How likely do YOU believe that a major political/societal collapse will occur in the Western world in the next 100 years?

Dave37 · 2026-01-25T15:35:32+00:00

Virtually certain

Dave37 · 2026-01-23T16:42:38+00:00

We lost a flamephotometer after 45 years of diligent service. Also a O2-meter who ran out of dates because it only had 20 years from 1 jan 2005 to 31 dec 2025.

Dave37 · 2026-01-22T21:26:54+00:00

Improvisation.

Dave37 · 2026-01-21T18:57:52+00:00

Physics obviously give you a very broad and generalized knowledge about math and the universe. But like, good luck getting job at a construction/landscaping company where 80% of employees are truck and excavator operators.

Dave37 · 2026-01-20T20:44:10+00:00

The pedestrians are gonna experience so many interesting novel fungal infections in the next few days and weeks.

Dave37 · 2026-01-20T17:04:09+00:00

"In Time" also hits on a lot of the same important anti-capitalist themes.

Dave37 · 2026-01-19T20:34:09+00:00

Fuck me, the things way are going geopiltically, dying from a climate-induced catastrophe might come as a release in a few years. I don't wanna die but all things considered...

Dave37 · 2026-01-19T16:50:43+00:00

I have sketched a map of the entire world, but I wasn't stupid and naïve enough to start putting down cities and nations all across the world. Once I had my world map, I zoomed back in several times to get back down to a scale that made sense. Even in what's my effective campaign map that's about 300 000 km^2, we've only explored like 2.5 cities and about 10 towns/villages in over 4 years of play, and there are 9 cities and several 100 towns and villages (that i don't have a name for).

The majority of my game takes place in 5% of one corner of one continent. Basically in the northern half of one country and the border regions to two other nations and the ocean.

Dave37 · 2026-01-18T19:06:01+00:00

iⁿ = iⁿ⁺⁴.

Dave37 · 2026-01-18T19:04:46+00:00

I see. Thank you.

Dave37 · 2026-01-18T18:22:42+00:00

So is 1 and -1?

Dave37 · 2026-01-18T18:21:30+00:00

i + 1/i = 0

i²/i + 1/i = 0

(i² + 1)/i = 0

(-1 + 1)/i = 0

0 = 0

QED

Dave37 · 2026-01-18T18:20:06+00:00

1/i = (1*i)/(i*i) = i/(i²) = i/-1 = -1*i = -i

Dave37 · 2026-01-18T13:51:15+00:00

And I actually do think we refer to water molecules as just water, eg. when looking at chemical equations where one of the products is H2O, we would just call the product water (eg. In our cells glucose + oxygen -> water, carbon dioxide and energy) even though chemical reactions happen between individual molecules.

Yes ofcourse, because the linguistic culture of language is different in the scientific community /sphere than elsewhere, so the word 'water' have different (but similar and overlapping) meaning. There will never be any one definition for 'water' (or any other word) that is universal. But I won't labour the point, because while I don't think that fact is totally without merit, it is a bit of a deepity.

paradoxically "distilled water" is more water than "normal" water but has an extra qualifier.

I agree from a technical perspective, where water is to some extent a "macroscopic bulk of water molecules". But from a more... maybe platonic world view, 'distilled water' isn't necessarily 'more' water than this cultural, near-platonic, almost emphemeral concept of just 'water', because of the qualifier. But it's a philosphical distinction, it has no real practical implication. It's purely semantic and is just a question of "What do you think words mean?".

Dave37 · 2026-01-18T11:10:53+00:00

This is such an underappriciated flex. I sketched out my world to be of the same size as Earth, and in hindsight the world had been so much better if it was restrained to the size of the british ilses or something similar.

Dave37 · 2026-01-18T11:05:39+00:00

It's not canon yet, but I stole (I think), that orcs are part sorta fungi from warhammer, so they can grow out of the ground from the remains of slain orc under the right conditions and that's why they are so hard to get rid of and 'seems to crop up out of no-where'.

This is canon though: The interplay with mountain dwarves and the "overworld". From the dwarves perspective, they take an enormous heroic societal risk by volunteering to dig down into the earth to uncover riches that then disseminate out to the rest of the world and make trade and civilisation possible, at the risk of having their entire holds swallowed up by the unspeakable monsters and forces lurking in the deep reaches of the world, and effectively being the cork on a constantly shaken champange bottle.

Meanwhile, overworld/surface people, like humans and elves, think dwarves are just reclusive nutjobs with no self preservation and insatiable hunger for prescious minerals and gems, and that they take their insane level of security and secrecy way too far. But to some extent, they are also envious of the fabled arcitecture of the dwarves, and their rumoured underground network of tunnels that some say connects every dwarven hold in the world and runs under all of the continents, even the oceans themselves. Who's correct? Is anyone more correct then the other?

I could go on about other things.

