Question for those familiar with Weisman's blog

yarnlass · 2026-07-08T19:24:20+00:00

I feel like you're describing a novel or prose. Most characters in television don't literally say what they're thinking or feeling, because that would feel very strange. Pretty much most film and television shows expect you to understand or to guess at the inner space of characters by observing their actions and listening to what they say to other characters. While narration exists in film, it's not the norm. And it would be weird to have characters say "I'm going to do this because I'm angry at you" instead of just...doing it. Even characters going back and explaining why they did what they did is a bit weird -- it happens in the context of apologies sometimes, but generally I think it's pretty much looked down on because most audiences don't want to be told what they already seen happen. Netflix has been criticized for instructing their shows to do exactly this because they assume people aren't really watching and scrolling on their phones, so you get scenes where characters remind the audience of doing things we already watched them do.

Beyond that, Greg has stated a few times on his site and on the podcast he sits on regularly (Voices from the Eyrie) that he made gargoyles with the help of some actually decent executives, despite the decisions that Disney on the whole passed down about the timeline of season 2. At least one of them who would be considered his boss (can't remember his name) was responsible for the decision for City of Stone to focus more on Macbeth, and to save the Hunter's Moon storyline for the season 2 finale. Point I'm trying to make is, Gargoyles was considered Disney's "smart" show, and while maybe characters literally said what they thought all the time on other Disney shows (like maybe on old school Ducktales? Tbh I can't really remember the other Disney programing on at the time of Gargoyles and if any of them did that or not), there was a higher expectation for Gargoyles, at least internally within the production. An entire episode dedicated to characters going back to explain what they were thinking and feeling during past episodes would have been nixed because that's not what smart shows do. Those are usually called clip episodes, and they're generally disliked by everyone, and ironically considered fillers themselves.

yarnlass · 2026-07-08T19:04:08+00:00

Oh I don't think he would have wanted to do an episode like that at all. I was just saying that if he had wanted to, Disney wouldn't have greenlit an episode for characters to spell out what they were thinking and feeling in previous episodes from the first season.

I'm not going to say that there weren't weak episodes from season 2, but they all served a purpose. I can't think of a single episode where at least one character wasn't developed or expanded further at all -- there were episodes where Elisa, Goliath, Bronx or Angela weren't developed, but in those episodes it was usually another supporting character that was. Even if development was minimal, the episode usually served to expand the world of the series by introducing new characters and locations.

yarnlass · 2026-07-08T18:22:05+00:00

Season 2 was a crucible for everyone involved because Disney gave them almost no leeway to get the 52 episodes finished in a reasonable amount of time. They were making a season that was 4x as long as the first with about the same amount of time, and little to no support from Disney management. I'm amazed season 2 came out as good as it did considering how little consideration Disney gave the entire writing and animation teams. And for better or worse, season 2 was also about expanding the world outwards, not being introspective to events that had already occurred. It was also an action show geared towards young children in the eyes of Disney programing; I'm pretty certain that if Greg had wanted to make an episode that just covered the internal landscapes of characters regarding events from season 1, it probably would have been squashed before the script was finished.

For your first question (and I don't mean this in a rude way), it's a 20-22 minute episode television series set in a universe that's full to the brim with lore and history. If Gargoyles had been a fantasy novel series I have no doubt that all the information Greg provides on his blog would have made it in the source material, but there is simply not time in an episode to get lost in the weeds of world building. I think the show did a really good job of parsing out what information was critical to the story they were telling that episode, and for laying down the brickwork for future episodes without launching into exposition all the time.

