Totally! I really like that the article explains that Trump doesn’t lie, but he bullshits. Apparently the reason is that lying means the liar knows what’s true, while a bullshitter doesn’t care if the bullshit is true or false. This is one of the reasons Trump is unique.

Oooooh. Those boxes would be useful. Thanks for taking the time to document them!

Huh. Interesting. It seems like you’re fully digital, then. Maybe I should try that sometime!

It sounds like you’ve got a comprehensive solution!

Do you prepare scenarios by exporting to PDFs? I ask because I tried using regular Markdown for my sessions but it didn’t work. I couldn’t get nice boxed text nor could I define when I wanted a page break. None of the Markdown solutions seemed as elegant as Quarto (which I know from learning to use R) and Typst (which seems a little simpler than Quarto). Maybe there are solutions that I missed.

I ask that, but that doesn’t mean that Markdown isn’t a great solution to many problems! In fact, my daily note-taking is done in Markdown!

In case you’re curious, here are my Typst settings. I write them at the top of every new scenario I build.

#set text(font: "Atkinson Hyperlegible Next")

#let title = [The Name of This New Scenario lol]

#set page(
    header: align(right + horizon, title)
)

#set pagebreak(weak: true)

#let box_text(content) = block(
  stroke: 1pt + black, 
  inset: 10pt,
  radius: 4pt,
  width: 100%,
  content
)

#show "GM Note": phrase => strong(phrase)

Ah. Thanks for the recommendation. I looked it up and the noun definition was “a substance obtained by a chemical process or producing a chemical effect”. So things like sucrose in a banana, protein in eggs, and even fiber in vegetables are all chemical.

I understand that you’re trying to make the point that Nutella is not healthy, and I genuinely think you can make an effective argument for that (in fact, I agree with you!). In particular, I think you can argue with evidence-based arguments. However, do you think accusing Nutella of being made of chemicals (when practically everything in this universe —including healthy food— is made of chemicals) is the best way of making an evidence-based argument?

Just to understand better what you’re saying, what does the word “chemical” mean?

• I’ve learned plenty of words.
• I’ve learned to describe spaces and objects better.
• I’ve learned how to have conversations about expectations in a friend group.
• I’ve learned that some things need hard prep. Others can be improvised.

How did those ideas relate for you:

• satanism
• authority
• teaching?

In other words, can you elaborate?

Gotcha.

I see what you mean. Apocalypse World is not on the side of brutally hard or the side of trivially easy; it sits in the middle, in “yes, but”. Some games make certain things impossible (“No, you can’t jump to the moon”). Other games make things trivial (“Sure, use your ‘ultra high jump’ ability”). In other games, the difference between “you can’t” and “sure” is just your character’s level.

This means that, no matter how weak or strong your character is, you can try anything. This does not mean, however, that all characters in Apocalypse World are equally competent. In Apocalypse World, an incompetent character usually has a -2 stat, while a very competent character has a +3 stat. The difference between -2 and +3 is quite massive, even if it doesn’t seem at first.

You can be sure of it by checking out this graph that Vincent Baker, the creator of Apocalypse World, made:

Notice that your odds of a strong hit go from 5% to 55%. Your odds of at least a weak hit go from 30% to 90%. If a teacher saw their student go from 30% to 90%, they’d think the student changed, grew, became more competent.

Well, but aren’t other games more dramatic in their character stat growth? Aren’t other games in the extremes of brutally hard or trivially easy? Probably, but I’m not sure that this is a bug. To me, it’s a feature.

My players can try anything. They want to burn the whole realm in a single Move? They do it. And I get to think about how that changes the world. I get to think about how the fire destroyed their own home. I get to think about what new societies arise from the ashes. I get to think about how the players’ NPC friends are now plotting against them. In other words, the fact that players can try anything at all makes the game very interesting to me and to my friends. I never tell them “nope, you can’t”. I also never tell them “obviously you can”. Instead, they can always genuinely try. And the world constantly adapts. There is no status quo. That’s the feature, not the bug.

If players can try anything, how come their character sheets are so over-constrained? This is a good point. I agree with you. If you dislike the character sheets in Apocalypse World, it’s kind of a bummer. However, the way that Apocalypse World does characters is decidedly not how all PbtA games do characters. Vincent Baker himself has said that his character playbooks are a sort of historical accident and that other PbtA games could be entirely different (1). And, indeed, there are PbtA games that are entirely different.

Take Ironsworn or Starforged. Both of those games are Powered by the Apocalypse and have an explosion of options for character creation. During character creation, you’re given a deck of cards, and you get to pick three of them for your character. Each card represents a special feat, ability, companion, tool, magic, vehicle, or other options. In Ironsworn there are 75 assets, which gives you 405,150 different combinations for your character. In Starforged there are 87 assets, which gives you 635,970 different combinations for your character.