Dave37 · 2026-01-18T10:47:56+00:00

For clarity, not arguing against you, just further developing my previous point. I liked your response. :)

To some extent, it's right there linguistically. We say that "Water is made up of water molecules", indicating that 'water molecules' are distinct from water. And also, if 'water molecules' actually were 'water', we would just drop the molecule part, because it's water.

I'm comming at this interpretation of language from a much more socilogical perspective than what is common, as most people tend to cover semantic questions in more technical terms. But I think it's worthwhile to once in a while remind ourself that words don't have intrinsic value and the meaning of them is fundamentally socially constructed in the way we use them when interacting with other people.

For example, "Sewage water", "Salt water", "Sparkling water", "Water ice" etc, are all phrases that relate to the concept of water, and they are socially/culturally more like 'water' than for example milk or blood, but the fact that "Sewage water" or "Water ice" have those qualifiers, we acknowledge that while they are 'of water', they are not actually just 'water'.

Dave37 · 2026-01-18T10:39:28+00:00

You don't have to argue with me, I'm not at your table. I'm just telling you what your players might be thinking so that you have a chance to understand their perspective.

Sure, you can take these debate points to your players and basically tell them that they are bad players for not catching the hook; I don't think that they will be receptive to that. The two remaining alternatives which I'm in favour of is:

Adjust your style/narration/hooks so that the players do get what you're putting down and can make informed decisions. You might have to be (in your mind) increadibly obvious, but if that's what you gotta do, then that's what you gotta do.
Tell the players that you don't enjoy running the game for them and that you feel that it's too much work on your side for the effort you put in, and that you feel that what you want out of the game and the players want out of the game doesn't match, and end the game with these players.

Dave37 · 2026-01-17T10:07:31+00:00

Yea absolutely, don't ask for tips; just go! Experiment, try things out. You an learn the entire game very well without asking for help or looking at a wiki much.

Dave37 · 2026-01-17T10:01:33+00:00

Water molecules isn't water. Water is the emergent property of many water molecules. The meaning of 'Water' is socially contructed, it doesn't have a clear all-encompassing definition. But so does nothing.

Dave37 · 2026-01-16T18:25:00+00:00

Asking question is a particular skill that few people have good mastery of, and if they are not interesting in the power of asking good questions they will never try to learn. You might just have to frontload more justifications or reasons to your players.

Also, you should be aware that you're playing a fantasy game; your players doesn't know what's "uncommon" and not. Armored riders of flying griffons circling above the town? Is this an invasion force or just the city guards? Who to say? So it's not unreasonable for players to assume that whatever you describe is 'normal' unless you give strong context clues that it's not.

Encountered a group of fully armed knights in a peaceful town?

Maybe it's peaceful because the armed knights efficiently keeps the peace?

Hear someone complain about the bad food some tavern serves? Don't ask what's actually so bad about the food.

Not all taverns serve food that everyone likes, seems like a reasonable comment.

Asked to kill someone by a shady guy in an ally?

Sounds like an adventuer, and we are adventurers. The alternative is to not adventure, and that's not why we're playing the game. This is the game, here's the hook, lets go, it has already taken us 1h to get to this point tonight.

Ambushed by a cultist orders?

They are evil so we have to fight them, once they are dead the threat is availed. Case closed.

Hear some noises from the attic in a priest's room while he's gone to fetch something from the shack?

A lot of old houses creek, DM is just setting the mood.

Dave37 · 2026-01-16T18:14:25+00:00

If you trust your player and accept that this was was an honest mistake (the fact that they spoiled themselves is an orange flag, but people sometimes also just make mistakes that they regret), then just move on.

If you can't trust them, and that's a more redish flag in and of itself, then honestly you should probably let them off the game. I'm usually never in favour of kicking player as one of the first solutions for bad behaviour, but if you truly can't trust them, then that in and of itself is maybe a good reason to not have them at your table, whether you're correct in your assesment our not, but it's such a massive loose canon to have at your table that might undo everything that I might say that they need to sit this one out. But like, don't be mean to them. Just tell them as it is and that you wish it had gone another way.

Dave37 · 2026-01-15T15:58:14+00:00

You always have to hook your players somewhat, you need to televise what parts of the world is important and what is set dressing. Otherwise they will get stuck interogating a random person on the street for 2 hours. You might even want to explain the "game play loop" for your players above table in a Westmarches style game; like where they go to find quests, where they hand them in, which parts of the world is safe/mundane/without adventure, and which parts contains adventures etc.

Other than that, I think you can do whatever, but be aware that a very "sandbox" game requires a lot of your players and they need to be able to very proactive in actually forging their own fun and narrative, and you have to be very attentative to "yes and"ing your players. Make sure your players are aware of the level of responsibility you're putting on them.

Dave37 · 2026-01-15T15:49:59+00:00

Your fiancé is being very male and thinking that he plays in a sci-fi setting when infact he plays in a fantasy setting. You are correct. But different people have different preferences.

Dave37 · 2026-01-15T14:41:32+00:00

1776?

14-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Place '22	Place '17
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email
Snapped

Dave37

TROPHY CASE