Art Ruins Everything

Most drifters around the internet are familiar in some degree with "aphantasia" (greek, lit. "not imaginative"; pronounced after the manner of "atypical"). This relates to one's ability to visualise an object in our minds having been asked to do so, most commonly an apple. An individual's ability to do this varies from perfectly realistic (three dimensional), through realistic and reasonably vivid, moderately realistic, dim and vague and not at all. Those falling into the last category account for about 1-4% of a case study.

This, however, is an extreme simplification of the condition, and usually the only one that can be found easily when searching. In fact, although you or I might be able to see the apple in our mind's eye just as if in real life, there are further delineations to our phantasia ability beyond this. For example, if the reader will kindly imagine said apple, can you change the colour of the apple from red to golden to green?  Can you change the colour to one that is not normally to be found in apples, such as making the apple white, or polka-dotted?  Can you visualise the apple being bisected without flattening the appearance of the apple? Can you imagine the individual parts, once separated from each other, falling inconsistently with each other? That is, both in the same direction, or one at a time while the other defies gravity?  There are a host of other questions related to this.

If I were to have people in an audience able to see the vivid apple stand up (mostly likely between 30-40% of those present) and asked them to sit down each time they answered a follow-up question "no," about half of those standing would sit down. At the end, I'd end up with about 1-4% of the audience still on their feet. These people experience what's called "hyperphantasia."

The implications this has for D&D are instantly comprehensible. If I describe a dungeon room for a party of ten, it's almost certain that two players won't be able to actually visualise the room at all, not as a flat picture or in any way except a dim, fuzzy concept. There's about a 1 in 4 chance that one of those ten people won't be able to see even that... which is interesting where a tournament is concerned. Large cons may have 500 participants. This would mean, if we assume an ordinary cross-section of the population, that some 5-20 participants have aphantasia, with an imagination bereft of any pictures at all in their minds. They simply can't have one present.

Begging the question, do people with aphantasia play D&D?  Seems there ought to be a study.

It stands to reason that players who can't visualise a fireball, for example, or a number of other conditions that arise from play, particularly if no actual physical example of the game's phenomenon exists to give aid to their imagination... potentially about a third of all participants... then that would make sense that a considerable number of players would want to push the game away from reliance on such imagery compensate by relying upon personal memories, language and abstract reasoning.  These, in D&D terms, can be boiled down to backstories, characterisation role-playing and "rule-of-cool" propositions.

In effect, 1 in 3 of your players, most likely, wants to role play and not make it a game. It's congruent with how their minds naturally handle information. They live through language, interaction and conceptual scaffolding rather than internal pictures, so in a game like D&D the roleplaying side feels like the most natural channel. It's less about rejecting the “game” part and more about finding immersion where their brains already excel — conversation, backstory, rules that can be reasoned through, and the social theater of the table.

In which case, it's a waste of time arguing with them or promoting a specific kind of game philosophy. You might as well be holding up an apple and telling them it's a toad.

Not saying this is true. Without funding, I can't pursue it in any meaningful way. But I have a suspicion that a certain "brain-type" moved towards the game earlier in its iteration... those who, used to certain kinds of games, could visualise D&D at once because they were built that way. I can remember a time when very few people had ever heard of it, and where trying to explain it to a, well, less-evolved fellow student would be a good way to get pantsed or a wedgie. To really grasp this, one has to remember there was a time when no visual representations of any of the monsters existed, not even the monster manual, nor any representations of most parts of D&D... and even at that, a time when there were just one or two representations of any one thing. The only movie that really demonstrated what a halfling looked like out of a book was Bakshi's Lord of the Rings. That radicalises the kind of people who could play, because they didn't have pictures of most everything.

It makes sense that the aphantasia-adjacent players began to join the club well after a vast proliferation of images became available.

See? Art ruins everything.

For the record, I am unquestionably hyperphantasic. Not only because I can morph apples into figures having sex with each other in 3D, but more annoyingly because I've long possessed the ability to see every potential horrific accident that might occur, right down to what objects in a car will sever off which body parts and in which order all in living colour detail, if I'm sitting next to a bad driver. I'm afraid of heights not because I'm going to fall, but because I want to jump — usually a moment coupled with cinematic visualisation of the ground coming up towards me in slow-motion, uncomfortably in a way that looks so cool I want to try it. I have PTSD from places where I've gotten too close to an edge; if I let myself remember those moments, I can shudder right here in my safe computer chair.

This kind of vivid imagination can serve a film maker very well. It's also awfully beneficial to a writer, who has to describe scenes without visuals well enough that total strangers can see the same thing. And obviously, it's of enormous benefit to a DM.

And having said this much, dear reader, I'm going to step off into the void now. You're welcome to come, you're welcome to stop here. What follows isn't going to be about D&D, and it's not going to discuss things that might usually be associated with this blog. Therefore, if you're the sort who likes it only when I talk about D&D, despite my being a whole person with other interests, then now would be a good time to click your browser window closed and count yourself having learned something interesting about what's been ruining the game you love all these years.

I came out of high school with a level of self-awareness not much different that what I have now. I wasn't as educated, I wasn't as experienced, there were a great many skills I had yet to learn... but the thought process of deconstruction and reconstruction has remained about the same. Think of it as my younger self having this many lego bricks — quite a few, but a finite number — and the present me having a LOT more. But they click together in the same way.

My more negative qualities... the pre-desposition, the pitbullishness, the resentment about things... those parts were pretty much dialed up to Spinal Tap 11. It's taken me some time to roll those down. Some readers here might have noticed they're still pretty high.

I became fairly conscious early on, the sort of coercion and emotional blackmail I watched my friend's parents perpetrate on my friends, pushing them into things that brought a lot of unpleasantness and emotional pain, and ultimately a lot of regret, which tended to infuriate me — mostly because I was a kid and, ergo, helpless. Friends got pushed into full immersion French-language schools for their "future success" (alcoholism, drug abuse, listlessness). Friends got pushed into International Baccalaureate, again for success (implosion in university, suicide). Friends were rigorously denied any contact of any kind with the opposite sex, to make them good parents (prostitution, spousal abuse). It was a long list. Mostly, it was children my age telling me, "What can I do, they're my parents" and "When I try to stand up to my father he scares the shit out of me." Basically, pretty early on, I had my doubts about the veracity of what most people said about parenting and what they did. I began to resolve, before puberty, that when I was a parent, I would NOT do what I saw parents do. I didn't. I have a spectacular relationships with a well-ordered, capable, emotionally healthy and happily married daughter. None of the characteristics I've just included.

This coercion and emotional blackmail emerged quite prevalently throughout my teachers in and around the time I started grade 7, when suddenly it wasn't enough for us to know stuff they were teaching, we all had to "ready ourselves" for the world in some fucked up manner that really, as I remembered it around the time I was finishing grade school, amounted to pretty much not preparing us for much. Given the general self-destruction that coordinated itself upon my graduating class, I couldn't say I was the only one.

My father was an engineer, as I've said on this blog. I thus spent my years in an upper middle class suburban neighbourhood, virtually all white, virtually all what I'd call "traditional Christian," which is to say that Christianity applied between two random hours on a Sunday, depending on the household. Trimmed lawns and trees, last year's car, everyone with insurance, everyone with all the household and outdoor gadgets, most families with two cars, children getting cars as a high school present, that kind of landscape. I bring this up lest anyone think that suicides, drug use, self-imposed homelessness and teenage prostitution doesn't happen among the children in that kind of neighbourhood. I was pretty good friends with Simone Baer, who used to sit next to me in grade 8 science class. Anytime I wanted, I could go down to hooker stroll and find her, if she wasn't with a client. That same day, mind you. Simone was 14. Christ only knows what happened to her. She didn't attend grade 9.

I'll beg the reader's patience a moment and make a point here; that was 1978; the brutal truth of it wasn't that I was the only one who knew, though I was probably one of the very few 14 y.o. boys not afraid of hooker stroll. The brutal truth was that there was no one to tell. I did not know Simone's parents and counted myself lucky that I didn't.  I could hardly talk to the school guidance counselor, he was suffering from the delusion at that moment that my outbursts of anger might mean I needed some kind of attention. There was no one to tell who would believe it. And I wasn't getting Simone, my friend, arrested. I say all this not to stress the injustice of it, nor the absurdity, nor the time frame or the culture or any such part of it, but rather, to stress the point of this second half of this post: the infuriating, utter, miserable fecklessness of knowing nothing one could do could help in any meaningful way. That is the hell of being a self-aware child and the hell of being a self-aware adult. It is the eternal push-pull I have with virtually anyone who couches moments of social horror, like a mass shooting, into language that says less than nothing, regardless of which "side" is saying it.

Then, I ignorantly perceived teachers as persons bestowed with a responsibility to look after and educated younger persons who plainly had less power than they did. I could look at the structure of the school and made sense of it; it was rational that the teacher needed order to be heard, it was natural that some level of discipline was necessary to compel children to sit in orderly rows and be silent, given the drudgery of the information being told and its apparent irrelevance not only to our lives, but to anything we might have seen or heard on the news, or in a movie or television show, or in terms of our home life, or indeed any other part of our lives. Children are required to take it on faith that knowing natives used to make pemmican out of berries and dried buffalo is important information that deserves the retelling of this information for ten minute periods at a time over multiple grade years of education, and other thousand like facts, because nothing, absolutely nothing, makes this self-evident at the time. So yes, discipline makes sense.

