Sometimes that can be fun, but only if everyone at the table is onboard for a wild tangent. If the other players are bored as shit while the special snowflake starts a unicorn breeding operation, it’s time to use that No. And you, the DM, are included in that too; if your players want to drag you off to write every book in the library and that’s not fun for you, you have the right to say “hey maybe you should play the game I made for you instead.”

You decide that if an when the players make it a priority with their choices.

Addendum to the “Are you sure you want to do that” bullet: if a player ever does something that seems nonsensical to you, ask them what they expect to achieve by doing that. Understanding their motivation is often what resolves the miscommunication and/or allows you to steer them towards a better way to do what they’re trying to do.

I read once that the earliest edition(s?) didn’t have Rogue as a separate class, that everyone would be searching for traps and such. And when Rogue was added with the explicit ability to detect traps, it caused a crises because suddenly that implied that no one else had that ability.

It’s the cats you gotta worry about.

There are a couple ways to get auto-generated transcripts from youtube (eg https://www.howtogeek.com/793947/how-to-get-the-transcript-of-a-youtube-video/ ), but there are enough errors and bad UI that I find reading them to be more miserable than just watching the video.

Main quest? Weird tangent? They’re the same picture!

God you just described my prep in a nutshell. This is how they ended up fighting an orchestra

I like to fully improvise games in Digital Shades

Hi. I’m sorry, this looks like a legitimately great book, but we only allow self promotion from active users. I am removing your post, but if you are interested in becoming a member of our community, you would be welcome to post 1 self-promo per week in the future.

Except that’s the point, they will not be having fun. Nor will you, nor will any of the other players. Because that setup is not fun. And presumably you’re hosting a game for your friends with the intention of everyone having fun, so it’s best if you find another tact.

Nope, no, that’s encouraging their behavior. Now your player thinks you’re giving them a quest to thwart this bouncer.

You absolutely do not have to RP this. You can say “No.” You can say “Ok, you go off and do that, what’s everyone else doing?”

I’m not one of them, but I empathize with all the GMs that are just sick of dealing with those particular kinds of misconduct that crop up with new players.

Not a very high quality article. Makes constant reference to “faction and domain play” without adequately defining the terms for someone that didn’t grow up with them. (Presumably, the target of the article.) And a lot of typos.

Fun fact, any game dev’s financial data can be stolen if you’re capable of answering my riddles three

That strikes me as highly reflective of google’s position of power; from the employer’s perspective, the point where the diminishing returns are no longer worth it is related to the point where they’re losing too many applicants from interview exhaustion. If you’re not google, not offering the kind of pay and such that google does, your break-even point is likely much sooner.

Additionally, from the worker’s perspective, the only-3-interviews rule is an assertion of our power. And, as an added plus, if enough people adhere to it, it will shift that break-even point even for places like Google, and resist the shifting of that burden onto unpaid workers.

The question that raises from a process improvement perspective then is “were the first 3 rounds really effective tests?” Perhaps a better solution is not more interviews, but more focused interviews conducted by the people that actually have the knowledge and power to make the decision. (And if the knowledge and the power are divided among multiple people, another great improvement would be empowering the people with the knowledge.)

Yeah, it saves you money…by costing the prospective employee. There’s only so much we as employees can or should be willing to give up for free, and it’s 3 interviews.

I also question if more than that is really improving the quality of your hires. Far more often (100% of the time, in my experience), multiple interviews are more a symptom of bureaucracy; multiple managers insisting that they get to stick their fingers in the pie, rather than actually learning anything more meaningful about the candidate.

Never do more than 3 interviews. And that’s assuming they’re relatively short, maybe 1 hour apiece. Any more than that, and they don’t want you bad enough.