Thursday, September 30, 2021
Wednesday, September 29, 2021
"AD&D is a mess. The DMG is a mostly random set of poorly collated notes and sometimes conflicting mechanics. The majority of AD&D's decent aspects are found in the first three LBBs. Sure the extra spells are nice but the combat is a broken mire of Gygax's obsessive maximalism and his strange ahistorical weapons obsessions (e.g. spears are bad because primitives used them, but every type of polearm must have a distinct statline). OD&D (The first 3 only - again Gygax ruins stuff with his weird house rules). It's precisely because it's not a compleationist mess that OD&D functions -- yes it has voids, but voids are unavoidable, and at least OD&D has a solid simple base set of rules to help referee's fill them. AD&D requires at least as much work to function ..."
"What would happen if these questions were on a post introduction page of the DMG? Would have been nice to read a useful examination of human attitudes in that tome."
Not going to deconstruct these comments. Jomo's, from earlier today, made a connection in my head between the two; I'm going to talk about that.
We're very familiar with these. The endless argument between this vs. that, expressed with great personal feeling but little hard evidence. The proverbial sentiment that this or that thing should have be covered in the original books, and maybe will, someday. These things speak of a kind of dependency: the need to associate ourselves with one thing versus another, the need to belong, to adopt a flag for a position with which we choose to identify, that gives us the emotional support of believing that while we are alone in running our independent games, we're still a member of a collective that we care about, that we feel passion for ... and that we feel duty-bound to defend, because what it says speaks for what we believe.
The idiocy of this is hard to see, even when the light is shining in our face. To shake readers out of their groove, I'll link this bit from Mitchell and Webb, and write out most of the dialogue, as I think it applies here.
Colin: well, I'm going to let you off after what we did to you last week.
Ray: I'm sorry?
Colin: I said, I'll forget that you're a Spurs fan after what we did to you.
Ray: What-what you did to me? You didn't do anything to me.
Colin: We're a man down, you blew the penalty, but we wopped you in extra time. That 90-second minute mate, oh you had it coming.
Ray: Perhaps you've mistaken me for a profession goalkeeper or something, but I wasn't actually on the pitch, you know.
Colin: We're gonna troll you in the lead ...
Ray: We? WE? You weren't on the pitch either. As far as I know, you were in the back bar of the Red Line, watching the game on the television with your mother.
Colin: ... I'm telling you Ray, the way we're playing these days, we're gonna be unstoppable this season.
Ray: For God's sake, shut up!
Colin: Twelve points ahead with a game in hand, you don't stand a chance. We've got it in us to go all the way.
Ray: Can I ask you a question, Colin? Do you remember when we were chasing the Germans, and we were punched through the windscreen, but then we fell under that lorry ... but climbed back onto it and beat the driver up?
Ray: When we were chasing the Nazis. They'd stolen the Ark of the Covenant and we were trying to get it back.
Colin: You've lost me.
Ray: In Raiders of the Lost Ark. It's a film I like, so I've decided that myself and anyone else who likes it was in it. Taking part. Do you like Raiders of the Lost Ark?
Colin: Not particularly.
Ray: Oh, you're not one of us. Right. Well, at the end, we're tied to a stake stuck in the ground, and then you lot open up the Ark of the Covenant and the wrath of God melts your face!
Colin: No. You can't do that.
Ray: Yes I can. I really like that film, so I'm in it.
Colin: It's not the same.
Ray: It's exactly the same! I've as much claim to be personally involved in Raiders of the Lost Ark as you've got to be in whatever it was your football team did last week.
Colin: You don't understand football.
Ray: Well, I'll admit, I don't quite follow how you, a man who lives over 200 miles away from the Home Ground of your chosen team and claims some deep attachment to a bunch of overpaid hired hands from all four corners of the globe, who temporarily wear the same coloured shirt as you're currently wearing. But then, maybe I'm a bit slow. It must be brain damage from all that boxing I did in Raging Bull.
People who had no part of creating individual versions of D&D, who weren't there, who have no ideas what decisions were made in the room, or what the agendas were, except in the words of singular individuals who "recall" what happened there, doing so with all the same "truthiness" of any person who's part of a group yet wants to sing their personal praises and importance to that group, or the importance of people they like ... these people who invest in all that nonetheless, unknowing, as a FLAG they carry into fight after fight of this version of D&D vs. that ... confound the shit out of me. I, too, must have been hit too often in Rocky IV. I am the Russian, after all. Likewise, people who WISH, fervently, that more had been covered in the books, that more of this or that detail had been sorted out, who can't for the life of them figure out that perhaps adding that content WAS included, perhaps brilliantly, perhaps insipidly, but the battleground of publishing, editors, money-men and market research gutted it out of the final product.