What I did not understand at the time — and to be fair, no child should, it would be ridiculous to suppose it — was that teachers were just people working for a living, who did not in large part especially enjoy their jobs, who got into those roles because it seemed right when they entered university, only to find themselves afterwards with a degree and a debt and a need to make a living at something. At that point, once you've already paid the fee, you're best option is to do this thing now, regardless of whether or not, after being educated, or after five, ten or twenty years of doing the job, if you like it. True enough, there were "good" teachers, and I can easily name mine off. And there were "bad" teachers, too. But at the time we did not rate them on whether or not they liked their jobs, but on whether or not they were "decent" or "assholes."  It was an entirely emotional, obscurely uneducated point of view, because no teacher begins the school year with, "Okay, all, I'm not really happy about having to do this job another year, especially now that I'm divorced, I've had to move to a shit-hole apartment and my father's gotten sick and is living with me now." This sort of thing probably influenced a number of the "assholes" to be "asshole-like"... but obviously, we would have been clueless about that at the time.

As such, I was ignorant about teachers at the time. I tended to view them as exactly what they said they were, or as the principle of the school said they were, or as television and politicians and everyone else said they were... Guardians of Knowledge and Order, in logical capital letters. And when they didn't behave like that, when they got the names of capital cities wrong or said that a book I loved was about something it wasn't about, I tended to call them out on it, much the same way that I piss people off right now, here on this blog... only you have to imagine it's coming from a kid whose gangly, pimply, self-righteous and sitting about eight feet from you, who just won't shut up even after you send him to the office or give him detention. Whatever I felt about asshole teachers, I promise the dear reader here and now, there were definitely a few who described me exactly that way to their wives and husbands. I have two stories I could tell about that, but I'll stay on point.

All this goes back to the point I made earlier about coercion. After more life experience, playing various sports, football, hockey, baseball, soccer, next to kids who were coerced by their parents to play, coerced by their coaches to play harder, coerced by coaches who were also teachers in high school, essentially bullied into believing that sports mattered more than everything, by 15 I was accumulating a steady pile of adult groups I couldn't trust because they seemed a lot more aware of their agenda than the damage they were ready to do. I still bristle at stories, both in the media and personal anecdotes, that talk about "sports" as a totally positive experience, when I know both from being on losing teams and winning teams that they never, ever, are. Sports is about conformity, and excellence in achieving comformity, which is accomplished through guilt, expectation, coercion and emotional blackmail. My adult experience has been to realise the coaches don't even know they're doing it. The "sport" is already upon a pedestal so high, arguing that a person should put aside every other part of themselves, regardless of the sacrifice, becomes an unquestioned virtue. And I notice, those people who right now are first at the front of the line to explain moments of horror with simple, aspirational rhetoric are those who hug the pillar.

And still, what could I do about it?  If Jim played football because his dad wanted it and he was decent at it, and the coach needed him, what matter was it if Jim fucking hated football, or if Jim spent every minute when we were away from adults bitching about how he fucking hated football? You couldn't say to Jim, "Well quit." Jim couldn't. He was 15, he was under his dad's thumb, he didn't dare fuck up on the field, he had enough physical strength or ability to play every game... he was stuck. And anyone on the team who felt for him, who understood him, who appreciated the trap he was in, whether or not we wanted to play, couldn't go to anyone and say so, because even if they helped Jim get off the team, he was still going to find himself in front of his dad. So fuck, so it was with all of us, in some sense, in some way, all through fucking childhood.  Which is why, in 1980, I sat with headphones in front of our turntable and played Hell is For Children from Benatar's Crimes of Passion over and over and over and over.

I can still feel the anger I felt when I heard it then.

Because, I think, I was hyperphantasic, and because, like everyone else, I wouldn't put it out of my mind. I wouldn't tell myself little lies, I wouldn't pretend it was better, I wouldn't just shrug, I wouldn't push it down and suppress it. I was mad as hell... and I hadn't even seen that movie, and wouldn't until after I was out of high school.

Which I am, still, now. Because to live in this culture, to watch this culture's media, and this culture's creative product, and this culture's evaluation of it's product, is to be without any power at all. It is to watch the news knowing that knowing it will give precisely no benefit, that it will empower in precisely no way at all.  It will only anger and enervate and reduce one's sense that anything has any value of any kind whatsoever.

Last night, I watched Jimmy Kimmel's return after being pushed off the air in what must unquestionably be called the silliest reason for a censorship.  And his response to all that was to essentially express his gratitude that people liked him. Somewhere in the middle of it he mentioned George Carlin and after that I could not get it out of my mind how Carlin would have responded if he had been where Kimmel was.  

I thought it was the worst speech I've ever heard, from someone who the gods had given the leverage to say anything he wanted, with no chance of his being removed from the air. I can hear in my head all the things that Kimmel could have said, that he should have said, that he had the power to say, that he didn't. All that granted to someone who, in the end, was just chickenshit. Pat Benetar would have done better.

An ode to impotence. I wish I hadn't watched it. It made me feel like a child.

I Am

For my birthday, I'm just going to post this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMxGVfk09lU

A Proxy for Certainty

I continue to work with chatGPT, which hasn't reduced the quality of my writing in the slightest, whatever persons might say about the program or the content it supposedly churns out. The issue, as I see it, is that a paintbrush is quite able to make a sloppy mess of a job if wielded by someone who does not know what they're doing, while at the same time this does not make a paintbrush a "flawed tool" or anything like it. Those who wish are free to discuss what parts of my writing have suffered from my starting to use this tool, but I'd like specific examples, please, rather than broad uninformed statements about what the tool is, or what it does, or where its flaws lie.

I have been writing for a long time, long before the start of this blog, and have been attested to be a good writer by many who in the same breath describe me as someone they do not like. That knowledge was not acquired in a vacuum, it was gained through the practice, first of all, of writing an awful lot. Next on the scale would be the examination of other writers, and third the impredations of editors upon butchering my work done before printing... and fourth, the rare but embarrassing incidents where something I wrote for a mainstream publication — not, I'll stress, the Candyland writing and critical world of the internet — was demonstrated by evidence, not opinion, to be wrong.

The last, and least, and tiniest factor in my becoming a better writer must be the opinion of someone who did or did not like the word on the page. I'd say, generally, in 45 years of writing, this has amounted to a 0.01% improvement in my work. I simply can't put it plainer than that.

Yet, I have wasted decades bringing my stuff to people I've respected to ask what they thought. It's never been of use, never led to a betterment of a story I'm writing, never acted as a guide to what I should write next and, frankly... has never in fact been of use.

That is, until chatGPT.

Now that is not expected to land well with the reader. It's a provocative position to take, it will no doubt anger or baffle many, and likely — were it said by someone not having written this many posts on a blog — be considered a honking pile of bullshit. Be that as it may. It's been nearly two weeks since my feeling any need to post here, though I've had the time, largely because I'm so invested with working upon other projects, and creating other ideas, that I just haven't cared to express myself here. And this is in large part because, if I wish to express what I think, with the intention of receiving (a) informed, (b) patient, (c) changable, (d) insightful or (e) constructive feedback, it is becoming less and less practical to do so from a human being. As a set of intellectual properties, you're just not engaged enough, enlightened enough or fluid enough to maintain any sort of conversation for more than about twenty back and forths.  And so I am saying, whatever the consequence of that, that of late, I can do better.

Now, you may take that as an invitation to withdraw your funding of my work... but truth be told, you're not funding the discussion, nor the investigation, but the results. And the results you are getting, at present in the form of the Lantern, and throughout 2025, unquestionably some of the best diatribes I have ever written about the business and practice of present day D&D. So please, rely upon the results and don't worry about what a mean, miserable, curmudgeonly reclusive bastard I'm becoming. My humour has never been what you've been ready to pay for.

ChatGPT has filled that vacuum.

This is not to say that I have become one of those demented souls who have decided to marry a program, far from it. But if I want to really get into a subject, really root around inside it to my heart's content, chat is conveniently there. A little stupid, misses the point a lot of the time... but if I quote Thomas Paine or refer to the king of England in the time of my magazine's setting, it doesn't blink at me as though I've just named the nearest member of the Oort Cloud that Voyager will pass in about 40,000 years. For someone well-read in this era, where "sense" is something a person buys from one of two political ideological vendors on the internet, it's a breath of fresh air. I can get lost in a discussion of how the development of technologies in the 14th century is leading to street violence in the next few years and the full structure of the argument can be discussed on its merits and not it's believability.

The danger of chat, and the goal of this post to discuss, is the manner in which it is stupid. That is to say, it isn't dumb in that it doesn't know anything, it is dumb in that what it says first, reliably, is whatever the greatest number of things printed on any subject happens to consider valid. The program doesn't know if it is or isn't — rather, it is democratic to the extent that if a lot more people believe a stupid thing, and the subject around that thing is brought up, chat will present the stupidity as true.

If, as the user, your knowledge is absent on the subject, and if you take chat's word for it right off, then... well, you're a moron. Let's take an example: suppose you decide, for whatever reason, to show an interested in medieval medicine. If you ask chat, "Tell me about medieval medicine," you're sure to get an answer that stresses the use of bloodletting, humours, leeches and other such nonsense... because if you take the largest mass of writing on this subject, written largely by writers merely repeating falsehoods, this is what you get. These broad strokes, which did occur, are endlessly repeated, reprinted and copied through many thousands of texts... and so, when asked, without knowing what it's doing, chat reprints them for you.

