if the Elemental Evil supplement was allowed. I ended up with an elf, a half-elf, a drow (who I guided away from "drow, moon elf drow, because the elves can be subdivided up into sun and moon elves" — too bad I didn't think of half-drow half-moon-elf at the time), and a svirfneblin. Now, I had read the SCAG and PHB treatises on Drow. I was blissfully unaware of how crazily subjugated my Drow were, and how fanatically wrathful they must be feeling. Oh well, my world. But the EE supplement requester let something slip about the Legend of Drizzt books.

Obviously, I read the first 17 books in short order.

While these books helped fill out some understanding of Faerun, I only really feel like I understand the motivations of Icewind Dale. Possibly because it's a small setting, with easily identifiable factions, and a battle or two. It's also remote, and Drizzt didn't go adventuring to far off made-up dungeons while he was there every other day. And the underdark, which I now think is amazing! I'm going to keep reading these books, I am looking forward to learning about Neverwinter (the glosses I've read are so vague).

But I'm not sure reading those books are the right way to begin to understand Faerun.

One thing I've discovered recently is 1e and 2e settings books. The right settings books. Not even necessarily the Faerun settings books. Back when I was planning my homebrew campaign, I was researching mechanics for worlds which get very cold (and also seafaring). I did some research and bought some 2e and 3e pdfs from the DMsGuild which looked relevant. They were filled with irrelevant system-specific mechanics, outdated math, and segmented, wandering descriptions. It put me off reading anything published before 5e as labor-reducing material for my 5e campaign. And the adventures — I was building my own, I had no interest in those outdated railroads (HotDQ was the only published adventure I had tried to absorb).

But after continued research, I acquired 0e, 1e, Dark Sun, Planescape, and Spelljammer. These are amazing books, and I'm currently searching out the other best early books. It doesn't help that they're not compiled into a complete, chronological, and categorized list anywhere, and that it would cost a fortune to [legally] acquire the collected works (on pdf, no less). I'm going to come back to the fact that I bought 0e and 1e, but if I have to pick one of these books to recommend, it's the Planescape boxed set.

Planescape is the kind of thing I can pick up and read, and not fall asleep. It also is far superior to all of the DMG/PHB/wikipedia descriptions of the outer planes. I just had to remember to skip sections that didn't catch my interest. Basically, it's one man's account of the planes. He has a lot of colorful advice, much more narrative, to the point, and subjective than SCAG, which half-heartedly not-really adopted a subjective narrator. It's humorous, non-definitive!, and all-inclusive. It's also the source material which created the planes — everything else written is a revision. It's like a creative writing prompt.

Continuance

One source of DMing wisdom that has had a major impact on my thought patterns is The Angry GM. He might repeat himself and slowly elaborate on the same ideas he's been stewing on for years, but I only realized this after reading the majority of everything he has on his site. I could put together specific article recommendations if anyone cared. Also, support him on Patreon!

I like articles like Angry’s because he lays out his thought patterns while constructing the models you want to use. These are self-contained predictive (crassly, "generative") modules. How do you build a chase scene?

You deconstruct the idea of chase into its components parts, examine the theory of roleplaying, identify the important parts of roleplaying for various players, apply literature theory (I read a number of books on authoring fiction, I guess you could do that too), add tension, modularize, and reconstruct.

When you're done, you have either an encounter to play out with triggers and mechanics, or an encounter and encounter-mechanics building set of meta mechanics, or perhaps even meta-meta encounter-mechanics mechanics building mechanics, if you're applying yourself.

I really appreciate being able to read and understand an adventure or optional rule. By applying structure to some pile of text you hand me, I can start to compile your input into a useful program of sorts, that I can use to reason, and generate predictions for behaviors of various chess pieces.

After I read a lot of The Angry GM’s articles, I bought all the published 5e adventures, and set to analyzing them. There's a great variety. I wouldn't advise you to do this: maybe only one at a time.

I also watched youtube playthroughs of most of them (and some extras, on top of that).