In the end, why, WHY, give a shit? Anchoring yourself to one system, no matter what the reason, when six or seven hundred mainstream systems have been built and marketed — and ten times, hell a hundred times that as a number of off-mainstream content — is a recipe for ignorant, stubborn, dissonant mulish stupidity. Any soul who's run any version of D&D for more than a few years ought to recognize that EVERY system is trash, as written. EVERY system is insufficient. EVERY system sucks. Why give a shit? Why continue to fight and troll and quibble about one pile of fecular material over another.
Get rid of your goddamned flag. Run the game of D&D. A version of the game that you make, that you've rewritten, that works the way you think it ought to ... and steal from every other system that offers you something you can use. What the hell are you fighting for, when you stick your head up hoping to sell your version over someone else's? What the hell are you thinking anyone else is ever going to do for you? Why don't you put all of that crap aside, stop identifying yourself by someone else's shit game, and start identifying yourself by YOUR game.
I run the Alexis D. Smolensk version of D&D. It is a Frankenstein's assembly of parts that were never intended to function as a single body, and I don't care. Nor do I care about your version of D&D, or your version, or the version of that dude over there. I'm not waiting for some doofus working for some company paying minimum wage to tell me how to answer a question about what a DM ought to do, or how weapons in the game ought to work, or how important this or that part of the game ought to be. I'm free. I am a one-DM revolution.
And you're a fucking moron if you don't start thinking for yourself.
Tuesday, September 28, 2021
I got a couple new supporters for the Kickstarter today. Let me say thank you. Both to the ones today and those who have already pledged. I have some promises from others that I'm relying on. I'm past two thirds now; there's 24 days to go. Most tell me the first half's worth counting on, not the second half ... and I suppose that's true for some folks. Me, I don't give a damn. Seems to me people are always telling me what is and what isn't true, while most of the time being wrong. I'm more sure today that I was last week that I'm going to get there. Nor is that "positive thinking." Hell, I don't believe thoughts make reality. I believe in reaching out, communication, answering questions and doing all that I can to make things happen.
Just now, I'm thinking about taking the leap and setting the venture in motion. That would mean having product in my hand before the kickstarter ends ... which seems less and less like a risk every day.
Meanwhile, I'm not beating the reader over the head every day, as I've seen many bloggers do. From my perspective, its best that people remember why they support me. By writing.
For now, I'll leave it here. I'm struggling to keep this blog positive; yesterday's post was a brief expression of the bitterness I feel about current events. Sometimes, I'm overwhelmed. Feelin' a bit of that now. If I write something this minute, it's going to be filled with resentment.
Best I let that go.
Monday, September 27, 2021
Saturday, September 25, 2021
1. A die is rolled and a player's character dies. The player grumbles about the character's death, saying, "It's not fair."2. A player rolls a die in a critical situation and gets a result that's disasterous. The player seizes the die, shouts "fuck!" and hurls the die at the game table.3. During the game's running, one player begins copying their old character sheet onto a fresh sheet; this results in having to take extra effort to gain the player's attention on multiple occasions, as the player's input is required for play.4. Over several sessions, one player makes a habit of questioning the boundary of rule after rule, clearly seeking ways to "get the most" out of the language used to describe each rule while apparently overlooking the rule's spirit or game purpose.5. One of the group's players makes a special effort to move away from the party, to investigate places or speak with NPCs separately from the others.6. One player wants to use his character to kill another player's character.7. One player acts contrary to the general party's wishes on the premise of, "My character wouldn't do that."8. At multiple opportunities, the character seizes on a word or phrase used by the dungeon master and inserts a reference from a film, TV or a meme as a joke. The players usually laugh.9. A player brings his significant partner to a game session; he or she doesn't want to play, or watch, and instead spends the session sitting across the room interacting with their phone.10. While in the town square, the party encounters a large crowd waiting for the local Prince to address them from a balcony. When the prince steps into view, one of the players wants to shoot a magic missile at him.11. An opportunity arises to "switch the rooms" so that the one the party chooses is essentially the one we want them to choose.12. After giving the party three of a certain kind of monster, they destroy all three without effort through terrifically lucky die rolls; there's an easy opportunity to have three more of the same monster arrive.13. With creepy regularity, a player's die rolls are absurdly lucky; there's no evidence whatsoever of cheating.14. A character repeatedly makes tactical decisions in combat that minimizes personal danger while fellow players find themselves bereft of someone watching their back.15. One or more players speak in excessively purple English.