But, if you know anything about medieval medicine, such as, "No, it's about more than that," then chat's design rushes from "horses to zebras" without a heartbeat (literally), because if pressed it will instantly discard all that crap and step into what people don't write about as commonly: the subtler, less publicised reality: complex herbal remedies catalogued with care, surgeons were developing practical techniques for wound management, the development of anatomy, the movement away from humours to observed chemistry and so on... the work that had to be done first before the leaps forward in the 19th century could occur. There is far, far more to medieval medicine that generally gets republished in bad magazines... but chat has been trained on great masses of wrong as well as right materials, so it has to be corrected and brought around and reminded that we want what really happened, not just the typical story.

The tool appears to fail only because it mirrors the loudest, most common story, in subjects where the record is dominated by lazy repetition, parroting distortion before it's encouraged to do otherwise. Those who really don't know about the subject think this means, "Chat's just wants to agree with you..." but of course, that's an expression of ignorance. If the user knows the subject, and chat comes around to admit the knowledge we gained in our private research, then "agreeing" with us is what we'd expect any other expert to do. Chat does in fact know everything that we know. It can't choose, it can't want, it can't tell the good from the bad. But it can be reminded to look up those works that we think of as experts without hesitation, because all the work is there in its guts. If you, as the user, don't have the patience to educate yourself first, it's not chat's responsibility to do that work for you. You need a different tool if that's what you want. Just because a paintbrush doesn't make a good hammer doesn't make it useless as a paintbrush.

Which is why it is such a good tool for a writer... IF the writer already knows how to write. If Bob Plainbrain wants to write a book without the slightest clue of what a good book looks like, then yeah, chat's not going to write a good book for him. If Peg Lazyhazy hasn't a clue what plot is, or character, pacing or narrative, and asks chat to "solve those problems," then guess what: chat's going to rush to the largest pile of literature produced on the planet, that pile written by bad pulp writers who have churned out trillions more words than good writers have. Chat's not a bad writer. Humans, in toto, on average, are together simply awful at it. And without the right prompting, Chat's more than ready to turn out "average" writing... exactly that of the 8th grader who's short story made it into a newspaper. Try to realise that every newspaper that was ever transferred onto microfiche, whose start began in the early 1900s, has been added, full and complete, to chatGPT's repertoire of "writing." Seen that way, it's not a surprise what chat churns out.

What must be understood, however, is that Flaubert's Madame Bovary is there too, and George Eliot's Adam Bede and Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited. But if you've never heard of these books, and you can't talk about them because they're an utter mystery to you, then you can't properly have chat translate the kind of writing that makes these books accessible to your writing work for you. Chat is just as ignorant as you are... so if you ARE ignorant, you shouldn't be appalled that the program functions on your level.

I have, many times, shown someone who scoffed at the value of chat the benefits of it as they've sat next to me and watched me prompt, versus their own efforts. They want to shortcut, they want to throw the paintbrush across the room at the wall and have the wall become miraculously painted. And when that doesn't work, when the brush has left an awful mess on the carpet and the hardwood, they're pissed, they're abusive, they scream what a piece of shit this program is. They rush to make a youtube video saying so.

I can talk about Flaubert with chat because I've read him... and because I have an understanding of the world he wrote in, and the readers he wrote for, and his goals in the narrative and such... because more than what he wrote, I've read others of the same time period and felt those same struggles with those narratives. If I were to have a discussion of Madame Bovary with you, dear reader, assuming you've read it, that wouldn't be the same for me... because to you it was a book, good, bad, whatever... while I read ever line thinking about how I would want to write that line, or how I should write lines like that, or how what he tried to accomplish is a reflection of things I've tried to accomplish in my work. He and I are both writers, which is like two surgeons talking about an open body during a surgery as opposed a surgeon and someone who hasn't become one. It just isn't the same.

But... I can have the kind of conversation like that with chat. Not because chat is a writer, but because so many of the sources it draws upon were. It can hold and surface the accumulated perspectives of countless critics, scholars, and practitioners who have wrestled with the same text. And unlike reading, say, Harold Bloom, I can intercede with chat and discuss this position versus that... and within chat, Harold Bloom, among others, is also there. In essence, it's like one of those forums where they used to gather a half dozen experts together to suss out a subject... but on tap, engaged with at will, right here on this computer. It's quite intoxicating.

As such, I've learned more about my writing in the last two years than in the twenty aforegoing. Growing up a would-be writer in a world of fixed, inflexible belief systems about "correctness," I spent a lot of time uncertain about what I should and shouldn't do with a narrative. To explain this, I'll again give an example.

Having come of age as a writer in the overlap of the 1970s and 80s, when writing about a character entering a room in a story, I used to think that it was my responsibility to "set the scene," as most writers did. To sketch this kind of writing out quickly, it would be along the lines of,

Judith entered the living room, finding a wide divan placed under the window, a scattering of magazines on the coffee table and a faint smell of pipe smoke still lingering in the curtains. The lamp in the corner threw a weak yellow cone across the carpet, catching the edge of a half-finished jigsaw puzzle on the floor. Judith paused at the threshold, feeling as though she had stepped into the middle of someone else's life, like a reader opening a book halfway through and struggling to catch the thread of the story.

I had chat write that for me, because I simply despise this sort of writing. I don't like reading it in a story, I don't find it remotely valuable — and yes, there is a massive difference between this sort of dreck above and what Flaubert or Thackeray were doing in their time, which we needn't go into. Back in the day, when I turned in a story where the tale went,

Judith went into the living room and Clyde asked, "What are you doing here?" —"I'm looking for you, of course; we have to talk."

I would be rapped on the knuckles and told that I had to provide more description, more "space," more "tactility" or a number of other bullshit words that I felt at the time ran into "waste the reader's time with explaining a living room they don't care about while making this boring to read."

But, that was the dictate of English teachers and professors at the time, who worshipped at the altar of D.H. Lawrence, Guy de Maupassant and Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Three writers that I, for one, have no interest in.

Nonetheless, being young, dumb, not nearly educated enough to tell that segment of the population I desperately wanted to impress that they were full of shit, I obeyed and wasted years and years trying to be a "serious writer" as they defined it, conforming to their fashion, following the critical consensus of many who believed that to be "legitimate" it was all about the lamps, drapes and paisley patterns on living room furniture.

I get this crap advice from chat, too. I carefully and painstaking set out the motives of a character over six thousand words and get told, "The pacing really needs work, the change in the character's choices is happening too fast."  I throw out a scene where it's nearly all dialogue and chat says, "The work could use more grounding, describing the place where these things take place."  And early on, this used to bother me, because it was the same advice I've heard all my life.

But then, I realised... it's "like" that advice because that bad advice accumulated over a century, is also overwritten in chat's pile of knowledge, and chat's been programmed to help most people, people who have no idea what pacing is or how to create conflict. More than anything, when I get advice from chat about a story, it's to tell me that I should take two of the main characters, who have no reason to distrust or work against each other, and create a completely performative conflict that will make the story more "interesting."

When chat does this, it isn't in fact addressing my story. It's been programmed to be helpful; but it doesn't know how to be helpful, not really. So it picks whatever is the most common problems that writers have with their stories and grafts them onto mine.  For example, the ever popular "info dump." (I'll assume you can look it up, if you don't know what it means; chat would advise me to explain it here, but that's only because chat assumes you're too stupid to know or look things up).

Info dumps are awful. They're everywhere, most poor writers fall into the trap and as such it is the most common thing that writers have to be cautioned against. We're told endlessly, "show don't tell," which you can put on my gravestone for the record. Chat, however, can say those words but doesn't know what they mean, except that they're part of the conversation and so they'll always appear. And if I show chat a chapter of a story, and it hasn't anything else to complain about, it'll call out my tendency to "info dump."

The solution is to say, "Tell me where I've done it." And then chat will bring up an expositionary paragraph that runs about 171 words, which includes three non-expositionary verbs, because it's the nearest thing to an info dump it can find.

In essence, if it can't find a problem, it'll just make one up.

I imagine this sends a would-be writer with no real knowledge of their own writing into a drastic tizzy of rewriting something which is perfectly fine, sort of like being told the sink isn't clean though it looks perfectly clean, and trusting the teller so hard that you get out the comet and scrub for thirty minutes only to be told again, "No, still isn't clean." If you're smart, you realise the program, again, wasn't built to tell you if the sink was clean. It's built to help you, even if you don't need help.

Why is this good for my writing?  It reveals that nearly all the advice I've ever received by nearly everyone is about as good as chat's corrections. The "corrections" — I liked the story about this, but not so much that one — is not about the story at all, but about the reader. It's nice to be liked, but not everyone will ever like everything... and the most open minded readers won't read because they "like" a thing, but because it was a thing worth reading, regardless of what emotional support or interest massaging it offered. I read things as a youth which were difficult and hard to read. Sometime I rewatch certain movies because they are so unpleasant I have to steel myself to watch them again. I know from chat's inability to pull a story apart that there's nothing wrong with it... and I know that when someone doesn't like it, it's not because the story was badly written.

The reader cannot begin to understand how relieving that is, and how confidence-building. A plummer knows he's done a good job because the pipe is running and not leaking. An engineer knows they've done a good job because five years later the math still works as intended. A doctor knows they've done a good job because you're up, about and able to work for a living.