How does Daggerheart fare in this regard? Does it over-constrain characters? In short, it’s nowhere close to Apocalypse World. Yes, it doesn’t have Ironsworn and Starforged’s explosion of options. However, they do have a card system in which you can choose your character’s ancestry and community. You also choose different cards every time you level up, cards that are specific to your class. This is definitely not an over-constraining game.

So, to recap, the difference between a competent Apocalypse World character and an incompetent one is great. However, players can still always succeed or always fail, which I think is not a bug, but a feature; the world is always adapting to what players do! Finally, Daggerheart is nowhere close to Apocalypse World in terms of over-constraining characters.

(1) Here Vincent Baker shows that Playbooks are even optional to the Apocalypse World model.

Totally valid. I assume you like combat simulators like Dungeons and Dragons. Is that the case? If not, what do you dislike about PbtA?

Huh. Thanks for sharing. I’m totally up for critically evaluating Critical Role and Daggerheart.

I do agree that Critical Role’s play style was a bit like a square peg in a round hole. Other games could’ve been more appropriate for them. Arguably a more appropriate game for them is Daggerheart.

As to not letting your personal feelings about Critical Role cloud my judgement, thanks for caring about not biasing me. At the same time, I’m sure you have good reasons to be critical of Daggerheart. Understanding why we say what we say sounds like a good plan, and I’m curious to hear what you think:

What is it about Daggerheart that makes you think it’s nothing more than a platform to continue their failing brand?

EDIT: Oh… I just realized you asked how it DIVERGES from PbtA, not how it is similar to PbtA. lol my bad. I’ll come back with a more informed response later!

So far I can confidently tell you that the Player Principles in Daggerheart are very much like the Principles of Apocalypse World:

• Be a fan of the character
• Address the characters
• Look through crosshairs
• Play to find out what happens

In other words, it gives clear guidance on what it means to be an MC/GM. It’s explicit about not railroading. It’s explicit about not pulling the rug underneath your players (“Oops! You didn’t check for traps! That’s 999999 bludgeoning damage coming your way!”). I like when games are this explicit; it’s easier to have a conversation about what good and bad GMing looks like.

I also know that it doesn’t just have success and failure (and critical successes and failures). Instead, it has successes and failures that aren’t as extreme, so small complications pop up more often.

The character progression checklist also looks straight up from an Apocalypse World character sheet (in a good way!). [Edit 2: I learned that the checklist might be similar to Apocalypse World, but there’s this whole card system where each level involves choosing new feats or abilities or things like that, all related to your class]

Fair enough. PbtA is not for everyone. In fact, sometimes PbtA is not for me; sometimes I just want to hack and slash and strategize with strict rules instead of creating dramatic stories.

Have you checked out the PbtA grandpa, Apocalypse World?

Apparently when it still hasn’t cooked https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68504/do-eggshells-let-flavours-pass-through-during-boiling

To get organized, Getting Things Done in Standard Notes and my email’s calendar app.

To work, Scrum in Taiga.

To handle life, the Healthy Minds app and Calibre to read Acceptance and Commitment Therapy books.

Ah. I see that it seems as if I’m saying that hand-washing is the result of a theory of cognition, and that this theory of cognition suggests that hand-washing has been deeply ingrained in our psyches for millenia, somehow eliciting the results from the experiments.

I am not suggesting that. Sorry for not having been clear before. I’m tired so I’m sorry if this response is not clear as well. I’m happy to clarify any further misunderstandings.

This is the theory that I’m referring to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnSHpBRLJrQ (of course, there are academic publications on Relational Frame Theory, but this video shows its practical implications quite well)

Learn it in one. Derive it in two. Put it in networks, and that’s what you’ll do.

We have relational frames surrounding hand-washing. We also have relational frames for thousands of other thoughts and behaviors. When those two (hand-washing frames with other frames) combine, they can affect the way we think and act in ways that are novel and perhaps unusual.

Please let me know if this isn’t clear.

Indeed, it is a small sample size.

However, I think it’s possible that these results are true. If you understand relational frame theory, then you can see how the act of washing hands can activate some schemas or deactivate others.

Seen through this lens, the results of these experiments are not special, but are simply implications of an already established theory of cognition.

I read that, originally, Caps Lock was supposed to be the mode-changing key. For some historical reason that changed to Escape.

It sounds like the fact that people understand recipes or simple instruction lists means that they could transfer those same skills into programming. Would you consider cooking pancakes as abstract as writing a macro?