Thursday, February 27, 2025

Why I Ruin D&D for Everyone

I went to see the dentist yesterday for a cleaning.  I've been going to the same office for a decade now, and have never been restrained about what I do or what I'm interested in.  My dentist even bought a copy of my menu.  So yesterday when the new hygienist began our conversation with, "You're the D&D expert, aren't you?", it wasn't much of a surprise.

Being in her 40s, she was interested in talking about her son's interest in the game and in her own attempts to play it... with the latter concentrating on how hard she found it to make decisions.  "I didn't know what to do," she told me, slipping the napkin around my neck.  "I had to ask others to tell me, so I found it all very confusing."  I thought it might end there, but she really dug into the game, asking me if I thought much of it ought to be based on die rolling or decision-making, if there was a right way to play, what it was like being a dungeon master (she had to be reminded what the term was) and so on.  She was plainly trying to figure out her son's interest, but of course I was more interested in hers.

I pointed out that most of the time we're not put in a position where we have to make life-critical decisions in real life.  Each day we get up and know more or less what we're going to do.  Decision-making is limited to whether or not it's a good idea to get a second donut with our coffee today, or should we wear the white shirt rather than the blue one (though we nearly always wear the one we most like that's clean today), or if we should phone our mother today or put it off until tomorrow.

Nearly all of the time, that's as far as we go.  Any deeper decisions, such as should we move to a better neighbourhood, should we start changing our diet, should we go to Gimli this year like every year or spend a lot more and see Belize, we kick daily down the road until we're "ready" to address that more difficult thing.  We know we will, we know we can, but really, it's still February and that's not going to happen until late July (though, really, go to Belize in Jan-Feb), so we don't have to face that problem right now.  We'll manage in it April.  Or later.

D&D, however, played in the traditional way, demands a decision every couple of minutes.  What we store in our packs, what weapon we pick as our character's mainstay, what spell we choose, what order we freaking walk in when we enter the dungeon... these decisions are crucial — and ever more so as we become familiar with the game and recognise, down the line, that we have picked the wrong weapon because it doesn't work in this small space or its too heavy, or it doesn't hit with enough game resonance to count.

This decision-making process isn't just paralysing, it's alien to the experience that most people have day to day.  It's something a child manages better, because school (still, though not as much) puts them in situations where they have to answer for themselves, explain why they said something, accept the adjudication of elders and figure out how to improve their lives by getting around these three impositions.  They are forced to make decisions because so much of their lives are not in their own hands; but once they become adults, and make the really big choices (what am I going to do for money), that daily decision effort fades away, year by year.  By the time they're in their 30s, they're mostly free of it.  And they especially don't like being pushed by others into making decisions they don't care to make.

That's why a lot of closely knit friendships tend to evaporate in their 30s.  The process of getting up in the morning, getting the kids off to school, doing the two or three things to maintain the house in order, going to work, getting food ready, finding a moment's peace and so on becomes routine and decision-free — and tiring — and it begins to feel like we don't want to decide which bar we're going to drink at tonight or what special thing we're going to do.  It's easier to go to the same bar.  It's easier if no new people show up, who have to be spoken with in a special way.  It's easier if no decision, after our long day, needs making.

And single people?  Well, they have time to make decisions, don't they?

So, when people stay with D&D into their 20s and 30s, their approach to the game starts to shift too.  Having figured out the basic details, those already discussed, and knowing who ought to lead when entering the dungeon — well, they pretty must just want to run in a dungeon, right?  I mean, we know basically what happens, and what's expected of us, and what the right decision is, so it feels like our... well, like our daily grind, but less boring.  D&D has the viscerality of slaughtering something, collecting something new, solving some small puzzle (within reason) and the camaraderie of others who "get" the game as we do.  We don't want to make a lot of deep, complex decisions... a mystery is fine, but we're not really looking for a gut-wrenching dilemma to solve, one that's going to prey on us after the game is over, making us wonder, "Did we do the right thing?"  We don't want that.  We just want a good, gently immersive game, that allows us to put all that other stuff aside and narrow the walls of stress and difficulty down to manageable proportions.

I didn't explain all this to the hygienist, but I did point out the way she must have felt when she didn't know what decision to make.  She admitted, she didn't want to do anything "wrong."  That is a big thing in the minds of a lot of players.  They don't want to screw up, they don't want to look foolish... and they really don't want to let down others by failing to do what they should have done.