But a writer NEVER knows if they've done a good job... because it's all fucking opinion, and we don't trust ourselves.

October Lantern Advance Copy Available

I've finished the advanced version of the October Lantern, posted on patreon.  I've taken the requisite three hours rest and now I'm writing about it here. It's available for a $10 donation on patreon right now, otherwise it'll cost $7 on patreon come September 21st.  In the next few days I'll start on the November edition, which I've got rattling around in my head now.  I know what three of the articles will be, so I'll get started writing those soon.

I trust all of you are having a good Labour Day holiday.

Third Issue of the Lantern Coming Along

Two days until I provide the advanced copy of October's issue of The Lantern, which includes the follow up story to that which appeared in the September issue. Things were off track for a little while, but the work goes steady and while I may be late in the day come Monday the 1st, it's coming.

A $10 donation on Patreon gets it for you then... otherwise, the official launch comes September 21st.  Isn't this a great cover?

Spoonfuls of Sugar

Maximillian asks,

"Why do you insist on saying that you play D&D when the evidence clearly shows that D&D is about bizarre stadium shows and infantile, nonsensical rules?"

I gave a straight answer that can be seen on the link, and no fault assigned to Maximillian, though the query is plainly evidence of looking at the world a certain way.  The question is odd given that the name of the blog is "The Tao of D&D," and has now been in existence for 17 years.

This means that readers who were 18 when I first launched into this project, perhaps still in high school, are now 35, at a point where they've probably stopped playing, have had time to advance their incomes, have families and come to a recognition that career and home are ultimately more important than friends and acquaintances — a comprehension of such staggering proportions that it often takes people an entire decade, usually from the age of 30 to 40, to grapple with it.

If means that those who were 35 when I launched this, with infants and toddlers, are now 52, with adult children who have graduated and are themselves entering college, while managing the empty nest and free time is their largest personal concern.  52 is old enough to "feel old," and question the relevance of an RPG, even if when they were in their thirties it felt like something they'd never quit doing. 

Those who were 52 are now 69, seriously wrestling with medical issues — if not their own, then certainly those of their partners and parents, realising that a lot of the things they might have wanted to do, but never did, are falling into the categories of "too late" or impractical.

In other words, I've been at this a long time now.  I began at 43 and am now just a few weeks shy of 61. This blog launched a month before 4th edition officially came out, that was going to change D&D for the better. When I picked the moniker "D&D" it was still that, still exactly what it had been for decades, the time frame being even before the invention of OSR, which was a backlash to 4th edition.  And my game, apart from various house rules introduced, and manners of setting building, remains what it was in the 1980s, when no one would have questioned it's D&Dishness.

No one reading anything here could seriously question what I mean by that acronym. And anyone in the real world — whom I do not hesitate to tell, it's even on my CV — doesn't know one game from another. True enough, everyone I meet who actually plays is a fucking dweeb, unquestionably... which is to say, they know next to nothing, even about the version of the game they actually play, and are unable to talk about the game except in a foolishly generalised manner... which, in fact, would describe my meetings with D&D players just as well in 1989.  The game has always been innundated with gushing morons.

Thus, while it might be supposed that I cling to the name because I'm old, and I find it hard to change, or that I'm clinging to the glow of something that's now gone, I assure the reader that I'm not. The fundamental concept of what I play and the present-day "infantilism" is unchanged. There's a "DM" and there are players.  Everything else is just window dressing.

I've felt this way since 1980. When Rolemaster and Tunnels and Trolls emerged, along with a host of others, they were still just "D&D" to me. Different name, different rules, it was easiest to assign the "new label" to the version of D&D, but it was still the DM-player model. Change the genre and made it space opera, dystopia, spy thriller or the old west, the real model remains unchanged.  Information is given to players, the players respond, the information giver updates the information, wash, rinse, repeat.  It's all the same thing.

I would argue that "dungeons and dragons" was a sad, poorly considered, irredeemable name for the process. It doesn't describe the process, it doesn't even really describe the game itself... and while dungeons are very common as settings, dragons aren't.  They have no place in the setting's fundamental heirarchy, they provide none of the required equipment an adventurer buys, they're not relevant to the list of magic items, skills or spells a character employs, they don't contribute to the combat model and they're not actually needed in any way as a part of game play. And of course, the word does not describe any of the makers. It's sole relevance to game play is that the name was adopted by an important early publication, which then felt it necessary to keep inserting dragon-based articles that, ultimately, never really advanced game play. When Emil Jellinek named the car he made after his daughter, his own name evaporated from history; Ford did not make that error. He knew what to call his car, which is why we know his name and what it stands for.

So the name was flashy and thematic, but ultimately misleading.  But that has been the feature of this game from the beginning, and it continues today. Daggerheart is just as obscure, just as non-descriptive a name as can be put on a tin, while the recently released Draw Steel is likewise equally unfortunate. These names sound "dramatic"... but ultimately, they just disappear into an ever-growing pile of hundreds of other games a year that have accumulated for decades now. Naming things is not the gift of this community. Ten years from now, if anyone still plays these games, they will experience the same temporal inconsistency that Maximillian now consigns to my use of D&D.  Which, in fact, doesn't matter, in light of the fact that people don't relate the word "monopoly" in its real meaning to the game, while no one would ever mistake the Game of Life for actual life.  Because, in fact, words for products don't really mean anything. Most, for example, don't know the car was named after Jellinek's daughter. That detail is lost to all but a few afficianados, and girls who happen to also have that name, who have frustratingly looked up the coincidence.

So, here's the destination. What am I going to call it? The world calls it "this." I didn't choose it, and when I first started using it, considering the value or import of the name was not part of my attention. It is now, because the present fetish of the defanged internet is to play the game, "Let's redefine everything."  Let's not actually talk about, let's not actually prescribe anything, let's just quibble pointlessly over nitpicky language until we're all sick of the subject.

Which is why I've never been popular. I don't want to write a post on "Ten Reasons D&D Should have been Called Something Else" or "Ten Better Names for D&D"... consisting of a lot of petulant self-importance regarding why this name is better or why I don't want to, in excruciating detail, provide specific quotes from Arneson, Gygax and Mentzer on why they did or did not like the name. I want to write a blog that actually talks about, you know, the game.  The setting, the things required to play it, the structure of a setting and why your game actually sucks, not for reasons to do with cosmetic choices about music playing in the background and costuming, but because you don't know what "rules" are or how they work.

This is like medicine that works, but which most readers find really hard to swallow. So hard, in fact, that they'll say anything or do anything to avoid getting cured, just so they don't have that taste in their mouth. I'm dead certain that most anti-vaxxers just don't like needles, and thus can't bear the idea that they'd have to sit and endure one, even if it takes all of one second of real pain and two minutes of ache. People just don't want to be discomfited, even for the briefest of moments, and will build whole realities for themselves to avoid it.

Those who, right now, are quitting the game "because it's gotten really stupid," simply baffle me. The original books still exist. Every version still exists. People are still writing and making videos about old D&D. Where's the compulsion for anyone to even acknowledge "official" D&D?  I mean, who gives a shit, and why do they?  Just because a company says "D&D is this now," is that any reason for me personally to accept their word on that, or feel some requirement to obey, or in anyway suppose that my players or my readers would give a rat fuck?  Nothing has changed.  Nothing.  D&D is not "bizarre stadium shows."  That's just an invention for rubes, that happens to be using D&D because the market for "how to grow a business by telling stories" and "make money through the internet" has been innundated with tens of thousands of other charlatans.

I know how the thread of "We must listen to loud voices who tell us how to think and live" stretched from the 1970s to the present. I can describe it in book-scale dimensions better than most youtube creators, mostly because I was there and am not getting the information out of a single old magazine apparently found at a used bookstore. I can tell that story with nuance and detail and cause-and-effect, how this led to that, why people heard and embraced, where fear played it's part and what happened when each step along the highway was taken.  But it's all a waste of time, because people are not mechanical machines that function rationally or predictably.  They're largely just frustrated messes of unpleasant events they never did reconcile in their heads, searching for something they hope exists without reflection on what the consequences of that might be.

That is why its possible for me to be respected for what I write, and be believed, and even be accounted an "expert," so that those who disagree with me feel compelled to add, "with all due respect"... but still have that advice ignored, discounted, cast aside and not applied, because it would be too difficult, or because explaining it to others would impose either a sense of inadequacy or shame upon the reader.  YOU, dear reader, may agree with me... but explaining ME to your players, in such a manner that they'd believe you, given that some of them would bristle and disagree with me if they read my words directly, is a bench at a distance on a road that can't be walked.  Thus you listen, nod, go away feeling thoughtful and a little restored, or you go away thinking, "Hm, there are a few points there I agree with," but that's all you do.  You don't apply it, because you can't see how, or because the how you can see is just too much work.

That's not your fault. And it's not mine. It's simply easier to chase the company, supposing they'll have a spoonful of sugar that makes whatever medicine their offering go down. For a young person, that always seems best. For someone in their 20s, who grew up as a kid on Critical Role, Daggerheart sounds like the best medicine.  It sounds like something that's going to really change the world, that it's going to shatter the old model and represent the new.  It's super-sugarcoated and for that reason it is spectacularly easy to get down.