Friday, September 24, 2021
"Aleena can’t find Bargle, and is starting to look worried. Suddenly, the sound of a spell comes from a far corner of the room! The cleric turns and runs in that direction, waving her mace and shouting. the black-robed magic-user appears in the same corner as the spell noise, with a glowing arrow floating in the air beside him. He points at Aleena; the arrow shoots out, and hits her! She wails and falls with a sigh, collapsing in the middle of the room. The glowing arrow disappears."
Yes, I grasp that this is an "example of play." Yes, I understand the text above is super-imposed next to game rules. I get the "cleverness."
As someone who did not learn to play the game from someone's text example, but from direct contact with other players and a DM for many months before reading through any complete book, I have a very different perspective on the "importance" of Mentzer's flavour text. That is, it isn't important. In fact it's a wrongdoing.
No one, absolutely no one is going to accept this, especially if they read the above words at a young age. For most, the text makes D&D "come alive." It translates just what player characters feel, helping new players comprehend what the dice represent, awakening their imaginations. These are not just die rolls, they are moments of tremendous drama! Etcetera.
No one, absolutely no child, needs to be taught this. There are no examples of this kind in the rules for the Game of RISK, yet I'm quite sure every one of my readers has memories of soldiers freezing to death in Irkutsk or drowning between North Africa and Brazil. All of my readers, I'm sure, have made the sounds of soldiers dying as little pieces of wood or plastic (depending on how old you are) were killed off in large numbers. We have television, movies and books to teach us how drama works. I'll remind you that D&D came into existence because the inventors of Chain Mail could not keep themselves from anthropomorphising little chits of cardboard.
What Mentzer's little play does is tell you what to think specifically, in the prejudiced framework of Mentzer's imagination — and NOT YOURS. You were never given the chance to invent your own framework. Mentzer jumped in and did it for you. And today you think that's fine, because it's all nostalgia to you, and you've been programmed to think that's fine, you dumb, brainwashed prat.
Why should Aleena look worried? Because women look worried when they can't find someone? Why doesn't she get mad? Why does the sound of the spell come "suddenly"? Do spells get passed suddenly? Or ought they to take time, like the rules of an earlier version of the game, AD&D, says they do? Should the cleric run? Is that the best action? Did you even question that when you read it? NO, you didn't, because this is the format of how a book is written, and in a book, when the characters do something, you take it for granted.
Only, THIS ISN'T A BOOK! It's a game. And it's not supposed to be teaching you how other people would play, it's supposed to be teaching you the rules so that you can figure out, like a blank slate, how YOU would play. Would you "wail"? Would you "fall with a sigh"? Isn't that up to you, not Mentzer?
As an adult, you're completely convinced this has had no effect on your thinking process — except I can show you libraries full of psychology research that says yes, it does. As a child, you had no frame of reference for this. You couldn't decide if this was a legitimate way to teach this game or not; and as an adult, shoving this shit at your children, rather than just teaching them the rules without this shit, you think you're doing a good thing. But then, at least they have you as a frame of reference. In my day (and I'm a fucking ridiculous old man), we didn't have parents to give a frame of reference. We didn't have a voice to ask, "She wails? What gooey girlie sexist bullshit representation is this? Don't girls grunt too?"
It's hard, I know, to comprehend how cultural and socialized signatures get shoved through this kind of thing.
"You pass through one empty room, and then find the bodies of the cleric and the goblin in the next. But you see dark, quiet shapes in the darkness beyond: it's the ghouls! Quickly, you put the cleric's body over your shoulder and run for your life."
By the time you get to this narrative on page 7, the rules descriptions have evaporated. Mentzer is just writing fiction at this point, and bad fiction at that. In any case, the above doesn't describe any parties I've ever fucking played with. Run? From ghouls? Are you kidding me? And what about the freakin' rules about picking up a cleric? How much does the cleric weigh? How much shit is he carrying. Even at 16 someone playing would have asked this. Does Mentzer take the time, obstensibly with this book "teaching" children how to play? No. He's too busy getting his time in the sun, soaking up all of page 7 with his novelist fantasies.
But it's okay. He's telling you what to feel. What to think. What D&D is "all about" ... from the prejudiced point of view of one man who we don't fucking know from Adam in February 1983.