In my opinion, Princes of the Apocalypse has the most interesting story structure, followed by Storm King's Thunder. Out of the Abyss turned into an amazing playthrough. And if I understood the Ravenloft better, Curse of Strahd might be my favorite of them all. But I don't understand it hardly at all yet. So I'd be more likely to run the other ones I mentioned.

The Angry GM mentions in passing a number of divides in the RPG gamer community, none of which should come as a shock to anyone who has used the internet to read about D&D or any other RPG ... storytellers vs tacticians, "improvisers vs railroaders" (a meaningless dichotomy, he explains), the choice of maintaining thematic integrity (think Dark Sun) vs allowing players any choice or capability they can articulate with their mouth-things (think Acquisitions Incorporated). I knew all the echo-chamber soundbytes about these divides before, but now they mean a lot more to me.

Most importantly. I watched a youtube video which talked about the evolution of D&D — and I was very surprised how 0e and 1e read. I had heard about the ebb and flow of mechanics vs DM intuition. But when I actually looked at the early D&D texts, they read like creative writing prompts, not rulesets or algebras. Eg, here is a system I made up. I wanted to do a thing, and so I hope you like it. Oh, and another thing might help you mitigate some problem — to the point.

I'm a scifi buff, and I thought it might be easier to run a science fiction RPG than a fantasy game like D&D. I tried to research the best scifi RPG, and the first time I searched, the jury cried out "Traveller"! I'm currently watching Babylon 5 for the second time (and honestly, I'm getting impatient writing this, I want to watch B5, but if I stop writing I likely won't continue later).

If you like Babylon5, you probably agree that Traveller has a pretty great premise. I unfortunately made a rookie mistake and bought Traveller5, which was supposed to be the ultimate be-all-and-end-all of Traveller RPGs. It's not, because it's an algebra book.

I can't stay awake reading Traveller5, no joke. It requires intense mental exertion to see and make sense of the unexplained patterns and arcane rules. It's very complete — with systems for social interaction (which I feel divided about), crafting, and detailed world-building. It doesn't provide a setting beyond a few pages (out of 700!), but instead tools to build a cohesive setting. It really is the distilled machinations of years of game design, but it's inaccessible to the layperson. And from some of the reviews I've read, that's not an uncommon opinion.

But the thing that really is the kicker — some people like Traveller5 style rules, and some people like 5e/1e style rules. And there's nothing you can do about it to change their minds. Some people like rules lawyering — this occurred to me while listening to Happy Jacks RPG — they like to sit down for their session, use their encylopediac knowledge of the rules to optimize and evolve their character and actions, sticking to every last convention — sitting down and debating the best course of action. Not quickly resolving actions and moving on with the action or story, not the excitement of battle, nor promise of immersion. Some people like tactically planning every move before execution, and won't hesitate to spend every moment of their time evaluating, debating. Because that is the fun part for them.

I've read flamewars on forums between these two camps — and anyone with a bone to pick will claim the buzzwords for themselves. My way is "immersive"! One bozo claimed that 5e was terrible because DMs weren't required to build NPCs using the same process PCs are built, so certain pregen NPC stat block abilities weren't accessible to his PC — because this inconsistency in *rules* breaks *immersion*. To me, this sounds like a bit of stretch — I think thematic (which heavily involves adjudication) inconsistencies break immersion, not rules inconsistencies. Or maybe he is immersed in something, and it's just not the story.

Anyway, this guy liked 3.5e better than 5e — not only, but he thought 5e was trash.

Is it? My final closing remarks here are going to be on 3.5e versus 5e, which is I think the question you have been waiting for — or maybe not, I don't know.

Most recently, I have been cross-referencing 3.5 with 5e. Some of it's coming back to me now, and some of the surprised questions my second group asked about rules are making more sense to me.

3.5e is better in some respects. It has more structure. It makes more sense, in a limited capacity. The rulebooks are much more poorly written. They are extremely repetitive. I appreciate the crafting system, because it unifies spells, magic items, and provides the ability to create new spells. In 5e, there's not really a difference between rods, wands, and staffs.