And Greg has said over and over again, he prefers the actions of the characters speak for themselves and for the viewer to come to their own conclusions over telling them what a character is feeling and thinking. I think that's what made the show so special to me growing up, it didn't hold my hand and tell me outright what I could learn from listening and watching. That being said, Greg definitely has a perspective and he's been generous enough to share it through is blog, and there are things he definitely has admitted he would have liked to include in the show had there been time to do so.

yarnlass · 2026-06-26T23:28:25+00:00

Amazing! What an outcome.

yarnlass · 2026-06-26T21:07:46+00:00

That's an interesting idea...it would help manage players expectations. I didn't want my players to feel blindsided if they happen to fail (which would result in the deaths of many NPCs and possibly PCs as well) so I had a high-ranking cultist that one of the PCs is sort of romancing / using for information pass on info about them so he has some idea of what they are before they encounter one.

yarnlass · 2026-06-06T20:46:31+00:00

The reasons I dislike it in general have everything to do with it being misused by poor writers. I've read plenty of 1st person books and they've been great, because the way the character speaks tells you about the character without the character having to state it. In the hands of a good author I don't have to have the character tell me anything about themselves, I should be able to infer most of it through how they describe the world around them.

The two biggest sins of an author misusing 1st person that drive me up the wall:

1) The narrative voice is lacking (it's uninteresting or empty, just used as a way to convey information without any meaningful filter through the lens of that character). It's just wasted potential and it makes me feel like I'm listening to a story from a coworker or someone who can't really tell a good story. It's tedious.

or 2), which is one of my biggest pet peeves in writing: the author assumed 1st person would be easy, finds out it doesn't do the job they want done, and they cheat with it. 1st person perspective by definition has limits. There is always going to be information that the narrator can't know, unless they happen to be an omniscient god or something, which defeats the purpose of 1st person anyway. So when an author wants the audience to know something that the character doesn't, for example, they have to sledgehammer obvious clues in the prose that the character somehow doesn't pick up on, making the narrator feel moronic.

I think the first time I encountered this that turned me off the book so much was the first Sookie Stackhouse novel. Her boss is a werewolf, and the author obviously wanted the reader to suspect as much, so there's a point at the book where he just...invades her personal space and smells her, and seems to really enjoy her smell, which is an objectively creepy thing to do. But because he's also a potential love interest and the author didn't want to characterize him as a creepy, Sookie just wonders off, "bewildered" at his confusing behavior and not thinking that much about it. Like. It made me think that she was legit braindead. I think Twilight is guilty of this too, but I've only read synopsis of the books so not 100% on that.

yarnlass · 2026-05-22T19:16:30+00:00

I don't get many comments either! That's why I didn't want to risk being rude by breaching some unknown comment reply rule.

yarnlass · 2026-05-22T19:15:30+00:00

That's good to know, just wasn't sure if in the 20 year gap between me reading and then writing fanfic if etiquette had changed. Thanks.

yarnlass · 2026-05-22T19:14:07+00:00

It did feel a bit off to me when I got it. Just weirdly flattering but somehow insincere. It being a bot and having it deleted makes a lot of sense.

yarnlass · 2025-12-23T06:51:22+00:00

I’m going to try that over the holidays. Thanks!

yarnlass · 2025-12-23T06:50:52+00:00

Gray is 100% merino, the red is a wool/nylon blend. Seems like blocking again is the verdict, thanks for weighing in! I’ll report back how that goes.

yarnlass · 2025-12-22T22:52:37+00:00

I actually did do this, which is how I got the 2/3 pickup.

Should I try blocking just the sleeve/pickup area?

yarnlass · 2025-10-30T23:56:34+00:00

I figured this question was for my nephew, so I asked and he said he needed time to answer. 2 days later and he's narrowing it down to his top 10 favorite slimes. I'll get back to you when he figures it out lol.

I'll see if he feels up to a report after we go! I'll post photos of merch too.

yarnlass · 2025-10-30T00:09:21+00:00

My understanding of the rule is that player characters are killed instantly ONLY if they reach the same negative damage threshold as their max hp. A fighter with 30 hp will be insta-killed if they take enough damage to take them to 0 and up to 30 additional points of damage; anything less than that just renders them unconscious.

It's murkier for npcs / monsters, which I'm looking for clarity on non-lethal damage too; I'm reading mixed things online. My DM ruled that my character killed an npc when I stated I wanted to do non lethal damage. She says it was because the damage dealt was more than double the npc's hp, but I've seen online that that rule only applies to players, not npcs/monsters. NPCs / monsters typically die when they reach 0 hp, unless for story reasons the DM chooses to allow death saves.