This is the sort of shit that makes me lose it. Particularly as I realize that this is a sacred cow, beyond reproach, that no one's allowed to disparage, ever, for any reason, A-fucking-men.
I'll remember to genuflect after I press publish.
Tuesday, September 21, 2021
1) Encourage every participant around your gaming table to attempt DMing, even if this means initially simplifying the game to the level of 1974's Chain Mail.2) Give them sufficient practice to get better.3) Instead of using computers to simulate DMs, so that users can play, create simulations of players, so that users can DM.
Monday, September 20, 2021
Sunday, September 19, 2021
Saturday, September 18, 2021
"Play invites us to draw an overdue conclusion that the potential meaning and value of things, anything — relationships, the natural world, packaged goods — is in them, rather than in us. Play is not a kind of self-expression, nor a pursuit of freedom. It is a kind of creation, a kind of craftsmanship. By adopting, inventing, constructing and reconfiguring the material and conceptual limits around us, we can fashion novelty from anything at all ... the task of the craftsman is not to generate the meaning, but rather to cultivate in himself the skill for discerning the meanings that are already there."
Friday, September 17, 2021
"Does this mean that D&D will be at a dead end when the last of AD&D® is published? Hardly! Modules and similar material will continue to be released so as to make the DM’s task easier and his or her campaign better. Quite frankly, the appeal of D&D rests principally upon the broad shoulders of the hard-working Dungeon Masters. The rules never need improvement if the DM is doing a proper job, but of course he or she can do so only if the rules are sufficient to allow this. With refined rules and modular additions, all aspects of a long lived and exciting campaign will unquestionably be there for the DM to employ. Will D&D dead end when its novelty dies? That is impossible to answer. It is my personal opinion that the game form is a classic which is of the same stamp as chess and MONOPOLY®; time will be the judge. No doubt that there is a limit to the appeal of the game in any of its current forms. If tens of millions play a relatively simple, social sort of a game such as MONOPOLY, it is a sure thing that a far more difficult game such as D&D will have a much more limited audience. As the game cannot be simplified beyond a certain point, we look to another means of popularizing it."
Getting past Gygax as crystal ball gazer, whether or not you think he's right or wrong, do you feel enlightened? Is your understanding of the game's future enhanced? Do you see clearly what responsibilities you have to help the game along? Of course not. Gygax is doing no more there than tooting wind from his ass, like any politician or sales marketer, bent on filling a page with drivel that sounds good but says nothing he can be held accountable for. And why shouldn't he? The magazine's purpose was to sell advertising while massaging the reader's interest ... the article isn't a serious, deeply contemplated answer to the title questions. It's an eyeball-grabbing title that encourages the reader to dive in, and at least feel like Gygax has his finger on the pulse of the industry. Even if he doesn't actually say anything about the industry. Hell, it's not like he thought anyone would be reading this 43 years later.
The problem with D&D from the beginning was that it never believed anything it's inventors said in an absolute sense. No fixed, firm, concrete set of rules were ever put forth. The makers admitted, frankly, that the game needed DMs to fill in the gaps, to fix what they couldn't do, or didn't think of ... even to the point of flat-out arguing they had no ultimate responsibility to do better, "if the DM is doing a proper job." What a flatulent, ducking statement that is! This is the inventor of the fucking game, and his best answer to the problem of making the DM's task easier is to argue that the game's appeal — HIS game's appeal — rests on the shoulders of total strangers pucking out money for HIS game. What a spineless, negligent, candy-ass little coward he is, as he takes the gamer's money with one hand while callously dumping his responsibility upon others. There's a fraudster for you ... dumps his load on you and then praises you for carrying it, while taking your money for the privilege. And this is the man who got endless praise when he died.
The fuckedupedness of D&D has nothing to do with what the players did to get out from under rules they didn't enjoy, or couldn't make sense of, or didn't work well in game practice. Never forget that the "broad shoulders" of those "hardworking DMs" more often than not belonged to children, 25-30 years younger than Gygax was when he wrote the words above (I was 26 years younger when he wrote this, starting to play D&D in the same year this article was published). The phrasing clearly proves that he didn't know or he didn't care that his game was being dumped on such persons. His take on the game was stuffed chock full of pathos while agonizingly lacking in reason ... and we are still the victims of his and his cronies' attitude regarding the game's inception.