In my 5e games, I've been surprised at how useless the low level wizards have been. That statement is flamebait, and I've seen it in action

In 5e, magic users, and wizards in particular, have been nerfed hard. No matter how you phrase it (and I've seen people try), wizards are much much less powerful in 5e.  Yes ... they got ritual spells, disposed of Vancian magic, and got some silly cantrip pseudo archery attacks, sure;  but they have fewer slots, less spell selection, no ability to create magical items or bank spells, all the spells have been made less powerful, and no ability to create new spells.

As a DM, you can add all that back, but it will break 5e's balance. I've heard it said that in 5e, all classes are magic users. Well, I have to say, in 5e, all classes are fighters. Chew on that?

Full disclosure. I like 3.5e wizards.  I feel that unfair level of power is appropriate  —  when you read Order of the Stick or other D&D fantasy literature, the wizards are 3.5e style powerful. It feels wrong and disappointing to me for wizards not to hold Earth-shattering power. (But, my first character was a melee tank, who once dealt ~150 damage in one turn.)   Restricting a wizard to a supporting "role" instead of encouraging a supporting role seems like a loss to me. Who would want to play a wizard then? If you don't get earth shattering powers? Non-earth-shattering powers is mundane, and I'm playing a fantasy game.

Detractors will argue for the poor oppressed mundanes. As a DM, you have the power to make everybody cool. You can keep balance in check, allow wizards to be powerful in and of themselves, and keep fighters and the like out of their shadow. If a wizard is overshadowing a fighter, talk to the wizard, tell them to get off his toes.

And/or maybe beef up the fighter. In 3.5e you could add a prestige class. I'm sure you can figure something out in 5e.

Anyway, if you love balance and hate wizards and 3.5e, you're in good company with 5e. But if you love rules to the bone, you might like 3.5e better. Or if you somehow want to be involved in what I consider the DM's work, you might like 3.5e.

Regardless, 5e has easier to remember rules, is better balanced, easier to introduce new people to, is on the other side of the scales from the abstruse algebraic systems with idiosyncratic notations, and you can always modify it to make it imba. So I approve of 5e, but I have to say —

I had to do a lot of research to understand it. I feel like a 500 page, non-wandering, topical, focused essay on the art of DMing and RPG gaming would do wonders for a D&D 5e companion book. Because those missing rules — they are missing — it is good that they are not hard and fast, but it is bad that there are few well motivated optional functionality modules which you can pop into your game to improve it.

Long story short — make it up when you feel like something is missing, and find what inspires you — really inspires, not what you think inspires you or you think will improve your knowledge. Be fair, attentive, and pro-active.

PS On the topic of good combats — Angry wrote an article titled something "Running Combats like a M#@&*^## Dolphin". Having an efficient style, having a style at all, to running a combat, as he describes, speeds combats up and makes them seem more interesting. I mean, it only speeds it up a little bit, but come on.

Just as useful — building good combats — if they're dragging on, get them over with as soon as possible. If you're employing good tactics for your baddies, and/or providing useful tactical features, you might be prolonging the battle. You don't have to stop doing that, but do be aware of it. So, you can just throw falling lava into the battle, and KAPOW, both sides take damage faster! Fight end sooner! And adding interesting features is standard advice, but *active* features — if the PCs don't use them, let the NPCs use them. That way even "passive" features are active — and I prefer to deal side-neutral damage than provide cover or healthy unrelenting reinforcements. There's some other advice out there, read Angry's long diatribes.

Also, standard DMG advice — use objectives. So what you say? How will that speed combat? Make sure to change the situation enough to cause a re-evaluation of how best to achieve the objective, and BAM, a properly applied change might reduce battle time.

And, what? You are doing nothing now but just attacking over and over again? Just call it. Unless your players rebel. "They don't stand a chance." "You guys are heading for TPK ... "

I guess I have had trouble running combats in the past.

[writera]

Fierce Invalids Home from Hot Climates — A Review.

I want to say that I wanted to dislike this book from the get-go, but that's not true. What is actually true is that I had a rocky start with this book, and after only making it through a few pages in six weeks, (and with four days left before a bookclub meeting), I realized I had to knuckle down and plow through this.

