Pineapple Express: Someone Is Wrong on the Internet?

[Velderan]

These types of things always make me pause for a moment and think "someone has to have done this, right?"

 

[overgeeked]

This is the software you want to put in charge of everything? LOL.

 

[Deset Gled]

This is the software you want to put in charge of everything? LOL.

Have you seen the decisions humans have been making lately?

 

[Staffan]

Sometimes, it’s NOT what you say, but the way that you say it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

So, if people sign up to play Daggerheart for four weeks at the FLGS, they are expecting an adventure. Ideally, four short short adventures, but even one long adventure with natural breaks would be fine, too.

What they are not hoping for is the worst possible version of a sandbox campaign: An NPC tricks us into thinking there's a mission, there are clues to various red herrings, an empty house that has a useless NPC trapped inside but who doesn't actually offer us any directions to go once we free her, and then the DM just smirks as we wander all over the world map, asking about NPCs that he knows all about, but which we neither know or care about.

There is no adventure. Nothing is written down. This dude is just riffing and expecting us to find something interesting to do for three hours. (Spoiler: We didn't find anything interesting to do, other than discover the DM is apparently into model trains and wanted us to be excited to engage with a toy train in a mine.)

The NPC who originally tricked us last week is apparently a big name and, based on how the DM's eyes twinkle when he says the character's name, is super powerful. I don't even care. Next week, we are going to lay in wait for this guy and we'll either kill him or he'll kill us. Either way, we'll be free.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Or just don't go back...

 

[Scribe]

Not today Satan.

 

[TiQuinn]

Sometimes it's not what you say, but the way that you say it.

 

[The Soloist]

So, if people sign up to play Daggerheart for four weeks at the FLGS, they are expecting an adventure. Ideally, four short short adventures, but even one long adventure with natural breaks would be fine, too.

What they are not hoping for is the worst possible version of a sandbox campaign: An NPC tricks us into thinking there's a mission, there are clues to various red herrings, an empty house that has a useless NPC trapped inside but who doesn't actually offer us any directions to go once we free her, and then the DM just smirks as we wander all over the world map, asking about NPCs that he knows all about, but which we neither know or care about.

There is no adventure. Nothing is written down. This dude is just riffing and expecting us to find something interesting to do for three hours. (Spoiler: We didn't find anything interesting to do, other than discover the DM is apparently into model trains and wanted us to be excited to engage with a toy train in a mine.)

The NPC who originally tricked us last week is apparently a big name and, based on how the DM's eyes twinkle when he says the character's name, is super powerful. I don't even care. Next week, we are going to lay in wait for this guy and we'll either kill him or he'll kill us. Either way, we'll be free.

In cases like that my character falls on his sword and dies instantly. Walk away.

 

[Maxperson]

These types of things always make me pause for a moment and think "someone has to have done this, right?"

View attachment 422825

And usually someone else has to approve the change.

Many years ago my cell phone company changed insurance carriers and I guess they had to inform their customers of what the new coverages would be, because I received a 30-40 page booklet in the mail. I dutifully tossed it onto my desk and forgot about it. Fast forward a few months and I'm sitting at my desk bored out of my mind, not feeling like playing any of my computer games and having nothing else to do. It's a testament to the state of my boredom that I looked at that booklet and thought, "I'm really bored, let me read about my phone insurance coverage."

The coverages started out pretty normal. I was covered for fire, theft, breakage, loss, etc. Then it went on to tell me that I wasn't covered if I gave it away, or if the FBI confiscated it. A few pages later, though, it got really strange. I was reading down the page and it said, "Your phone is not covered if it is destroyed in a nuclear explosion..." I paused to take that statement in, then kept reading and it continued, "...unless the nuclear explosion starts a fire and the fire destroys the phone." Because of course then I would be covered as it was lost in a fire.

All I could do was stare at that sentence and think two things. First, given the proximity of my phone to my person at all times, it wouldn't matter if it were destroyed directly or indirectly by that nuclear blast. They wouldn't need to worry about me filing a claim. Second, not only did someone have to think that up and think it was a good idea to put into the book, but at least one other person had to read and approve it.

I really can't think that there would be very many situations where a nuclear explosion happened and the phone was far enough away from the owner for that person to be in any condition to file a claim that phone was lost in a fire instead of directly.