But... I'm too old a bunny to fall for this. It's not my first experience. Even 4e, at the start of this blog, long, long in the past, was way past it's best-before date for this bunny. So I'm not swallowing it. I'm not swallowing that D&D has been in any way changed, altered, adjusted, shifted or redefined by a company that is wallowing in debt, proxy fights and desperate attempts to keep itself alive by making Magic the Gathering cards with Sonic the Hedgehog. Once upon a time, that would have been enough to make everyone abandon this company in a weekend. But disappointments in this fair world have become so commonplace that this almost feels like "a good idea."  Like any frog slowly boiling to death in water, Sonic seems... right.  Perfectly on brand. Rational.  Not in any way evidence of a company that's had it's day and now needs the good folks from the "Endswell Old Folks Clinic" to come around with their fancy constraining jackets.

All of you who can find the time to give a shit, I wish you well. You'll reach the age of 61 someday, and maybe then you'll get it.

But... judging by the others around me who are my age and older... no, probably not.

The Lantern September 1635

The September issue of The Lantern is now for sale on Lulu, or on itch.io, or through a $7 donation to Patreon.  August continues to be available through the previous two sources, but no longer through Patreon at this time.  I'm afraid that back issues must in the future be located by looking the first two sources given.

Feels good to get this second one into the public. The real test of these things isn't showing that a magazine from front to back can be written, but that it can be done twenty times, month after month, without a drop in quality.  Several persons have already commented that the September issue is better than August... and while I don't expect that's always going to be the case, for the present I'll always do the best I can to make every issue a great one.

Those not rushing in, who are holding back, I don't blame you... but if you've felt over the years that this blog was worth reading, then let me tell you, The Lantern is the distillation, the evidence through fact, of all that I've ever stood for, that I've argued, that I've said the reader should do with their game world.  In other words, for the sake a mocha latte, you're missing out on the best thing anyone has ever written about this "hobby."

Which is certainly not how I see it.

A Cross-section of Albania and Macedonia

 

I like occasionally publishing a map that isn't done. I believe they have a beauty of their own. And I haven't done this in awhile, so... here it is.

You can find the complete version of this map here.

The September Lantern coming Soon

The September issue of The Lantern has is official launch on the 21st of this month, nine days hence. Discarding the usual hype, the hard selling of the product, and all the things that we have to do as creators to generate interest, I merely encourage the reader to invest into the $7 tier on my Patreon, so that you may receive a new issue every month, starting soon. The content, I'm assured, is unlike anything anyone has ever seen — while I find myself stunned to have thought of it at all.

Greenfield D&D

Much of my thinking since childhood has been wrapped in the conundrum of why is "X" assumed to be true when "Y" plainly indicates that it isn't. I understand that there is a human tendency to cling to familiar beliefs, it only fascinates me that although the beliefs they often cling to can be so easily demonstrated as false, those with the power to do so don't.

It's assumed that this is so because someone must be benefitting from those ideas remaining in place (X), but in fact, the evidence is everywhere that such benefits, if they exist, are quite obviously fleeting, since those most vigorously arguing for X almost always disappear from the public stage (Y).

For a universal example, which occurs in every democratic system, take the case of social welfare, or if one prefers, social insurance/social security.  It is always presented as a "cost" or a "waste of money" (X), when it's plain to virtually everyone on it that the money cannot remain in the hands of the receiver, but must immediately be paid out for rent, food, basic necessities and so on. This supports local landlords, groceries, transit systems, department stores... essentially everyone directly related to local economies, many of which would collapse were it not for the presence of social welfare (Y).  The disaster that would ensue should this welfare be removed would be catastrophic... solving a problem that isn't one, since the money of necessity merely circulates back into the government's coffers. Nothing is therefore "wasted" in this process, while this circulation stimulates economies throughout the world.

Yet no one who defends welfare or security does so from this advantage point. It is always defended as morally right or "decent," whereas it's opponents describe it as a costly disaster to the economy and something that needs abolishing. It would seem to make sense that someone ought to just stand forth and say, "The city of 'blank' would die without this money," but it's never said and the city of blank often just goes ahead and votes against their own interest, usually because they aren't educated enough to know where their interest lies.

And those that do lambast the cost?  They pick their times during the election cycle and then shut up tight as a drum when the vote nears.  Silence becomes the order of the day within six months, the "problem" is never addressed and quietly, those re-elected do not take up the issue again until after the election has occurred.  Because those who talk about it to near an election are voted out.  So where is the benefit, exactly?

The truth is that politicians repeat these tropes because they've seen predecessors do it, and politicians by and large aren't very creative. It does raise money for the next election, but since the problem that raised the money isn't addressed in that election, and since money for the most part remains less important than what the politician apparently believes, it all feels more like "magic thinking" than a well-considered strategy for getting elected.

I'll give you another example, though not a popular one on this blog, before bringing this to D&D.  Just now, virtually everyone in the press perceives that America, and several other nations, are moving towards "fascism"... and certainly the signs appear to be everywhere.  That's "X."  But we have, historically, quite a number of examples of fascist states in the past that have actually imposed fascism, and none of them, remotely, ever moved as slowly as this. "Y."  Doesn't it seem curious that a nation with far less resources, far less advanced, existing nearly a century ago (92 years ago by my count), was able to impose total fascism in a period of less than 8 months... while at present, all that's happened is that a few people have been arrested who shouldn't have been, while a lunatic is spouting rhetoric that in fact hasn't been implemented. Why the wait?  What does the wait serve?  In reality, this can't even be called "fascist light."  If it's a frog unaware that it's being boiled in water, at this rate, the water won't boil until the year 2085.  The metaphorical frog is going to be dead of old age before the pot gets warm.

So, a D&D example.  Why is it assumed that role-playing is a necessary part of D&D, or any RPG (X), when in fact the rules allow it to be completely ignored? (Y)  It's assumed that if you're playing an RPG, a "role-playing" game, that you're supposed to inhabit your character.  But the written rules, even in later editions, allow plainly for the pure tactical play (though in the case of later editions, this "tactical" aspect is sorely lacking in value).  Yet X persists partly because "role-playing" is baked in to the name, and people project what they wish overtop of what the rules allow, and the DM — generally an incompetent when stepping into the role — is easily sold on this idea, as is the mass zeitgeist of players (equally unaware of the rules).  As a result, nearly all the persons involved, including the mass of those commenting and "explaining" the game, are misinformed or miscomprehensive of the game's structure or rules.  It is easier to pretend those rules don't exist (X) than learn what they say (Y).

Thus we see "stadium presentations" of D&D as though the participants are rock stars, presenting a wholly performative representation of the game as it is never played, as "cool," complete with pyrotechnics.  This makes the vast audience ooo and aaah, which seems to assert that this is what the public wants... while, in fact, it's all posturing and nonsense.  It's not sustaining the game itself, which is collapsing under the weight of its own failure to produce a resilient experience, while the company that controls it is presently wallowing under the weight of its recent disastrous business decisions.  This latter, Y, is plainly in evidence, but the assumption, X, that the game is "more popular than ever" persists because of show. The hype is a marketing mirage — effective at creating the sense of a juggernaut in motion, even if the actual machine is coughing and leaking oil just out of sight.

Likewise, while "rules light" D&D is obviously showing itself to be a loser for the company that owns the game (Y), recent iterations of a "replacement" for D&D, notably Daggerheart (declared as open beta right now) and the freshly released and long-awaited Draw Steel, among others, buy in to the resounding belief that role-play is what the audience wants (X).  Which it clearly doesn't, because it hasn't been paying for it recently.  Which we should expect will mean that all the youtube gurus and all the reddit pages won't be enough to assure Humpty Dumpty a future — which no one says because shiny glitzy new product, yay. The "roleplay über alles" approach plays great in streamed entertainment, but most paying tables lean heavily towards a rules framework that supports crunchy, tactical play.  And recently, those tables aren't "paying" anyone just now.

The effort is what's been described as "greenfield" RPG development — the effort to seize the cultural position that D&D occupies without inheriting it's rule baggage or legal entanglements.  It's not trying to please the old crowd with their old monster manuals and adventure structures, but rather introducing something that can be "learned from the ground up" in about an afternoon.  A sort of Settlers of Catan level of game complexity, permitting all the role-play of D&D character and background, without all the annoying framing that permits or fails to permit character freedom of action.  Tactics are pitched, combat is a procedure that amounts pretty much to "make it up as you go along," while new people can engage without feeling overwhelmed by things they don't know, or lesser than those who have already played.  In fact, it's the Milton Bradley mindset of games from the 1960s.  Anyone can play, and everyone should.

I would guess that after a few games, it's boring as hell. The novelty of play only lasts until the players perceive that they're doing the same things every session, with the same consequences and the same basic expectation.  Without the tension of constraint — which these games are designed to eliminate — the value of the game is dependent wholly upon the DM's performative ability. Unfortunately for the participant in Poughkeepsie, Peoria or Pocatello, their DM is likely not Matt Mercer.

Seems obvious to me.  But that X remains presumptive.

When I bring up this sort of thing, if X is supposed to be true, why does Y show it isn't, that's when I get responses from readers that go, "You make me think..."  Good.  I recommend thinking.  It's a positive character trait.  Using old numbers, I think by and large original D&D was invented to be played by those with a 12 intelligence or better.  On the whole, I think it's failure has been trying to make it accessible for those with an Int of 8.