To help myself wade through what I initially labelled as complete crap, I compulsively rewrote the first twenty pages. And edited "kosher chicken" out of the opening line (try "plucked, dressed, and copacetic chicken"). This is notable, because if I recall correctly, the author thinks the opening sentence is one of the most important pieces of the book, that sets the tone for the whole book. My impression during this phase was that the author was writing exploratorily, getting good-writing writer's block, tenuously connecting the disjointed leads of the narrative; and looking back at his work to try to make it more natural and comprehensible, and completely failing to do so. I seemed not to understand a sentence until I read the one after it.

After that, I managed to read about 100 pages a day. I didn't properly enjoy myself until Smithe began telling the story of his meeting with the Kandakandero Shaman. But from then on, I found myself enjoying the book more and more. The wry, witty humor: I soon, bitterly, began comparing it to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and then to Candide.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I was surprised to find out, is not everybody's favorite book. I love it for its philosophy, because while everything in the universe is absurd and unexpected, nothing is out of place. The way in which the characters consciously or unconsciously follow through with their ineffective, wishful habits no matter anything allows the nature of the human condition to be illustrated again and again. And Douglas Adam's take on the human condition is at once hopeless and impossible, and very (pretty), (and) very (friendly) (and) loving and beautiful and uplifting.

Fierce Invalids flourishes a larger vocabulary than the Guide, is set in a much more mundane and believable locale, and has a slightly more woo-woo bent. Switters, the main character, is influenced by zazen and modern conscientiousness. He speaks constantly of the fluidity and non-essentialness of things such as concepts. He encounters nuns and otherwise devout characters, speaking unfazed in their terms.

Five things fazed me: It is hard to relate to a pedophile. And Switters is a pedophile. Pretty hard to get over. Wouldn’t recommend the book on that alone. Switters claims psychic remote viewing works. Grandma "punched offline", which means absolutely nothing (try, closed her browser? Ripped out her extension cord?). The dialogue between Switters and Maestra in their first scene is extremely stilted. I did not like the viscous flow of adjectives Robbins used in the opening scene (it was too vivid).

Most things did not faze me. That means this list is going to be pretty weak sounding: Finnegan's Wake is spoken of in the terms I view it: incomprehensible and existentially funny. Switters dreams of foreign lands and strange situations. He has cool gizmos. He admires an arms-runner. He doesn't dwell for a moment on money. Switters is completely convinced he is hot stuff. Switters is completely convinced that he can't set foot on the ground because a Shaman in the Amazon rainforest told him he must do so never again. Ever after, he jokes about seeing things from "two inches off the ground", which is how a knowledgable monk described enlightenment to somebody up the grapevine.

This book is stream of consciousness, but in a nice way, not at all like Ulysses. Since the story is Switters' experience, it might be completely unreliable. That is part of the charm of this book. Life is an unreliable narrative. It is chaotic, and it is a canvas for your ideas. These absurd events are a canvas for the author’s ideas, which is how this book is similar to Candide (I much prefer this to Candide). Life is an unreliable narrative, which is why I enjoyed this book.

I found myself at times not-exceedingly-infrequently reading non-linearly over the span of 5-10 pages, because I can't stand suspense. Is Switters permanently disabled (I had my reservations until the end)? How do those scenes in the beginning connect (connecting all those scenes will take you all the way through the book)? I found that this book reads best on a very large monitor.

I can imagine this book not being a person's cup of tea. Especially if you particularly identify with any of the non-Switters characters: their arguments are typically not given any consideration. Sometimes, you might think that they are filled with straw. The first 100 pages for me drew scathing comparison to Eoin Colfer's philosophically vacant and attention span insulting 'And Another Thing'. And the author’s first sentence was just too inaccessible. But I already said that, and another four other things.

Switters' occupation (airheaded CIA agent) is incidental, providing an absurd counterweight to otherwise less strange situations. The real story is his “fierce” determination to fit his own beliefs onto whatever backdrop has been placed before him, and a certain brazen confidence which keeps him from taking most of himself and pretty much all of everyone else too seriously.

I felt good during and after reading this book. FWIW

[writera]

Anastasius

For nearly two months, I was a Dungeon Master for four player characters. In that time, we explored the art of banishment, the weariness wrought of not picking your battles, the confogsion of war (aka: wait what is going on?), and contemplated the nature of failure. In such numbered sessions, I didn’t feel like a better roleplayer or dungeon master than when I started.