There are always those who solve this problem by doing stupid things, all the time — because if they do this deliberately, it's not a mistake, its a character choice.  It is far, far easier to look at a situation and solve the puzzle, "What is the dumbest possible thing I could do right now?", than it is to solve the more difficult conundrum, "What would be the smartest thing?"  By doing the former, it discards the necessity of doing the latter.  Problem solved.

Get these people out of your game as soon as you can.  If you examine their real lives any, you'll find that they're systematically ruining their futures in all kinds of ways you don't want to be near, when it happens.

This is also the reason why players drift towards performative D&D.  It is the game done for show, rather than out of any genuine conviction or commitment.  Such persons are seeking social approval or  signal virtue, evident by the way they disparage those who find such things unimportant or even tacitly repulsive (like I do).  Unable to be politicians, such players still want their opportunities to make grand speeches, to preen, to cock the walk, to feel important when in fact they know they're not.  They may not be capable of getting attention in the real world, but they've discovered that D&D offers them a small enough audience to enable them to effectively impress, where no real competition exists.  They can't act their way out of a paper bag; they'd look moronic and gauche on a real stage; in a public venue as small as a coffee shop they'd induce everyone to roll their eyes and want them to just go... but at a D&D table, these people are Stars!  It's their one real chance to have the life they fantasise about living.

It's easy to see how the present evolved game has carefully scrubbed out the decision-making element.  There are no real consequences for bad play, retconning is considered an imperative for every "responsible" DM and the goal is "fun" not risk and consequence.  Oh, the word "risk" is still employed... but again, in a performative, superficial sort of way.  Like a dumbshow, a pantomime we play through, knowing nothing can go wrong.  But then, playing the game this way, we don't want things to go wrong.  When the ball rolls around and bounces on the roulette table and ends up in "00", we still win.

It really is a kind of hell.  It's literally a Twilight Zone episode, A Nice Place to Visit, where the gangster gets excited at first about his afterlife because he consistently wins at the roulette wheel and the slot machine.  Inevitably, though, this gets boring, forcing him to examine what's really going on.

As a DM, I don't do any of this.  I like making decisions, and I like being pushed into things where I have to make one.  I like situations that are difficult to solve, which I can puzzle out for hour after hour.  It is one of the reasons I write or read fiction, so that I can decide how the thing that motivates the main character drives this behaviour and that consequence, which ends in a resounding, satisfying ending. It's why I read books that don't follow a hero's journey, that often end in tragedy or remorse, because it's unexpected and revealing as regards human nature and character.

S o when I run a game, no, I don't want to create a dungeon and run people through it.  If it isn't a dungeon, it isn't constructed like a dungeon ought to be.  When I propose a problem, I don't create the solution also; I don't bother.  I want to impose something consequential, that might really happen — some sort of cruelty is taking place, perpetrated by one people onto another — where no solution exists because through the human experiment, no solution ever has existed.  Yet the player's hands are unbound; they're not expected to solve it, they're expected to manage themselves within it.  This fascinates me endlessly, and it fascinates the players who try my game and like it.

I don't need to make everybody happy, just a small collection of people.  Those people can be picked and chosen to be just like I am.  Those who want to engage on a weightier, meatier level will find the peculiar sort of enjoyment at my table they can't get anywhere else.  Because it's not wanted.

That's the thing.  I ruin D&D because I keep pointing out, with arguments that explain how frivolous, shallow and unengaged most players are, and want to be, that whatever they're doing isn't remotely the sort of game that D&D could be.  I don't see the game as a diversion or just a thing to do Saturday when we're not playing poker or watching a film together.  It's an art form for me, an intellectual pursuit, a thing that requires expertise and effort to do well.  Exactly what most people do not want the game to be, primarily because that's not what they want their lives to be.  They're not interested in being "better" as people.  They're doing all they can just to keep from being bored when they cook enough food to fill their bellies.

Moreover, I won't just shut up.  I won't let people just throw out a few words to defend their performative style of play and accept in on a principle I don't agree with.  I won't live and let live.  They're wrong, and everything decent thing that exists in this world, that comes about because of EXPERTISE and EFFORT, those things those people don't want to be part of, proves it.  Hold up a mirror to these people and they know they're being shallow and selfish.  The only argument they have it so tell me to put my mirror away, so they don't have to look at it.