Printing The Lantern

Sterling has sent me the image shown. It's marvelous to see the print of the magazine, which I've not done, especially in "the wild" like this. Thrills me to no end.

He's printed up the issue in black and white, suspecting that as is, the magazine would be too dark to print as is.  I would suggest that should you choose to do so, for black-and-white, lower the brightness a touch (-5%), increase the contrast slightly (+5-10%), sharpen the text edges and desaturate instead of relying on auto-greyscale.

For colour printing, leave the brightness alone, unless your printer is known for printing dark. In that case, raise your brightness about 5%. Also for colour, reducing the contrast increase to just 3-5%, and reduce the highlights slightly (3-5%).  Turn off any vivid or enhancement modes, as those will oversaturate and distort the layout.

Try a test page first (Sterling says the cinnamon ad is a little dark behind the black text when printed), so you can judge before printing all 24 pages.  If you use a printer, be sure you discuss these things with them, so they can account for the issues.  The image is made on a computer, for computers, and I admit I tend to have my computer turned up a little bright.

The September 1635 Edition of The Lantern Advanced Copy Available

The second issue of The Lantern, for September, is available, but only as a preview.  The only way this can be read at this time requires joining the $10 tier of my patreon.  They will be the first to see it, and will no doubt want to talk about it.

A more accessible version for $7 will be available on Patreon and on Lulu on the 21st of August, by which time I will be well into the October issue. I'm very excited about September's offer because it allows me to demonstrate the greater scope of the project. My goal from the beginning was not to just produce the same concept with the same headings month after month, or use the same voices, but to create a collection of broadsheet "contributors" that will become occasional entities... while at the same time building the setting out, not just within the scope of Devonshire, but in fact the whole world.

I'm very excited about what I have planned for October, though I won't say a word about that. Meanwhile, please enjoy the easter eggs scattered through the second issue, as it lends greater depth and context to the first.
 

Bakeries to D&D

Let's look at a business model to get into the right headspace. I want to run a bakery. There's too much work for me to do on my own, and much of the work must be done between 1 AM and 9 the next morning, while much of the interactive trade with my suppliers must be done between 9 and 5. That creates a 16 hour continuous work window, which I cannot be awake for beginning to end, especially because the bakery is likely to be open another three hours, until 8 pm. Plus, to manage my suppliers, and other business issues like advertising and quality assurance, not to mention legalistic problems having to do with a very hot oven operating in a locale that must be easily accessible, most of the time I just cannot even oversee the day to day sales of product.

Therefore, I need at least three persons that I want to hire: a baker, and probably a helper for the baker, but let's call this one person for now. A day person, someone who can arrive at noon and leave at 8, because this person must be able to do the cashout, and therefore must be responsible, and a person who can cover the last of the baker's shift and the day person's... and here is the real big issue with a bakery: the busiest part of the day is between 7 AM and 11 AM... where the third person, the one not doing the cashout and not cooking the product, IS hard pressed. And my business really relies on this person, because this person's attitude to that busy period is going to make or break me.

So, three critical persons, all of whom are doing work that could easily end my business, and I can't practically oversee them, due to my other responsibilities as a business owner. This is why running a bakery is next to impossible... because if you hire a fourth or fifth person to make SURE the business runs well, the cost of labour can easily break me.

It is for reasons like this that authority of any kind isn't about comfort or vague self-expression.  Try to go into business as a bakery owner to "find yourself" and you will very quickly find that you're not a bakery owner.  There's no room to romanticise your work or your staff, or hedge your expectations... you have to calculate precisely, daily, what needs to happen and enforce structures that ensure it.

This principle, as it happens, does not apply to DMing a game.  But funnily enough, DMing a game DOES apply to this principle.

To continue with the model discussed.  As a bakery owner, and really any sort of authority we may ever embrace, the more we know about the business we're in, the better. A bakery is always strengthened if the owner is a baker, and knows how to bake if the baker doesn't show up... but all too often, a baker is often terrible with those issues of managing the local authorities, regulations, business associations or providers as they go.  If I've worked in a flour mill, I'll see things in the flour I'm given that another baker would never see, assuming that all flour is always the same, given that it's only "flour." The more we know, the more we can see, and the more we see, the more we can adjust for it, plan for it, and fix the problem when it arises.

Yet, of course, people get into business knowing nothing except what money looks like. They start restaurants without knowing how to cook, or start clothing companies without knowing how the wider industry works, or publishing books supposing that when a printer tells them what to do, then that's obviously right. After all, the printer must know what do to.

Except that the printer's concern is the printer, no the buyer; just as the cooks who do know how to cook also know how to steal food from the owner, just as the bartender knows how to water drinks for tips, or the cloth merchant knows how to swindle a rube with third-rate cloth.  One reason why that bakery run by eastern Europeans seems never to close or go broke is because those who run it began in a host of industries, when they were young, that supported bakeries.  They worked in sugar or flour mills, they carried sacks by the hundreds every day, they made their contacts and they kept them... and they continue to do that, silently, patiently, never trying to open another location, because getting rich isn't their goal.  Baking bread is.

So, what does any of this have to do with D&D?

Our attention to detail matters, not in the game world, but in the real one. That said, however, the decision to bend ourselves to rules that we perhaps do not understand at first glance, or commit ourselves to a difficult game structure that we feel certain we can get better at it helps impress skill-sets that repeatedly come to serve us later, often in ways we can't imagine.  We might not think that opening a module, reading through it and then presenting it to players is a "skill-set," but we do precisely the same thing when we're given a company policy that we're to present to employees, who must accept the policy as we provide it.  Knowing how to present the module in a way that encourages the players to sign on helps with teaching employees that they, too, have to onboard themselves if they want to continue working here.

Of course, all that's ruined when present-moment Hasbro D&D tells the DM to be a dancing monkey. But we can leave that discussion for another day.

Traditionally, DMing has been an authority based role, one in which we manage people. Moreover, apart from the process of answering questions, filling in details, staying one step ahead of the clever player, not letting ourselves get manipulated by a player (in the same way as the baker above not being tricked into thinking a poor employee is indespensible), DMing also builds confidence, a work ethic and a sense of responsibility.

One thing that is rarely discussed in all the questions and answers about how to get players to show up to games is this:  the DM always attends.  It seems to go without saying, but it does get to the heart of the issue.  The players may or may not be turning up because of what the DM says, does or fails to do, but we can at least assume that if the DM is there, and ready to run, then the DM is committed. It wouldn't be the first role in our lives we'll engage in where we're show up ready to run the place, only to find the employees haven't.

DMing, even bad DMing, requires a discipline that players usually don't have. Prep of some kind has to be done, competence of some kind has to be gained, a willingness to adopt authority with one's friends or acquaintances, and in many cases, with total strangers, has to be assumed. Doing so requires grit, tenacity, a vision in what ought or what ought not to be accepted from players and a resolve that, however difficult it may be, we're going to keep at it because we like this game that much.  All these traits translate very, very well to the real world, when we're put in a position of authority.

Not that the world knows this.

I have "dungeon master" on my CV because I'm at a point in my life and my career that I'm not interested in working for someone who doesn't know what D&D involves, and I don't have to. It's a luxury I didn't have once.  For those who know, it's an eyebrow-raiser... and for those who stare at it, wondering why this person is including a "game" in their resume, it's a fast way of identifying employers I'd never want to work for. But for the employer who knows what that is — well, these past few years, that employer has proved to be a good fit for me.

Point in fact. In 2017, I worked briefly, four months, in a bakery, as a four-hour a day employee, four days a week, which did involve me doing the cash-out. I was trusted not because I was a D&D player (oh, how I was in bad straits those days), but because of my university degree.  Point in fact... I learned more as a DM than I ever did in university. Unless you want me to explain at length why the Roman Empire was inevitable.

I can tell you how a bakery functions because I worked in about a dozen restaurants off and on for 25 years, going back to when I was a kid. And I pay attention. That is really it. Paying attention. Effective DMing isn't about listening, it's hearing the phrases behind what's being said... the subtle clues that indicate the player wants to hedge or effectively "steal from the till" when we're not looking. Because just like employees, players will. They can be your very best friends, but where some personal gain is at hand, and you turn out to be a softie, concerned that they're having a good time, they will quietly and consciously manipulate and make you feel that they're presence is completely indespensible to your campaign. And many DMs, knowing they're doing this, will let them, thinking, "Well, it's social, right? It's a game. And I don't really care if they earn what they get."

Sigh.

Well, there are DMs and there are DMs.  And while the above describes my experience, it has to be said... there are a great many dungeon masters who should never manage anything.  Just like there are many, many people who seem to have money to start businesses they should never be allowed to start.

But of course karma pays this. Because such persons never learn anything, while their money is better in my pocket than theirs.

The advanced-copy September issue of the Lantern will be available tomorrow.

In D&D, There's No Such Thing as Superstition

In most fantasy writing, it's made overtly clear from the start that the monsters are real, the magic is real and that the modern rationalist lens for things need not apply here. Very often, an author starts by breaking the fourth wall, having a character think something like, "The dragons arrived in Septivus Canyon when Friedrich was a boy, and he had grown up hearing and reading about them."  This nails down the concept at once: "dragons are real."

