Search results

Yeah, tables will be different. I was able to look at past campaigns I've run past 120 sessions and look where the were after Session 56, and that's been pretty consistent. I think there's a big difference between how quickly the rules progress PC RAW and how quickly tables want PCs to progress...

Of course, the corollary is also true. If you don't care (much) about what's in the default lore in the core game, you're probably equally unbothered by addition and subtraction thereto. (And you probably tend to find all those kinds of arguments uninteresting.)

Cahokia Jazz is the first, and so far only, book of Spufford's I've read (I saw a little preview thing about it not long after my wife and I spent much of our anniversary trip looking at places like Hopewell and Effigy Mounds, and I kinda felt the thunk as it hit me, I was clearly targeted) but...

There are some others where our tastes differ (though my experiences are not from last year, for whatever that's worth) but this was one of my favorites of the books I read last year. Just a beautiful novel, which I did not read in February. :LOL: (As it turns out, I read it in April.)

I generally try to get the PCs to 2nd level at the end of the first session, and to 3rd level by the end of the fourth session. After that, things slow down some and advancement become more tied to the narrative.

Engagement and interaction around the table. Whether the engagement is with narrative or game, whether the interaction is player-to-player or player-to-GM.

I have an ongoing campaign that started at level 1, and just did session 20, and just got to 7th level. I do sort of fiat-leveling: The PCs go up in level when I think they've done a thing (or enough small things) to deserve it. I have another ongoing campaign that just did session 132 and the...

The point conveyed.

I've said it before, and recently: People not being able to tell the difference between hero and antihero among protagonists is a problem, and not one restricted to analysis of fiction.

Not even this site: The problem with using that particular hero as an authority is that they often seem not to understand their own thinking.

It's been just over a year since I read Jemisin's The City We Became and The World We Make, and just under a year since I read Harrow's The Ten Thousand Doors of January, but I'm mostly just poking around in the local public libraries. I read Bester's The Demolished Man about the same time, and...

That would explain ... a lot.

There's a magazine called Taste of Home that might come pretty close to this. They are (or were last I looked inside any issues) very focused on people who do not have unlimited time or money to get food on the table. They also print cookbooks and/or "special issues."

Well, Papa is probably too drunk to bother, but yeah.

My wife sets reading goals on both a monthly and an annual basis, her goals focus around both content and quantity. Me, I just grab stuff that looks interesting, and I read in the evening when I'm not otherwise occupied.

I try not to post gibberish. Really, I do. Sometimes, though, I look back on something I've posted and realize my brain was generating words my fingers weren't typing. Or something.

Fair. And your OP is a reasonable reaction to someone who keeps getting into fights (online or plausibly otherwise), the problem indeed is probably them.

I was responding to something that seemed to be talking as much about IRL as online, and I was kinda hinting at the really out-there idea that we shouldn't blame victims for being victims.

I don't disagree, but it's probably worth considering that far too many people are stuck in some cycle or other, and victimization is at least sometimes a cycle.

I think there's some amount of expressing frustration with specific posters--but, as you say, without mentioning them, or even (ideally) being clear whom you're referencing.