Anyway, no, I did not say all of this to the hygeinist.  I pointed out that she usually didn't make decisions about things where the consequences mattered, and that's why the game made her uncomfortable.  She agreed.  She's just an everyday person, with no skin in the game, so it's easier for her — bereft of emotional props and rationalisations — to just see that, hm, yes, it was hard to decide what the right thing to do was.  There was no sense of being judged, no reason not to just see that... as her subsequent conversation showed.  I wanted to suggest that she might just try again, being a little more aware that the decisions she needed to make weren't that consequential... but if she wants to try the game again, if her son will let her, then she will without my urging it.

I wish that when I talk to D&D players, I didn't have to spend so much time getting around all the bullshit they've been told and which they've embraced... because it really creates a divide between D&D as a game and D&D as a culture.  The latter has utterly ruined the former... not just for noobs, but for themselves, because really, there's nowhere to take the performative game.  It just lurches on until it becomes undead, like a television show entering it's 8th season.  Everyone quits and for the rest of their lives they say things to me like, "Oh, D&D?  It's all right I guess.  I played it a bit in university... but after awhile, I just didn't see the point."

Mm hm.  That's mostly it.  What's the point.  It's not like it matters.  Sort of like those ten books most people can remember having read in high school or college; To Kill a Mockingbird and what not.  The ten pieces of literature upon which all their decision-making wisdom is based upon — that bleak, hard to comprehend lexicon that makes Star Wars, the Marvel Universe, Transformers and the Game of Thrones look like such gems of emotive, signalling genius.

Ah.

I ask for too much.

Tuesday, February 25, 2025

From a D&D Influencer

It's wonderful when I get emails like this:



Gosh.  I'm thrilled to have risen so high in the esteem of my colleagues.  'Course, this rings with all the flair of writing to Haing S. Ngor to tell him they're about to make The Killing Fields into a musical.

But then, having spent decades writing about the game in a meaningful way, as a rich, immersive experience, perhaps I shouldn't see this as a little shallow... or insulting.  After all, why not be proud of the vague "D&D Influencer" moniker, even though in this case it hasn't quite shown enough influence to encourage these improve actors to read a single post from my blog.

After all, they're only trying to co-opt the D&D brand without respecting the first thing about it, that brand having become significant enough to justify its blatant exploitation.  Why would that bother me?

More importantly, why should it bother any of you, dear readers?  Most of you aren't invested in this game all that much, yes?  I mean, you don't care if they shit all over your last Friday night by putting a paycheque in their pockets.  Just imagine the blast you'd have seeing this... if you lived anywhere near Walnut Creek, California, that is.  Damn near the centre of the universe.  On the other hand, if you happen to live in Basingstoke, Timmins or Chongju, at least you can feel a warm, fuzzy feeling knowing that scores of people are laughing themselves silly between shouting "orc!" or "burn down the tavern!" 

Entertainment at its finest.

So sure, c'mon, listen to your influencer here.  Clap your hands loud enough to make yourself heard in Gralnut Wove, it's the least you can do.

Sunday, February 23, 2025

Wiki Work, Revisited

There, it's been 18 days since I posted the last one of these.  The total pages has risen, I have reviewed and reworked a ton of files, including 19 I chose not to finish on the first pass.  The unedited pages have dropped somewhat below a thousand and I feel I'm making headway.   I could not be working at this speed without ChatGPT to correct language while generating ideas out of the blue.  None of this is critical writing, so the goal is to provide as much cultivated depth to the game world, while I'm here to make sure nothing steps out of the intended continuity.

I've had little to say of late about how to run the game, what the game is meant to accomplish or even providing context for gaming.  All I can do now is try to express the difficulty of keeping oneself focused on plain work... while stressing that the goal is to do anything that's necessary to keep one at it.  For example, here I'm posting this work schedule and talking about it as I go because the sharing of this process is itself supportive of my desire to continue it.

With experience, logical or not, the principle obstacle that any DM has to overcome is the will to keep going.  The size of the project is simply incomprehensible, and too much thought on that is bound to sink one's motivations.  862 pages is a lot.  But since the first week in January I've addressed 250 such pages, which serves as a reminder that most of the time, the actual work for each one of these pages is not that much.  Most of these need the lightest of tweaking, a little shifting of phrases around and a bit of continuity regarding added tables and details.

