I'm not confident I'm remembering correctly, but didn't she have a line to the effect of "They can courtmarshall me if we make back"
Not a very high quality article. Makes constant reference to "faction and domain play" without adequately defining the terms for someone that didn't grow up with them. (Presumably, the target of the article.) And a lot of typos.
Addl wisdom: some people make jokes when they're uncomfortable, as a defense mechanism. If you have a player or players constantly trying to lighten the mood, consider that the atmosphere you're trying to create may not be a good fit for your party, and/or parts of your party may not be a good fit for your game.
I understand, but also, please don't. As bad as it is right now, the world is still a better place with you in it. Call or text 988 if you're feeling suicidal, there are people there ready to listen and help.
One slab of dry ice is a couple pounds, I could easily see a bathtub full of it being a problem. Also, co2 is heavier than air, cats are smaller than humans, and they live closer to the ground, so I think ...m... made the right call.
This kind of thing can be fun. It can also be just as or more fun to sit around with nothing more than some scrap paper and an idea. Especially no shade on people that don't have unlimited budgets to spend on setups like this.
My headcanon is that it's entirely perception. Kind of like how plating the same food in a pretty way can affect how you rate it's taste. The replicated food can be identical down to the molecule, but the knowledge that Sisko's Dad handmade your dinner makes you think it's tastier.
Fun fact, any game dev's financial data can be stolen if you're capable of answering my riddles three
I would really like to commission that one artist that does the WWI kobolds to do a piece with 3 kobolds running a vintage SMG as if it were a crew served weapon. (But sadly they won't return my emails)
I just want you to know how much I appreciate your hammer comparison. That is an incredibly apt simile and I want you to get credit for it. You should feel good about your analysis and communication skills.
That strikes me as highly reflective of google's position of power; from the employer's perspective, the point where the diminishing returns are no longer worth it is related to the point where they're losing too many applicants from interview exhaustion. If you're not google, not offering the kind of pay and such that google does, your break-even point is likely much sooner.
Additionally, from the worker's perspective, the only-3-interviews rule is an assertion of our power. And, as an added plus, if enough people adhere to it, it will shift that break-even point even for places like Google, and resist the shifting of that burden onto unpaid workers.
This is silly. EVERY system can be exploited, and every group should expect eachother to act in good faith. The difference between systems is what parts are done for you and what parts you do yourself, and every group is going to want a different assortment of those pieces. You're just mad that some groups get what they want out of DnD. You are the problem person in this image.
I thought people didn't like him because he said something stupid on twitter? Can't find it now of course.
The question that raises from a process improvement perspective then is "were the first 3 rounds really effective tests?" Perhaps a better solution is not more interviews, but more focused interviews conducted by the people that actually have the knowledge and power to make the decision. (And if the knowledge and the power are divided among multiple people, another great improvement would be empowering the people with the knowledge.)
Yeah, it saves you money...by costing the prospective employee. There's only so much we as employees can or should be willing to give up for free, and it's 3 interviews.
I also question if more than that is really improving the quality of your hires. Far more often (100% of the time, in my experience), multiple interviews are more a symptom of bureaucracy; multiple managers insisting that they get to stick their fingers in the pie, rather than actually learning anything more meaningful about the candidate.
You see something similar in the entranceway to public bathrooms that don't have doors, where it kind of zig-zags for privacy. I'm trying to figure out what this kind of architectural feature is called. Thanks!
I recently started a new campaign. Two players (one who has played in my games before and their SO, who has been begging me for a spot for years) unexpectedly dropped out, moments before our first session. Their reason was somewhat baffling; they said they didn't want to spend "all day" on this, despite the game only going from noon to 3PM. They seemed to think this was a totally unreasonable expectation on my part, despite them previously having stated they were available during that time. This puzzled me.
I've been musing on this, and the strange paradox of people that say they want to play D&D but don't actually want to play D&D, and I've had an epiphany.
A lot of people blame Critical Role or other popular D&D shows for giving prospective players misplaced perceptions, often related to things like your DM's voice acting ability or prop budget, but I don't think that's what's going on here. My realization is that, encoded in the medium of podcasts and play videos, is another expectation: New players unconsciously expect to receive D&D the way they receive D&D shows: on-demand, at their house, able to be paused and restarted at their whim, and possibly on a second-screen while they focus on something else!
I don't know as this suggests anything we as DMs could do differently to set expectations, but it did go a long ways to helping me understand my friends, and I thought it might help someone here to share.
I've got an unholy-water fountain, a human chessboard, and an evil hedge maze. I need 1 more thing to put in the last corner of the square courtyard/garden thing. Any suggestions?