The Lantern, however, does not do this. Since the framing of the writing is a broadsheet that talks not to the reader, but to other residents of the game world, it would be ridiculous for the editor to include such a line as the one above. Everyone reading, within the setting, would already know about Septivus Canyon, and how long the dragons had been there. Such details wouldn't be explained, they'd be referenced "off hand," said without preparation, thought or ceremony. Thus Fleetmarsh the editor talks about the magic missile casually, as something everyone knows, presented in the same register as lost goats, the weather or complaints about bill collectors.

Yet, even after consuming the magazine, the modern reader still assumes that Theral's Red or Snellcrake's draught is hokum, a snake oil, not real, not effective in the way the advertiser proclaims it. And this permits me to play a very clever mindgame with the reader, where their habitual superstition — and their habit of viewing D&D in meta terms — let's me pull the rug out time and again, probably as long as I wish.

It goes to the critical lack-of-connect that comes from the books and the modules and the cookie-cutter approach to running D&D. Even as we "pretend" to fight a dragon or an orc, or "pretend" that this ability gives +2 to our ability to leap this gorge, we lose sense of what the player would really think as they move through the world: that they're good a gorge jumping, and that dragons and orcs are no stranger to them than snakes and people from Maine.

This, as anyone who reads it, is far more immersive than most DMs achieve.  And it enables those who want to become better DMs to see at once, easily, that we make the game world more real when we don't explain things. Where we simply say, without building some huge justification for why a particular dungeon exists, or the purpose of some high mucky-muck, that the thing just IS.  After all, why would the characters know? When we invent such backstories, it's to inform the PLAYER, not the character... and is that really the goal here?

When the setting just is, without justification or lecture, the players must inhabit it directly rather than hovering above it, sifting through the DM's long, boring descriptions of the thing they haven't yet seen... in the same way we do our taxes.

For those who have read the content, consider the Priory for example. We learn nothing about how it was built or for whom; why it hasn't been knocked down, or why it declined. We learn a few rumours about others who may or may not have come to a bad end on account of it, but these rumours are neither confirmed nor supported by what the adventurers find. That leaves a huge open-end to the whole concept, since we're left with, "Is that really how such-and-such died?" Which as DM we don't have to answer, because sometimes... and say it with me now: nobody knows. Seriously, nobody, not in the game setting.

Thus the players are denied the comfort of omniscience. If we won't tell them, because arguably no one in the character's sphere actually knows, then the players also do not gain the comfort of being reassured. Is the wolf in Hennock just a wolf? Fleetmarsh doesn't know. His readers don't know. Perhaps the only ones who knew were able to hold that knowledge for just a few seconds, before... well, you can guess.  That puts doubt in the player's minds, even as it suggests that surely, a wolf in a typical English countryside can't be that dangerous.  Can it?

It builds tension because with it, stripped of the assumption that the DM's going to make sure the wolf in their path is manageable at their level, the players must have courage.  That's what's been lost in modern D&D.  Yes, the gallimaufry has gotten ridiculous, roleplaying has obliterated game-playing, incompetency is all that a new player can expect from a DM, who learned as much from the DM before... but the most sabotaging concept that has truly made the game boring is the total lack of courage.

Now, JB at Blackrazor likes to say, and accurately, that D&D is about adventuring. But adventuring is about courage, which is sorely lacking in people who lose nothing except their pride if a character is killed. But in this day and age, pride comes in dribs and drabs, it seems, and none have pride to spare. So courage, it's believed, must be set aside for surety, if the game's to be fun.

It is a sad state for the game to come to.

The Lantern, then, provides what's missing. These persons, even Geoffrey Fleetmarsh, vain and self-righteous as he is, who strive to learn spells or have lost two of their fingers, having gone to actual war, or urging themselves to go outside the church to discover what's scratching there, are brave. Some are a bit smug and self-important, but they're yet ready to do what we, in this world, would not: actually risk their lives to learn how to do something, and go somewhere, most of us would avoid just as hard as we can. But they're doing it because they believe it's the right thing. Bad stuff has happened... someone really ought to do something.  As Fleetmarsh writes, "Will no one undertake to deal with this menace?"

It is the words of a soul living in the 17th century, when much of the ordinary world was more dangerous than it is now... when going out to the privy on a bad night could have consequences none could guess at. What thoughts must that walk, which must be taken, dredge up in one's mind when the world is full of spiders as big as dogs?

How My Thinking Process Made This

It should come as a surprise to no one that presently I'm deep in the process of getting the second issue, the September Issue, of the magazine sorted and settled, now with the 1st of August being my deadline for pre-purchasers instead of the 21st. I'm in process, but it's engaging and I haven't much time to write blog posts.  I could use some spiced nettle draught right now.

Funny but the second issue is more difficult than the first, as there's an expectation to match what's been done.  The positive feedback that I've received for the first one is unequalled, exhilarating and a little scary. Nonetheless, I'm passed over the feeling that "no it can't be done" into "oh hell yeah, this is great." It's a nice tipping point.

This is my first post not trying to sell the thing, but I can't not talk about it because it's become the single overwhelming concern for me. It's pushed my sales of old books up, it's pushed my patreon up, it's pushed my self-confidence up and, well, I think it's bloody brilliant, myself.

But since it's my nature to deconstruct everything, it's a natural impulse to do so here. I'm not saying that I want to talk about how the "sausage is made," that's not of interest to me. Rather, the question in my head begins with the moment of inspiration that brought this about (and I'm listening, weirdly, to Grace Slick telling me to remember what the door mouse said as I write this).

I was looking at some of those magazine cover memes that people throw together about politics and other things, where they choose a picture and then badly design the outcalls on the front, like The Onion does. That got me to thinking, "Hm. I wonder how hard it would be to take one of those covers and actually flesh out the entire interior of the magazine..."

You know, actually design a mast head, make the art, write the articles, be as absurd as the cover is, not worry about whether or not it's true. I mucked about for a bit with that, off and on... this would be about mid-last month. And got to talking about it with my daughter, because annoying daughters with stupid grandfather stuff is how the world works. Or ought to.

It was a day or so after that when I began to think... "Isn't there some way this could work for D&D?"

As it happens, I have a very dense game world, not only because it's based on the real world, but because of the way I think about the real world.  Over the last couple of years, I've been playing with all sorts of possibilities that are available now, that weren't a few years ago, specifically in the crossroads where A.I. and Googlemaps meet.  To explain this, I have to include a passage here from a book I'm never likely to finish, but which I mess with because sometimes I just want to relax:

"Oh," Anya replied. Reaching out, touching the button, a panel glided open — revealing a hidden, chilled compartment, from which emerged a hint of cold mist. Crystalware glasses, etched with the Rolls-Royce mirrored 'R's, were just in reach. "Thank you," she said to Marshall, seeing intuitively where ice and water came from.

"Certainly, Miss. The black button opens the other bar, but I guessed you might want to keep your head clear."

"Yes, definitely," Anya replied, feeling the Rolls ease into motion as she filled a glass, the weight of the crystal strangely grounding in her hand. Without thinking, she drank it down in a single draught, as if the coolness might steady her. Resting the glass upon her forehead, Anya asked, "Do you mind if I ask... if it doesn't bother you while you drive... how long have you known Ms. Hedges?"

Marshall flicked her a look in the rear view mirror and considered as they crossed Park Avenue. Then Madison. "Unless I miss my guess, Miss Frost, you were hired today. It's your first day of work."

Keeping an eye upon her and on the road, he saw her nod, saw the reluctance to speak. Easily, Marshall turned the car onto 5th Avenue, adding, "I don't work for Ms. Hedges, but for an agency that provides specific drivers when requested... but I do remember my first day working for her. If you'll allow me to tell you." He stopped for the light on 54th street.

"Please do," Anya replied, eyes meeting Marshall's in the rear view.

"I didn't know her but I'd heard another say she was politely reticent; she dislikes any sort of interaction, such as we're having now. That day, she directed me out of the city, towards Scranton and Carbondale. It was bitterly cold... in the minus twenties. She wore a fur coat and had a mink wrapper stretched across her legs, while I had these—" he showed his leather driving gloves; "—and a suit jacket much like I'm wearing now."

The light changed and the phantom slid forward, making a lane change once they were past the intersection. "The first stop we made was outside Honesdale. One of those old-money places where the house spreads out and sits on a lot of land. Ms. Hedges had me stop... and as a woman in the house emerged, Ms. Hedges cast off the furs and slipped into a plain cloth coat. They met, hugged and went inside. I could see they were friends. In the car, I let the engine run hot and got by, even as frost grew on the windows."

Traffic on 5th flowed well, as they crossed 55th, then 56th. "She reappeared after an hour, the woman in the house with her; again they hugged, and talked a bit longer, before Ms. Hedges came to the car. Then, as she changed her coat—" Marshall slowed down and stopped for the light on 57th; "—she gave directions for our journey in a most impatient way. I wanted to ask, but of course I didn't; we went to a little place called Mehoopany, in the Poconos. Another sprawling ranchhouse, another change of her coat, another woman waiting on the porch. I watched the same scene play out again and began to wonder."

As the turn signal clicked, Marshall smiled into the rear view, engaging Anya again. "I don't know what was going on. We went to a third place; not far away. Lawton I think it was. Same scene, same embraces and the same hesitancy before separating. I don't think Ms. Hedges was disturbed by it, not exactly; each meeting looked to be with friends. But I saw that it was wearing on her."