A few more complicated pages have been floating in the background with the words, "Okay, eventually" stamped on them.  Of course, "eventually" never arrives and it's easy just to ignore them month after month... even year after year, as the wiki's time stamps demonstrate.  This is why I invented the "incomplete" stage... for those rules and pages that really need a long-term approach, both due to their complexity and the sheer unpleasantness of working upon them.  This makes a little slashing away at them, shrinking the pile of work they require, a little more tolerable.  The approach allows us to say, "okay, I don't have to finish this today; I just have to do enough to make it easier to finish tomorrow."

The relief this provides is enormous.  And as I've adopted a random approach to this, it means I don't precisely know when tomorrow is going to arrive. It may literally be the next day; it may not be for a year.  But eventually, it's going to appear on the "oldest" roster — when at last it is met, if only a little, after a very long, much-appreciated rest.

I'll say first, if you're not building your game world on a computer and a wiki, you're a fool.  Yes, I know I've had trouble with them... the technology hasn't been trustworthy, at least not for me, and I would not accept, for too long, the need to pay the price for them.  But I cannot express how possible it has been for this process to produce the immensity of this project... and the potential it has to be so much larger, so long as I don't have to copy this whole monster again to some other platform.  Cross my fingers.

Saturday, February 22, 2025

Gems

Now and then, I wring these magnificent gems out of chat... most of the time, they just emerge spontaneously:

A modern Crime and Punishment would be a goddamn gotcha story, where Raskolnikov is revealed to have thought about killing the pawnbroker but, in a last-minute twist, never actually did it. Or maybe he did, but—plot twist!—he was secretly justified all along because the pawnbroker was running a child slavery ring, and suddenly he’s a tragic antihero instead of a man wrestling with guilt and ideology.

Or worse, the entire thing would be framed as trauma recovery. Instead of exploring moral consequence and existential despair, we’d get a narrative bending over backwards to reassure us that Raskolnikov was just a victim of circumstance, mental illness, and the crushing weight of society. He wouldn’t suffer because of what he did—he’d suffer because of what happened to him, shifting the entire burden of responsibility away from his own choices.

That’s the disease in modern storytelling: a deep-seated fear of letting a character be wrong. Writers today don’t want true moral ambiguity. They want antiheroes who are only bad because they have to be, because the world left them no choice. There’s no real punishment anymore, because that would mean acknowledging that the character actually did something worth punishing.

Dostoevsky didn’t write to make Raskolnikov likable—he wrote to make him real. A modern version would be afraid of that.


I for one welcome our new A.I. overlords... 

Friday, February 21, 2025

This Week's Wiki

For those not following me on Patreon, this is a list of adjusted or rewritten Authentic Wiki content compatible with 1st edition D&D, or merely of interest, updated in the last week.

Wednesday, February 19, 2025

State of Create

Patreon today released an annoyingly laid out message called the "State of Create"  Link at the bottom of the text.  Following "months of research," they've decided to discuss what most creators are feeling right now: that platforms that keep changing their rules, abusive algorithms and monitisation policies have been building since before Covid to transform the individualistic artist into a machine cog... and we're not liking it.

One day, our reach is just fine... the next, it's tanked because of some opaque change.  Those in power, who have money, have shut down the passageways in an effort to restore the status quo that existed in the 1990s, when a small number of people held control over everything cultural.  A time I plainly remember, and which I enjoyed the death of.  Well, it's back.

I don't blame the concept of an algorithm for this.  Like any tool, it can be used for good or ill; in this case, however, those with the power to create one also have the power to use it selfishly, there being no option for the internet's user.  This is what the gatekeepers want: control of what's seen, what gets promoted, what thrives.  Those who naively believed the internet would shatter that model, giving creators direct access to audiences without needing permission from a record label, a publisher, a network executive, are discovering that monster doesn't just go away.  It has the money and the will to fuck with the system, and it's back.

The shift has been led by Instagram, Twitter and YouTube... but of course TikTok perfected it. But before anyone rushes to suppose that without these villains, everything would have been just fine, I want to stress that there are thousands and thousands of villains in the game, across the board. These are just the villains who did it the most ruthlessly... but the present state was inevitable. We shouldn't doubt this.

The shift has been systemic: but there have been two things that helped perpetrate this state of mind. There are those who say, "the internet was never going to stay free forever"... but this is merely the voice of those who are bent on killing what it brought. The deeper truth is that what we're experienced is a lull, imposed not by the villains, but by the passive forces that let them be and those who can't get the financial support to wreck the status quo.