For months before (and after), I watched D&D livestreams, read and re-read through the PHB, MM & DMG cover to cover, read books on fiction writing, and on writing murder mysteries; I read mysteries, analyzed netflix shows, tried my hand at writing mysteries, drew up D&D characters and backstories, began a fantastic world with some treasured features in it, integrated characters into the backstory, ran trial battles between PCs and monsters, practiced speaking from their points of view, wrote software to auto-generate encounters within specified parameters, read advice and forums and watched videos on how to be a good DM, and wrote trial advertisements for players to post somewhere.

As a player, I was a quieter one -- prone to being dead weight -- possible actions would flash before my eyes, but none of them make tactical sense while executing an ultra-deadly and gritty counterattack, teleporting onto a dark eldar strike vessel with the glorious leader Anastasius Autumnus Aestaban beside three of the most elite badasses in his warranted noble house.

It’s not that I am not enjoying the story: more that I don’t fully understand (or think I understand) the world I’m playing in, and am not sure what my character should be taking out of the unfolding events.

Our advance was slow and bloody. I leapfrogged from cover to cover, and took up position just to the right of a towering open doorway; firing at nearly point blank range into the midst of singing blades: singing poisonous blades waiting to kill in two strikes. I fired and fired, and missed and missed.

A still moment: I choose not to speak. What’s in my mouth is trivial. I don’t want to still the waters here, the topic’s depth is too insubstantial. Let it pass, then speak. I strive to eliminate the lack of speaking in my personal life. Surprise! I also roleplay this way!

While acting as DM, character silence is critically devastating. The ability to carry the game is what I am looking for, and I haven’t found it. I’m hoping to find it in life and in game, and I believe the only way to find it is with practice.

I typed “how to practice roleplaying” into Google... This obviously brought me to reading about Machiavellianism and ArmageddonMUD. (In order to play characters more capable than yourself, ask for relevant information from the DM and players OOC.) So, now I’ve spent the last few hours learning about Armageddon.

Anastasius fought plenty intelligently, and we, the players, were certainly entertained. But I didn’t roleplay very well... I had a commander/melee character without enough HP to face the kinds of threats the party was facing. Not that I hadn’t maxed out HP and toughness upgrades, but it is just impossible for a human melee fighter to stand shoulder to shoulder with space marines and orks. Anastasius should’ve jumped out and unquestioningly [attempted to have] outclassed the enemy; but if I had played that way, he would have died.

I started my players at level 1, to get the full experience. We wound up with four combat classes with backstories and decent ties to the campaign world. There was a barbarian, ranger, monk, and ... some dragonborn noble ... don’t remember the class ... who fought with a big sword and was either unconscious or in a bad attitude.

So one time I introduced them to some random encounter baddies. They got the idea that they might actually be good guys, so I changed my mind and made them good guys!, but kept it really unclear who they were. They approached the group and talked, it looked like the story might go somewhere... And then, somehow, obviously, inevitably...

Two players wanted a story-heavy game, and two players thought that D&D was about tactics (one player still thinks RPG refers to cRPGs). So, maybe the game was doomed to failure before it ever started... But I like to think that if I could just have shone with the brilliance of a thousand souls before the god emperor, I could have shown shone (get it??) them the goodness of true roleplaying.

I fired and fired, and missed, and my warriors fell and stumbled. A hulking xeno and a grizzled, bedecked, mechanical-eyed man stand alone in that moment as one of the four veterans slips quietly out of the battle, whose tides show it to be suitable for nothing more than a distraction.

The second in command snuck around the hard point into the engine room, looking for something juicy to set explosives on. Too bittersweet, the thought of salvation through destruction; when the captain’s ravings about capturing a dark eldar ship for the [questionable] glory of the dynasty are shown to be nothing more than madness.

[writera]

A krakenlike blob showing in its sinewy biomass the relative eras, colleagues, and influences of science fiction authors through time.

[writera]

A spectacular sunset captured in Oberlin, OH. I daresay this is one of my favorites.