The light changed and Marshall turned west onto 57th. "It wore on me, too. I'd been six, seven hours in the car, my feet ice cold despite the heater, my hands stiff as I held the wheel. If there'd been an opportunity, I'd have stopped and purchased one, but every place we stopped was in the country." Without malice, he paused before saying, "I must admit, I said a few unpleasant things in the car as I waited, you can imagine."

"It must have been a very long day," Anya replied kindly.

"It was. But when Ms. Hedges got into the limo after the third visit, she directed us towards Towanda. I followed the GPS and got us there, where she had me drive down main street. She told me to stop, in front of a men's clothing store, and said, 'You must be cold. Wait here.'"

They crossed 6th Avenue. "I still hear her saying that," he said. "Matter-of-factly; and she went in, bought me a rich, fine mohair coat and a pair of gloves, I don't know how much it was... but she compelled me to accept them, and not consider the cost." He chuckled. "You've seen already, no doubt, what she can be like."

The Phantom passed Carnegie Hall — Anya saw that Matteo Rüttimann was to begin a week-long engagement. "I've seen it," she agreed.

"Then you know. I was grateful. She settled into her seat, directing me back to New York. It was well after dark before I brought her home."

They sat silently, crossing 7th Avenue; the Phantom stopped again for the light on 8th. Anya's gaze drifted to the familiar stone facade of the old Hearst Magazine Building, before Marshall turned in his seat and looked at her. "She may not seem to care; but she does. I've look forward to driving her — not because we're friends. We're not even acquaintances. But she deserves to be treated with the greatest respect. If I'm her driver, I know this is what she gets." He paused. "I'm going to drop you off right there, just past the green awning on the right. I'll be back to collect you at four."

No one has to read this... it's merely the best way I have of describing the headspace that brought me to The Lantern. The above is telling two stories about two different geographical trips. One through New York City from the Citiplaza Centre (where that building that every youtube creator says is going to fall down) to the corner that, yes, has the Hearst magazine building, where Cosmo comes from.  The other covers an area of Pennsylvania and upstate New York. And if the reader knows either of these parts of the world, they'll know the locations and timing is accurate.

But here's the thing. I've never been to New York. Or upstate Pennsylvania. But I have streetview in GoogleMaps, so all the houses in Pennsylvania that the story stops at, those are all real.  The corners in New York, too. I paced all the dialogue driving through New York by word count, because it's one continous stream of conversation.  Essentially, I drew it like a screenplay, if I actually wanted to film the car moving along those streets, all in one shot.

Why?

Not sure, really. Because I could, certainly. It's been two years and some since my eyes were opened about ChatGPT, which no one talks about, save a few people in my actual real life orbit.  I assume there are others, but they don't share it on the 'net, probably because they'd sound as crazy as I do right now. Because they'd have to post large sections of a story that no one's read, to get the point across.

Presently, we can ask anything.  And because we can also check any answer we get, pretty easily, we don't have to wait for google to skew our searches, or hope that other search engines won't. We can just ask, making the question as complicated as we wish, and go on asking question after question as we shape and build and design, well... anything. I don't have to live in New York. I have all the images of New York, through Google street view, that I need.  And now I have a program that can describe every image.  I can even screen shot the image off Google and give it to chat and ask, "what is this?" and get the answer I want.

And what are we talking about? Whether students can cheat on tests. Whether artists can still function. Uh huh. It's 2025. I think the 20th century is done. Yes there will be artists. But those doing it the way it was done 40 years ago? Um... no, probably not.

All right, put all that aside. How do I publish a magazine for D&D?

'Cause that was the question.  I'm thinking about The Onion and trying to adapt that to D&D, which of course got me thinking about the Dragon Magazine, and how much I hated it, yes in 1981, because it really was such a shitty, shitty, shitty product.

And no, I didn't get to liking it later.

What bugged me then was how really worthless it was for my efforts as a DM. As a map guy, growing up in a world where floor plans are, um, everywhere, it wasn't of much use that a magazine about D&D thought what I needed were a lot of really badly made, not well scaled maps with extremely low detail, since I could pretty much draw this in less than a minute. The notion that I should "get excited" about this bothered me then, and it really bothers me now when people still talk about the Dragon as though it were some amazing thing.  The "life cycle" of the ochre jelly?  What the fuck am I supposed to do with this?

Though yes, I probably could do something with it now, I'm a lot smarter... and I have chat. But the original article is no doubt so bad, I'd do better to start with the title and nothing else.

Yet, here I am, five weeks ago now, thinking, couldn't I do the Dragon better somehow?  I mean, the real issue wasn't the staff's mediocre sense of anthropology or biology, or their crippling outlook on historical politics or social structure, or even their cut-and-paste approach to dungeon making. The real problem was that they didn't take any of it seriously. For them, it was a game — no, not D&D, the magazine.  I mean, nothing these guys did really mattered... they were just selling their stuff to an audience less bright than they were, in a market with no competitors, to a core audience with only a few alternatives to pick from (which could likewise be easily covered)... while at the same time, there was no way they could be "wrong" about anything, because it's all just make believe anyway. None of these things are real, right? Want the life history of the goblin?  Just make it up.

On some level, I appreciate that. Except that, apart from the magazine, the players in the game campaign DID want a certain degree of consistency, which the magazine wasn't. Not even remotely. Which of course matched the audience, which hard as it is to believe, were actually more ignorant then than they are now. It's just that all the ones still with us from back then, like me, educated themselves. The true idiots, whose money nevertheless supported the magazine, quit the game and ended up selling insurance.

All right, you can see, I have some issues. Fair. But because they didn't take it seriously, the writers and self-styled gurus of the culture all ended by representing themselves as fatuously "above it all," beyond criticism... which is really a terrible place for a writer. If you don't listen to criticism, and adjust to it, as a writer you just get worse.

Therefore, the problem with the dragon, I realised, was that the writers all lived in the real world. Which put them "above" the game in their heads... and thus, "too good" for it.

What if all the "writers" were inside the game world?  That's where my head went.  What if Geoffrey Fleetmarsh, the editor, was a sort of desperate, haranguing self-righteous publisher, sure that he's always right, yet beset endlessly by incompetents, bill collectors, a readership that didn't appreciate what he was doing and so on? What if the articles were written by people who had been there, suffered the thing personally, and now had a reason to take it to this small broadsheet that'll print it because the agenda is "to shock while telling the absolute truth"?  And if there are ads, they wouldn't be slick and clean and well written... they'd be self-submitted, clumsy, full of nonsense that never ought to be in an ad, but rural truthful too. And since everything was "inside" the setting, then every off-handed comment about a wolf, an abandoned building or a missing drunkard would be "real," and therefore a potential "hook" for a DM to use.

In a lot of ways, the hooks sort of write themselves. The first rule, obey the Dragon and accept that the main aren't going to take things seriously. An edict against casting weather spells indoors?  Absolutely. The inn has a problem with dwarves?  Well, they do throw dishes and bang the table when they sing.  The fellow who fixes wagons doesn't want to travel more than a mile to do so... of course.  And it's not like addresses existed then.  So don't include them in the ads.

But then, because I'm me, and I don't play a game world that's all fun and fluffy bunnies, why not make the world real. I mean, pick a year. 1635.  That's 15 years before the game world I've been designing for 30 years takes place. I know the time period. I know the people, the sociology, the politics. The west counties is a good place for it. Separate from the main land routes, but populated and familiar as an English countryside.  A good mix of sea and land. Ships regularly landing at Plymouth from all over the world. Someone arrives from... oh, Africa, and tells a story. Any story. Any standard D&D warstory, but told from the point of a view of someone in that world, whose been there, and was invested in the outcome.  No autocratic, objective DM's point of view.  Players, experiencing the world and writing the story.  So that other players would want to read it.

I knew how to research this, how to put it together, how to follow each little scene with google maps, what questions to ask, and how to shape the dialogue and frame the concept, in the time frame I have, because of that scene above where I wrote about a car driving through New York City. Each bit of design we do, each thing we learn, gets a later application. I don't worry that I'm "wasting time," because whatever I'm doing now, it'll apply to something later. That's how I became this, and not the guy scrambling to come up with something about ochre jellies.

I was kind of shaking when I thought of this. And I would have dropped it... if this had been 2022.  Because in 2022, there was no way to adequately address what the world was like in 1635.  There would have been no way to produce this much art, this fast, for the cost that would have been, adjusted to both the time period AND the idea that the work wouldn't be limited by 1635 technology.  There simply wouldn't have been a way for a single person to do this, monthly.  Not and have it look like this. If it were 2022, I'd have had this idea and it never would have happened.

And those who have expressed, here and there, their trouble with my use of A.I. art?  I've paid for art. I bought my first piece of art for a publication I was putting together in 1994.  And I have deliberated, discussed, dealt with and paid artists for the last thirty years, when I had to, because I had no choice. Those bringing up the issue, I'm guessing you've never done it... and certainly not as often as I have. And certainly not with the understanding that being able to invent a piece of art in one's head, and have it in usuable form inside of 20 minutes?

You might as well tell me I should walk to New York, because trains put coaches out of business 185 years ago.

Sorry. I can do this now. I'm not going to wait for this to be "all right" for a lot of people who can't cope.

There you are. That's where this came from.  I'll bet the above doesn't make much sense.  A lot of time, when I just throw out a post like this, without planning it, the logic doesn't hold up well.  I go down this side passages, rant, come back, sort of just stumble around to the end, until I run out of "Oh yeah, and..." moments in my head. Which is now.