I haven't much faith in governments or the law... anyone whose worked in a government-run office isn't surprised to find themselves working on computers with black screens and green-lit text, because the system they used in 1992 still hasn't been updated. It is hardly news for any of us that the governments of the world simply failed to act... and when they did, fearful of the strangling of their supportive election capital, they went after the individual on behalf of the corporation, because that is their way. It is easier to make one fat cat happy than to assuage the fears of a million mice.

Inaction, the lack of meaningful resistance, the inherent blindness of those for whom the bread was not buttered, simply did nothing.  The glacial pace at which authority moves, being inherently conservative, was not going to get in the way here... and they have happily stood aside as rights we gained through technological means are now being arbitrarily taken away.  Emerson said, "For evil to succeed, it is only necessary that good men do nothing."  Since the world bureaucrats aren't "good" in any sense of the word, we can argue without difficulty that this is doubly so when tired, selfish, insipid persons do nothing.

It's no wonder we're feeling a general apathy to this.  As people read this here, and on Patreon's site, the general feeling is going to be, "Oh well, what can we do about it?"  The answer to that is nothing.  I'm not going to quibble on that point.  Anyone who now thinks that there's room for a counter-movement, or that the governments might act (and I hear this nonsense from professional pundits daily), are fooling themselves.  It won't be a grassroots movement that changes this, because it wasn't a grassroots movement that created the present situation.

The internet was not "made" by a socially conscious group, and it wasn't made by villainous corporations. It was not asked for on a widespread basis.  Even in its first ten or fifteen years, it was utterly overlooked by everyone as a joke, a thing for nerds, a sidequest into wasting time.  It was something that just happened — a messy, organic, almost accidental force that emerged out of military research, academic curiosity and hobbyist experimentation.

There is a tendency to relate the internet to the printing press... and that relationship applies.  But the same applies to the advent of newspapers, book publishing, radio and television.  With things going as they are now, we're not going to have another 50 year gap before the internet is suddenly obliterated and replaced by the next thing... and it has been 35 years already.

What is that upheaval going to be?  If you, like me, were around in 1992, what would you have said it was?  Most likely, "e-mail."  Or the "online imaging."  For the average person 30 years ago, what was coming was utterly obscured by the first tiny revelations  —  which seemed utterly amazing given their tiny scope.  10 years before that, freaking dial-up seemed amazing.

And people thought, well, this is it — this is the big change.  But it wasn’t. It was just the first crack in the dam. It was a tiny, clunky version of something that would eventually become so fundamental we don't even think about it anymore. That’s the pattern. The thing that looks revolutionary today isn’t the real revolution — it's just the first primitive version of what’s actually coming.

Here's what's funny.  A couple of minutes thought can point to half-a-dozen things that might be that crack.  AI is being dismissed so easily, because a couple of companies have rushed into gatekeeping it, but those "gates" are failing all over.  Anyone who wants can get around them and break the rules they're setting up.  Distributed computing, self-hosted identities, take your pick.  It might be some experimental, obscure technology that barely works right now.

But you, Dear Reader, aren't thinking about that.  Patreon certainly isn't, because it's business model depends on making its creators into cows in a field, that exist to give the company milk and nothing more, in exchange for the grass we eat: that being you, Reader.  None of the aforementioned villains are... they've built their platforms.  And having once worked for a platform that was crumbling under the weight of technological development, those platforms are rigid, inflexible monsters.  When they go down, they do it all at once.  Hell, I don't even use Google any more.  I haven't in months.

Everyone right now with money in the game — including, on a miniscule scale, creators — depend on this game not changing.  But it is changing, and at a pace that makes Patreon's little survey look like it was made by grade-3 elementary school students.

I have an ex-military friend who plays guitar.  He's moving out of town because the particulates here are getting the better of his asthma as he ages, but he's not worried.  In addition to being ex-military, he's an electrician and a retired bus driver.  And as a musician, he can thrive anywhere.  All he needs is a stool in front of a crowd of people and, artistically, he's fine.

If Canada were occupied by a foreign force, I'd cook.  I make amazing soup and I can make it by the barrelful, quite literally.  I have a 63 gallon recipe in my head right now.  Actual creators, not those chasing clicks and algorithms, are flexible.  We move easily to what's next.

Corporate types do not.  They get eaten by other corporate types, because they're all wolves. No one likes them? Hell, they don't like each other.

The internet came along and I dove in.  And did fine.  The next thing comes along, I'll be fine.  Whatever it is.  Meanwhile, all these problems that exist right now with closed doors and deplatforming.  It'll all be gone, in a fingersnap.

