I wonder if this is a divergent interpretation of markdown rules?

E.g. Sync does not render those differently

Try Villain Actions, a la https://nerdarchy.com/a-mouthful-of-5e-dd-villain-actions-inspired-by-matt-colville/

You’ll notice that the 4s are all hugging the exits – it’s the most lucrative spot. Yes, you have to squeeze in when the doors open to let people in and out, but you also get to gtfo first. You’re not subject to the Showtime kids doing flips, when the Mariachi band walks in you can run out to another car at the next stop, and you aren’t in the urination/defecation areas. Sitting is a trap.

Do you happen to read Brust? This reads very Brust.

Great! Then either talk to her to come up with ideas, or if you’re determined to ask the internet, telegraph your united front in your question so that we don’t assume that the primary reason is that you are a shitty partner. Read your question again, just the words, and see if it sounds like the author actually likes their partner, or wants help from the internet changing them to make this game more fun for themselves?

Anyway.

A live session with just voice chat is already a heavy mental toll for some people. Players and DM alike are filtering and translating ideas through one or more layers (what should be done? would this PC/NPC think to do X? How does doing X look like in this setting? Do they have the materials necessary? Would they countenance doing X based on their personality? What would they say alongside it, with what accent and affect?) in real time. Imagine trying to also type while thinking through those thoughts, and wanting your words to be well written, and your grammar and syntax to be correct, and your immortal words to be self-consistent across multiple posts? AND while you are working on all those things there is also distracting crosstalk? Or worse, you’re in a quiet room typing by yourself, but you know that three or more people are talking about what you’re typing in a little huddle? There is no consistent human response to this situation.

It’s an objectively complex format. Some people may find it easy. Some people may be able to ignore or eschew some of their own internal requirements that are consuming their mental energy and game time. And some people may not, and then external pressure to do so can make them stressed, which makes all of what I wrote harder to manage.

You could go text-only, with multiple text channels (roleplay vs ooc vs initiative) and strict timers, e.g. 5 minutes (which, speaking from personal experience, is also draining) just get rid of the voice chat. Or as others said, go with truly async play-by-post with 24 hour timers. Sure, a single combat may take a week to resolve, but it gives everyone plenty of time to do all of the mental load required to play, without all the pressure of realtime translation.

“Hey, GF, what did you think of this format? I want you to have fun, but I’m worried that you’re not enjoying it. It also seems like there are some unspoken expectations from the others, and I think it’d be good for us to discuss them together to see if we agree with them, and then maybe take our thoughts to the group.”

And then be ready to either defend your GF, as well as open to potentially leaving the group with her if the other players refuse to accommodate.

Just because you think the right solution is for your GF to increase her pacing does not mean that your GF will agree with the premise, and even if she agrees, it doesn’t mean that she can achieve whatever arbitrary standard the group expects.

What is a ‘banna’? I thought you might have meant ‘banana’, but you tripled down so now I’m not sure. The internet only tells me of the Banna Strand, a beach in Ireland

Your disdain for these manuals of style is blatantly visible in your omission of the serial comma, which all three recommend using ಠ_ಠ

Oh, no problem then! The AI bubble will carry us through far enough until it all comes crashing down in… I want to say 2027?

Preface: I have a lot of AI skepticism.

My company is using Cursor and Windsurf, focusing on agent mode (and whatever Windsurf’s equivalent is). It hallucinates real hard with any open ended task, but when you have ALL of:

• an app with good preexisting test coverage
• the ability to run relevant tests quickly (who has time to run an 18 hour CI suite locally for a 1 line change?)
• a well thought out product use case with edge cases

Then you can tell the agent to write test cases before writing code, and run all relevant tests when making any code changes. What it produces is often fine, but rarely great. If you get clever with setting up rules (that tell it to do all of the above), you can sometimes just drop in a product requirement and have it implement, making only minor recommendations. It’s as if you are pair programming with an idiot savant, emphasis on idiot.

But whose app is well covered with tests? (Admittedly, AI can help speed up the boilerplating necessary to backfill test cases, so long as someone knows how the app is supposed to work). Whose app is well-modularized such that it’s easy to select only downstream affected tests for any given code change? (If you know what the modules should be, AI can help… But it’s pretty bad at figuring that out itself). And who writes well thought out product use cases nowadays?

If we were still in the olde waterfall era, with requirements written by business analysts, then maybe this could unlock the fabled 100x gains per developer. Or 10x gains. Or 1.1x gains, most likely.

But nowadays it’s more common for AI to write the use cases, hallucinate edge cases that aren’t real, and when coupled with the above, patchwork together an app that no one fully understands, and that only sometimes works.

Edit: if all of that sounds like TDD, which on its own gives devs a speed boost when they actually use it consistently, and you wonder if CEOs will claim that the boosts are attributable to AI when their devs finally start to TDD like they have been told to for decades now, well, I wonder the same thing.

Spelljammer campaign at level 11. We were hired to get a MacGuffin necklace off of a pirate, by his rival. We waltz into his stronghold, get an audience, and then Nat 20 a Persuasion check to convince him for a 1on1 with my bard, b/c for a pirate so tough, what threat could my bard pose? His guards and my party members leave the room.

Land a Suggestion to have him hand me the necklace, and then land a Modify Memory to have him think it was his idea: we would claim he was dead, use the necklace to get an audience with his rival to show her “proof,” and then double cross her and kill her. Then he’d swoop in, reclaim the necklace, and pay us handsomely.

Poor dummy. Hoodwinked!

deleted by creator

Meh, Irish Whiskey and Scotch are still available. The loss will be forgotten over a single glass.

Maybe. There are many ways to move files and directories around without using Finder, at which point all indexed data about those files and directories will be stale. Forcing something as core as mv to update Spotlight would be significantly worse, I think. By keeping the .DS_Store files co-located with the directory they index, moving a directory does not invalidate the index data (though moving a file without using Finder still does). Whether retaining indexing on directory moves is a compelling enough reason to force the files everywhere is probably dependent on whether that’s a common enough pattern among workflows of users, and whether spotlight performance would suffer drastically if it were reliant on a central store not resilient against such moves.

So, it’s probably a shaky reason at best.

That reads like the sort of thing Wolfram Alpha was designed to absolutely obliterate, if only the raw data representing each of those keywords had been loaded in.

I introduced a “small one story structure, its walls no wider than the span of a single door” next to the farmhouse my players were investigating. They didn’t believe the owners who told them what it was for, and went to check it out for themselves, hackles up and weapons drawn.

It’s an outhouse.

Just an outhouse.

No need for the entire rehash–feel free to just cherry pick some votes from her track record that her base expected her to vote one way, but she voted another. Since she’s apparently done so again and again and again, that shouldn’t be too hard for you, as you seem to follow her career closely. When politicians do that kind of thing frequently enough to build a reputation, someone usually compiles those instances. A link to such a compilation would also work to sway your detractors.

Legitimately curious about this. Since the sources I read don’t mention this, I am afraid I’ll be doomed to relying on propaganda unless someone educates me. Please help me by providing examples of AoC selling out, and ideally link to the sources so that I may enlighten myself in the future. Thanks!

Do you even read?

deleted by creator