Covering that up has been Job #1 for the D&Dites from the beginning, who were so grateful that the game came into being at all that any factual discussion of the clumsy, amateurish, rash, neglectful and predatory way the game came into being is utterly set aside so we can endlessly argue over the nuances of one early game issue vs. another. Such pedantry firmly and blindly ignores the fuck-you practice of the makers, who were more concerned with going to print than with responsibly taking the necessary time to set up a functional game that had a chance of lasting as long as Monopoly. Instead, we got an inconsistent mess. Which high-sounding members of the community explain with handwaving gestures, while inventing creative endlessly positive excuses for early D&D constructive failures, like desert herdmen willingly swallowing an argument from a hobo that his mother never had sex.
All in all, it's a little sickening.
This is why yesterday, when I explained what a proper primer for D&D should sound like, I asked that personal sentiment be left out, concentrating upon that which can be practically described. Because when we teach things we want people to learn, we scrub out the pathos. We reason that they will think of their own pathos when the time comes; investing students with our prejudice is not teaching.
Thursday, September 16, 2021
"... I am more than a little fatigued by individuals who started playing D&D in the last 20 years telling me how and what "old school" D&D is ... or even just what ANY kind of D&D is. But you try to correct someone's ignorance and they just tell you to fuck off because, you know, it's just an opinion and you're telling them how their particular brand of fun is bad-wrong-dumb. Please let us NOT be preached to."
Well, yes. To someone with 20 years experience, that seems like a long time. To a high school student, 3 years of high school seems like a long time. I'm sure that to anyone with 62 years of experience in D&D, I sound quite ignorant. That's how it goes. You can't explain to a millennial that when actors used to play a sex or a nationality or a race that was not their own, that was acting, not racism. You can't explain to a Gen-Xer that when, after the sex act, if the sex partner LIKED what happened, then it wasn't rape, by definition, because no one involved thought so. People with limited comprehension due to their limited time on the planet will be annoyingly ignorant of how ignorant they are, and there's nothing to be done about it. Eventually, the world will hit them in the face often enough they'll get wise, so they can roll their eyes at people dumber still.
Far more interesting is the question JB asks: "have people forgotten how to play D&D?" ... and in relation to this a list of four "usual elements": a group of players, peril, a responsible DM and a set of rules. JB then spends two posts infering that these things are under siege ... while the comments section of both posts he's written (with a third to come) seems to support that yes, game culture is busy shattering our former conception of the game.
Okay, agreed. People out there aren't playing D&D the way we used to. On this front, unquestionably, 5e was a literal gamechanger. But then, not because it's all that different a game, but because the politics of "friendly gaming" were ruthlessly beaten into the heads of 7-12 year olds, the demographic the company decided to focus on in 2014 ... a demographic that's starting to graduate high school today. This focus included drastically changing norms regarding social interactions between gamers at game cons and stores, on a draconian level, if you'll forgive the pun. Anyone who disagreed with the policies of safe cards and game league conduct rules were — and are — ostracized according to the ancient Greek model. Should we wonder that these children, just now entering young adulthood, should view the game very differently, especially when their authority model dictated that any and all negativity must be expunged from a game traditionally full of negativity?
The present generation of new players have been warped by a meat grinder that viciously slams individualism unless it follows approved guidelines ... and we're well aware that those guidelines include that EVERYONE must be included and NO ONE should ever be hurt by the activity. So much for rules, a DM's judgment or peril. The only thing left is "group play" ... which is mediocritized to the kindergarten level of human communication.
The fish has been caught, gutted, speared and roasted until it looks nothing like a fish. This was the company's agenda.
And you motherfuckers, with your shock and surprise and confusion, wondering what happened to the dear old game, and oh gosh it isn't like it used to be, argued tooth and nail with me for 12 years when I told you, repeatedly and at length, that it was happening.
"Oh no," you said. "5e is just like the old game. 5e is rich and wonderful and filled with new things."
Yep. Wonderful and new. Arranged for singing high-C.
Well, it doesn't matter. Because none of these "experience-not-play" participants will have the least influence over what the game is ten, twenty or fifty years from now. They have no creditable knowledge to adapt, no intellectual principles upon which to expand, no sense of self-advancement that's been gained, no wisdom to share, no purpose to reveal and nothing of interest to say. They are political creatures. Expect them to gather together and form a clique of some kind that demands "Equal Respect among Other D&D Players" or some other such bullshit, like their other political peers raised in the same infantile political atmosphere.
They certainly have nothing to do with me or what I'm doing.