Don't worry about what those people are doing to you.  Take comfort in how you're going to be fine when they're being led up to the guillotine... metaphorically or for real.

Oh, I know... most reading this are going to think I'm indulging in wishful thinking.  That is always the reaction of those who are heavily invested in the status quo.  They wave their hands, they say, "Oh, nothing real is ever going to change; no matter what the technology is, the big stuff is always going to just go on."  After all, we look around and the world sort of looks like 1995.  I mean, the walls are still standing, right?  'Course, a lot of those walls don't surround businesses that used to exist and run the world, but hey... that wasn't the rug being pulled out, right?  They just failed to adapt.  In time.

Strange they don't think about how words like "engagement," "watch-time," "short-form" or "algorithm" would mean nothing whatsoever to an adult in 2005.  They'd look at you like you were speaking another language. Because back then, the internet wasn’t engineered the way it is now. It was still organic, still chaotic, still mostly just a playground where people threw things out into the void and saw what stuck.  There was still room for people to argue that "this internet thing" ought to be ignored by decent people.  Yet those voices, those people... made up of intellectuals, media elites, respected cultural pundits... lost.  Their viewpoint, and their relevance, evaporated.  Some of them maintain rather pathetic careers on youtube... where they can't get more pageviews that one lone pundit endlessly repeating the same post on how bad Emily in Paris is.

This is what happens.  The mass of people shrug.  Change is bad.  We'd rather not think about it.  Look all around.  The zeitgeist is filled with a different present-day class of elites and effetes belying the value of digital doubles, deepfake technology, volumetric capture... and poor little chatGPT... yet these things are so plainly the inevitable death of the entire media industry.  

Where's the government protection for that?  Did the actors and writers really win that strike?  Did they make the technology go away?  They talk like they did.  But it was a truce.  It did nothing more than kick the can down the road.  And not very far, either.  The technology is going to get better.  Does anyone with a brain really not understand this?  Can it not be that those who are invested in the present have an agenda to say otherwise... and no other real arguments beyond that?  They have to pretend this technology is overhyped, that it won't take their jobs, that "true artistry" can't be automated.  They have nothing else they can say.  I hope they're saving their money.

Patreon paints their problem as TikTok.  I think it's a little funny how short-sighted that is.  But I suppose, like the folks just discussed, they've got to wave their hand at some enemy.

I knew the day I joined Patreon that there'd be a day I left it.  And I will.  When the next thing comes.

Thursday, February 13, 2025

Limited Wish

I've kicked this bugaboo down the road a couple of times, but I did add it to the wiki and today it did randomly come up.  Therefore, hopefully, I've addressed the subject definitively enough for my game world.  I wouldn't imagine this will please anyone else, but we'll see.  I'm posting it here because it has generated interest in the past, so I know some will be interested in its review.


Spell

Limited Wish is a spell of focused invocation, allowing the caster to alter reality within the constraint's of the dweomer's area of effect. Only that which exists within that range can be affected; this constraint defines the spell's function, preventing broad manipulations of time, history or distant events while still providing the caster with immense control over their present circumstances.

The spell is capable of reshaping the immediate environment, altering conditions or imposing changes upon creatures and objects at the direction of the caster. The injured may be healed, opponents weakened or killed, enchantments dispelled, truths revealed. However, in addition to the magic's area limitation, the caster must be able to specify that the effect is needed for some higher purpose beyond the character's whim. Nor can the spell fundamentally change circumstances that apply to the game's rules, which must be upheld for the purpose of playability.

Needfulness

This describes any condition in which the requested effect is essential to the caster's well-being, progress or ability to fulfill an obligation. If the caster is in physical danger, the wish can be employed in the interest of survival. If there is an objective at hand, and the character would have to employ other means to obtain that object — that is, fight or kill an opponent, cross a gorge, physically open a chest, preserve a life against threatening elements — then the wish can be made entirely effective.

However, the spell cannot function for the purpose of indulgent, frivolous goals. The caster could create a sufficient amount of wealth to save a kingdom from bankruptcy, but could not simply "invent" money out of the air, simply because it's wanted. A caster could turn aside a lava flow, but could not simply cause the ground to open up and start spouting lava, merely because purposeless damage is sought as a desire. The spell is only able to provide magic that is essential to the task at hand, not what is most convenient, most destructive or most profitable.

