agamemnonymous

Huh, TIL. I worked at an orange grove in the subtropics, and knew about the cold snap for other aspects of citrus, I never knew about the peel.

The second time I smoked weed, I smoked a bunch of weed. I would formulate a thought, go to express the thought, and get halfway through the first word before dissolving.

Oranges are green until they are ripe. What tropical place did you see a ripe green orange?

I think this might have been a joke abstracted to allude to that, without falling for the trap. Oranges were not named after the color, the color was named after the fruit.

You're absolutely right. D&D past AD&D1 should never have been the center of our hobby.

Oh I switched to GURPS years ago. I don't think D&D is a particularly good system for anyone with any real TTRPG experience, but 5e is actually pretty accessible as an introduction to the hobby. Plenty of canon content to work from, or just buy modules from, and it's fairly simple to play. Plus D&D is the OG, so it's the default TTRPG in media.

And I'm fine with media. I like media, temporarily. It introduces the hobby to people who might otherwise remain at a perpetual distance, and while a lot of them aren't really right for TTRPGs, some of them are, and I'm happy they were introduced to it.

The reason I don't mind paid DMs is because the people that want them are new to the hobby, probably a whole group worth. The alternative is that they elect one of their own; personally I'm down with sharing the GM's chair, but I don't think it's practical for most newbies without an experienced GM present.

Now someone totally new has to figure out how to run a game, and odds are they're going to suck a bunch, and that's going to lead to a game that sucks a bunch, and everyone's going to think D&D actually sucks, and all TTRPGs as well by extension. Players who might, under an experienced GM, see what it can be, will see it instead as a trainwreck.

The market for paid GMs is newbies, and I don't mind it. This isn't the 80s, there's other stuff to do if their first campaign sucks. I don't mind paid GMs as the starter to get a group moving. Once they get a little wind in their sails one of them will step up and adopt the mantle.

Especially since I assume a decent GM is probably in the neighborhood of $100/session, so about $25/person for a party of four. I think that the instant one of them feels confident to give it a go, they will have that conversation.

Sure, there might be a bit of an expectation adjustment, as you said, but that actually seems easier to accommodate. It would be obviously unreasonable for the party to expect, for free, the same experience they were previously paying $25/person/session for.

And even if they don't, and they keep the paid GM, it's not like WOTC has a DM Uber app. Those aren't corporate stooges, they're experienced enthusiasts like yourself getting a little kickback for the years of development they've dedicated to their craft. I'd reckon a fair segment of the people who would take the job are veteran GMs with no parties to play with. They benefit doubly.

I just think new players in the modern age benefit more from a good first impression of the hobby, and the cost provides a natural incentive for the unpaid alternative to evolve.

I mean, this just seems really gatekeepy. You're obviously allowed to play however you like, but I don't see how the way others play affects you.

the demands from players are ridiculous compared to my expectations and what I set out as my intentions

That sounds like a communication issue. I've played fully tactical with battle mats and set pieces, and I've played fully theater of the mind, and I've never had an issue with player expectations as long as I communicate my intentions pre-session zero.

As far as the paid DM part, it's very simple: This is a creative hobby.

So is art, so is adventure design. I still don't see how it's different from commissioning art of your character or buying a module.

Why stop at DM? Every group should invent their own system, carve their own dice, design their own adventures. It's not very grassroots to use a system designed by an elitist corporation.

I'm into 3d printing. When the hobby started, there were not commercial printers, you had to build one from scratch. Are we supposed to hate manufactured printers to preserve the creative integrity of the hobby?

I just don't see the rationale of your preferences for how you like to play metastasizing into hatred. You're allowed to play how you want, so is everyone else.

The lack of respect for simple theatre of the mind is a direct issue with the way I've always run and played since I left D&D.

What do you mean by this?

The tolerance and even acceptance of paid DMing also pisses me off in ways that make it very hard for me to remain civil.

Why? Running a game is work, and not every group that wants to play has a good GM. How is it any different than commissioning art of your character or buying an adventure module? Don't get me wrong, I prefer unpaid friends, but I'm blessed with multiple potential GMs in my group. Not everyone is so lucky, do they just not get to play? Or are they forced to nominate a GM who won't enjoy it and won't run an enjoyable game?

I actually made this work in a recent cheesy short campaign. My character was an intelligent monkey, although he was still an animal and couldn't speak. After meeting the party, he decided to go do his own thing, which just so happened to be the same thing as the rest of the party.

It worked out really well. The rest of the party could navigate social challenges without having to explain the monkey, I could sneak around and grab MacGuffins without having to accommodate huge humans who were terrible at climbing.

I doubt it works well for longer or more serious games, but it matched the hectic nature of the campaign and led to some hilarious moments.

This is exactly why I think "transgender" does more harm than good and I'll die on this hill. What's the point? The people who are going to accept the way you express yourself aren't going to care if it conforms to gender stereotypes, and the people who aren't won't suddenly change their minds if it does.

All it does is reinforce the very same stereotypes that gave you gender dysphoria in the first place. It's saying that gender norms are valid, you just got assigned the wrong ones. Live your truth, express yourself how you want, alter your body however you want, but don't validate oppressive stereotypes in the process.

Leftist thought is predicted on dialectical materialism. That means that when someone presents you with material facts which conflict with your ideology, you plug your ears and call them a liberal.

In principle you are correct, which is exactly what makes it ironic. If it was any other user, I would agree with you, but LadyButterfly runs an instance where any comments or posts by men are immediately deleted; even if they are kind, respectful, and helpful.

It's ironic for her to chime in on a question asked specifically to men, because if this were on her instance and the genders were reversed, she would immediately delete the comment for no other reason than it was from a man.

That's nothing, look at pineapple.