Tuesday, September 14, 2021
A group of blind men have never heard of an elephant. With their first encounter, each reaches out to touch the creature, to learn its shape. The first touches the trunk and says, "Aha, an elephant is like a snake." The second touches the leg and says, "No, the elephant is like a pillar." The third reaches up and touches the elephant's ear and says, "No, it is like a fan." The fourth, standing by the elephant's side, says, "You're all wrong, an elephant is like a wall." A fifth, touching the tale, pronouces that the elephant is "like a rope." And the last, holding onto to the tusk, explains that the elephant is like a spear.
The tale is Indian in origin, and stealing from Wikipedia and the Rigveda, "Reality is one, though wise men speak of it variously." We continuously take an extremely complicated game, D&D, unquestionably the most complicated in human history, and present cases for what the dice do, or how characters should be run, or the value of problem solving, and a hundred other features, and boil them down to positive-negativist arguments that make no sense. Then we make dogma from these, such as "role-play not roll play," and pretend we've said something pithy and factual, when in fact we've demonstrated spectacularly what a bunch of ignorant blind folk we are.
Any single argument I've made on this blog is a waste if the other arguments that are also made are dismissed in the reader's mind. I am not describing an elephant's leg. I'm reminding the reader to stop speaking of D&D, or any role-playing game, variously — that is to say, characterised by its features. If another metaphor is needed, then understand that the different parts of D&D are not labeled beetles stabbed with pins. Every element and feature of D&D reflects upon every other feature ... and the process of elevating any one part only ensures that the game as potential is not being played. You haven't the elephant if all you feel is its trunk.
Because it so happens the menu is the example at the moment, some might presuppose that I've created a quaint little doo-dad that's all pretty and stuff, but surely has nothing more to offer than a bit of novelty. Au contraire, I argue. If this is your thought, you have nothing more than the elephant's tail in your hand.
Let's take this example I posted months ago:
A restaurant is not merely food on a plate. It is the culmination of human effort and knowledge, stretching back through a thousand generations of invention and risk. What is it that makes these items rise to the fore and remain there for centuries as familiar, tasty fare? Do you suppose these things are arbitrary? Could you not sit down this moment to a fattened trout or a forequarter of lamb? Such meals are familiar because the human pallet appreciates them, expands consciously upon them, grants them memory and substance in the imagination because we've had them.
And if you did sit down to such a meal, surely you'd recognize the trout and lamb came from somewhere; and that this somewhere is a part of the world that you can visit, touch and feel. That, like with mustard farms, there are matters of import associated with their recovery, well-being and transport. The very fact of these meals in the game world lends greater credence to the game world itself, manifesting itself as something that matters ... so that there is more here in the human soul than a mere list of foods.
Like anything else I've done, or written, or set as a standard for running a game, this menu has it's small place in that world's construction. And like this blog, the goal of creating it is not just to provide substance for my world, but to provide a larger scheme of thoughts for others. No one here doubts, do they, that I'm a teacher? Well, I'd like more students. I'd like to shake the game world up, by demonstrating what's possible, beyond more modules and puzzles. Beyond the arguments that D&D ought to be simplified. Beyond dice. Beyond the discovery of rooms. Beyond two-dimensions perceptions of game parts as fetishes.
The uninitiated, those who have never heard of me, picking up and holding this menu in their hands, will have their perception of the game world blown ... because the menu does not merely describe the game world, it IS the game world. A part of it, that can be held physically in one's hands.
What other unsuspected physical objects, apart from the obvious weapons and armour, lay out there waiting to be invented? What undisturbed imaginations might be stirred by the presence of this unique item in their hands? I don't know.
I want to know. I want to make it available to a great many more people than have perused my blog or understand my gaming philosophy. For that, I need help. A little help. I've already had some. I still need a little more. So take a moment, shake $20 or more from your wallets, and let's do something that gives sight to the blind. Let's wake some people up. Let's expand this game. Great things being with one little nail in a single horseshoe. I've made the nail.
Help me get it into the hands of others.
Monday, September 13, 2021
"The new Texas law that is going to force all the in-state abortion clinics to close is very unpopular nationally. A clear majority of people want to keep abortion safe and legal. By talking endlessly about women who were raped and then forced to bear their rapist's child, the Democrats have a talking point that could potentially overshadow Afghanistan and everything else and allow them to hold the House and Senate in 2022.
"However, a small group of activists don't like talking about abortions as something only women have. They want to include people who were assigned female at birth and who now identify as male but can still be raped, get pregnant, and want an abortion. So in their view, men can also get pregnant and need abortions. To their way of thinking, talking about the need for women to get abortions marginalizes the need for some men to get abortions as well."