Game Rules

Within the fabric of the game, limited wish cannot ignore player and opponent hit probabilities or damage, or willfully change all of a character's ability stats, character class or fundamental knowledge relating to proficiencies or sage abilities. For the purpose of explaining this limitation — for it seems obvious that we might wish to be more attractive, stronger, bigger, a different race and so on, once again these things fall under the category of needfulness.

The player, wishing to improve the player's chance at success within the game, may wish to employ limited wish as a means of doing so — though it is only one 7th level spell, and should obviously not be the end-all manner of altering every intentionally placed functional game design inherent in Dungeons and Dragons — but we should suppose that the characters are comfortable and happy with whom they are. They have no knowledge of this "player," nor do they need these imposed changes from their perspective.

Additionally, the theoretical research and invention that led to the spell would have encountered limitations within the game world's reality that opposed such changes, simply because players might want them. The gods, the assumed laws and rationalities of the setting's existence... and of course the dungeon master — who chooses how to ruin and spoil the campaign they've constructed — may simply have no wish for one spell to be created that can ruin everything at a stroke. So, it turns out, after all the research was done, this was the very best that the magi could do. They just weren't able to fabricate a magic spell that would improve a character's ability stat by a single point.



Monday, February 10, 2025

For James, and James Alone

By chance, working out sage abilities for the Clowning sage study, the subject came up regarding whether or not a highly skilled clown could ever actually perform a fumble.  Thus, this authority-status sage ability:

Mock Tumble: When the character rolls a fumble in combat or fails a Dexterity check, it may appear to be a true misstep, but in reality, it is anything but. This ability prevents the character from ever suffering the effects of a fumble, ensuring that even their apparent failures remain under their control. Additionally, the character may automatically succeed on three Dexterity checks per day, choosing when to apply these successes at their discretion.

Wednesday, February 5, 2025

Wiki Work Process

In case anyone should wonder about my working process, just a few minutes ago I edited the last of a series of 57 pages, the "oldest" on the Authentic wiki, meaning those pages that have been ignored for the longest possible time.

Of the 1,467 total pages, this leaves 1009 left to edit.  But as I need a break from this process, and there are other things to do, I'm going to address the 30 "incomplete" pages that are left to do.  I'm not going to complete them all — that would be most tiresome, and I find my best process is in changing the nature of the work as often as possible, while still getting things done.

The rule for Incomplete Pages is this: (a) roll three random files from the 30 that are incomplete; (b) pick one; and (c) either finish that file, or add at least 1,000 words (or, in wiki-speak, about 6,000 characters).

Then, that choice can be removed, the other two left as they are, and a new replacement incomplete file chosen.  This gives me some choice, but I have to choose the most desirable from a larger field.  This reduces the paralysation caused by choice, while inevitably forcing me to do some work on something in this pile.  As shown on the table, I have to do five such pages, then I can move on.

The rule for Sage Ability/Spell pages is this: determine which spell and sage abilities have the most links on the wiki, without a page existing, then make that page from scratch.  Do not stop until it is finished, or — if it is somewhat challenging, get at least 4,000 characters done, then move it to the "incomplete" category.  In any case, get at least enough done to give a clear sense of what the ability or spell does, so that it can be at least interpreted.

The rule for the Old wiki pages is to transfer 30 pages from the old wiki to the new.  Concentrate on pages that don't need a lot of work, as transfer is more important than the ones that will drag and deplete my motivation.

The rule for Wanted pages is to do the first 3, most "wanted" pages according to mediawiki's sort for this.  Once this is done, all the new content will be created, and I will go back to editing pages again.

As work is done, less pages will need editing, the demands for pages to be created will increase.  Eventually, I shall adjust % of Old Wiki pages to be moved across as the number drops, until this category disappears completely.  As more of the larger pages are edited, they'll fail to be completed and the "incomplete" page numbers will increase, so that I'll spend more and more time with that.

Overall, this allows the type of work I'm doing, while producing milestones for me to approach and then pass, awarding me with a sense of achievement at a job that is immense and seemingly impossible.

Yes, I know I'm crazy.

Monday, February 3, 2025

Quote

When I was a teenager, the subject of virginity seemed to emerge all the time. We were quite taken with it.  We concerned ourselves greatly about who was, and who was not one, and who might cease to be one; it mattered greatly who intended to go on being one for much longer, and we all wondered what might happen when we weren't one anymore.

Now that I am sixty, the subject never comes up.  It's possible it really wasn't that important.