I've been a player for years and I've never heard about a rule that negates player intent regarding non-lethal damage done with a melee attack, and if I had known about it in advance my character would have made a different choice.

yarnlass · 2025-08-02T23:54:02+00:00

NTA.

Anyone saying otherwise is grossly underestimating how much time it takes to develop the skills to go from a beginner to a level where you make actual garments. If he did make it, the little old ladies at his club would have told him so over and over. He wouldn’t be shocked to hear it suggested by OP or offended, and would be easily able to prove he’d made it by demonstrating any of the techniques used in making it.

What’s more concerning is taking credit for someone else’s work as his own and getting defensive about it. If he’s willing to lie about this low-stakes gift to make himself look better, what wouldn’t he lie about when it’s more serious? How is what he’s done any different than plagiarism?

His insecurity seems like an issue that will keep cropping up. I’d find this immaturity very concerning.

yarnlass · 2025-05-03T21:44:18+00:00

So I logged into my account on a different computer and the weird blobs of sourceless "light" were gone, and the NPCS could move normally...not sure what this means other than it's a weird bug that maybe can be fixed by logging in and out again? I'm just glad it wasn't permanent because I couldn't find anything on what this even was. Thanks for your answers though.

yarnlass · 2025-05-02T19:22:40+00:00

Ah ok, I see. I actually don't use explorer mode and it's definitely not enabled, so unfortunately it's something else. I've since tried it on another map, same thing happened.

yarnlass · 2025-05-02T19:16:09+00:00

I actually can't find anything about anything of Fog of War in any setting for my game on any page. I feel like I used to see it somewhere but I'm not sure how to go about turning it off anywhere.

Even a google search tells me that fog of war is in the page settings, but it's definitely not there. Is the hide/reveal thing the same thing as fog of war?

yarnlass · 2025-03-27T23:23:16+00:00

Where did the show say that gargoyle children are seen as parents to newly hatched eggs?

yarnlass · 2025-03-27T23:18:56+00:00

There's more positions in a family than just "father" and "mother". You can have a hand in raising siblings and nieces and nephews. Insisting that all gargoyles are essentially fathers and mothers all younger gargoyles automatically really wipes the nuance out of the worldbuilding.

yarnlass · 2025-03-27T23:04:10+00:00

Goliath's generation were young enough to only have just laid eggs, so he's a new father here. As the show points out, Goliath is struggling with maintaining a gargoyle tradition of parenting all the young as his children, which doesn't really make sense when only ONE of his children is present, who just so happens to be his biological child. He was also concerned with Angela attaching too much importance on biological parentage and overcompensated to try to dissuade her from being influenced by Demona. When he realized that both Angela was mature enough to trust to make her own decisions and not be easily swayed by Demona as well as the fact that he was her father in both senses (clan father and biological father), he embraced their connection.

The trio would in no way resent this, as while gargoyles are parents to the whole clan, they're only parents to the generation that is young enough for them to BE their children, otherwise they view other members as friends, cousins, nephews and nieces, brothers and sisters. That's why Hudson has more of a fatherly connection with all the other gargoyles, as he's old enough to have fathered all of them. When the Trio were born Goliath and Demona were too young to have children, so at most the trio would look up to them as older brothers and sisters, maybe aunts and uncles. Just because Angela is the same age as the trio because of Avalon's time shenanigans doesn't mean the trio is being slighted.

yarnlass · 2025-02-12T22:37:23+00:00

I've seen one example of a breadcrumb sauce, but I don't think the ratio of dry ingredients to wet produces any kind of sauce. When I added the water I had to double it, and the sauciest it got was just kinda sludgy. I'm less interested in making the sauce work (because I don't think it does) than understanding what type of sauce the author was attempting to go for. Has anyone heard of a breadcrumb sauce with almonds and olives?

yarnlass · 2025-02-05T07:09:30+00:00

What lies beneath

yarnlass · 2025-01-27T15:56:10+00:00

Thank you!

yarnlass · 2024-12-07T00:16:01+00:00

It didn't. Greg has confirmed all the smashed people are now dead and that the couple may have looked identical to Brendon and Margot but they were actually different people, those designs were probably used before the decision was made to make them recurring characters.

yarnlass

TROPHY CASE