@SafdarFaisal wow, thanks!

:D

hi

@lila It's from a specific dialect unique to southern America, I believe.

@Sarov Correct, it's deep southern slang. It's been around a long time, but lately starting to creep into text and into the dialect of people who aren't from that area.

The part that really mystfies me is that "y'all" is singular and "all y'all" is plural.

@Sarov Growing up I found that "y'all" could be either singular or plural, and "all y'all" was more... emphatic, I guess? I'd guess "y'all" to "singular" is an internet corruption in the way that language likes to evolve in strange ways sometimes.

(I didn't grow up in the south, but my mother did, so I had a somewhat "southern" upbringing.)

I myself will sometimes use y'all as plural, since it's basically just a contraction of 'you all'.

Oh thanks for answers, I still cannot help to get the impression that it is just not correct English and it gives me similar vibes to "ain't". And as someone who has been learning English as second language (I have never lived in English speaking communities, only interacted via Internet) I cannot help to see both as bastardization of the language :/

In my (subjective) opinion, while "y'all" isn't, like, perfectly valid, properly-formed formal English (and neither is what I just said, due to the inclusion of ", like,"), it's considerably better than "ain't".

So, anything interesting I missed the past month?

I have been researching on the web about this and the objective information made me believe what agrees with you -- all that information says that "ain't" is objectively much more primitive. I am just talking about my emotional response, which is not something I can entirely control :/

@Sarov No, one of the most, if not the most intriguing person has been absent from there in the past month, so nothing was really happening at all.

Haha.

:D

@Sarov It's not "perfectly valid" since "you all" isn't really considered as it, but it falls into a similar vernacular as "you guys." Which makes it occur to me, maybe "y'all" is becoming more common because it's explicitly gender neutral, while the gendering in "you guys" is more subjective.

I wonder if we're ever going to reach the point where 'everyone' is considered offensive because some people identify as multiple entities.

@Sarov Oh I'm sure we will. I've stopped worrying about it, because what's fine today is offensive tomorrow. I prefer to assume best intentions of people; finding ways to be offended by common language is assuming the worst in everyone and using language as a cudgel instead of a means of communication.

Porque no los dos?

which dos?

Cudgel and communication!

(I'm joking. Well. I wish I were joking.)

I think it's a fundamental difference in worldview. I view it as communication because I assume people are inherently good and aren't out there intending to use it as a cudgel. Those who view it as one typically assume the worst of everyone else and assume everyone else is using it to harm as well, even when they clearly aren't.

The end result of the "cudgel" usage is that people get fired for using completely normal language that someone decides sounds "too close to" something offensive, even when it requires some elaborate mental gymnastics to argue that it's offensive.

I think it's also a possibility (though perhaps remote) for someone to genuinely want to create a shared understanding (communication) while also wanting to cause pain and/or assert dominance (cudgel). It's likely that someone wanting the latter is more interested in obeisance than shared understanding, but not definite

Oh, there's certainly people who have a goal like that, though they may not think of it in exactly those terms. I'm not so naïve to believe that there's no one with bad intentions. :) But in any encounter, until proven otherwise, I'm going to start from a baseline of "good intentions."

One of the most distressing things I've heard recently about the use of language was the story of a North Korean defector, who explained when she escaped that she didn't understand the basic concepts of "Love" and "I." The only "love" they had in the N.Korean dialect was "love of our ruler," and they had no concept of the individual or free choice, everything was "we" instead of "I." They could certainly communicate, but removing concepts like that feels a bit "cudgel"-y to me.

@Sarov Well why not all ys'all? or alls y'alls? or...

Aurgh.

@JourneymanGeek I have heard "y'all's" but that seems to be more possessive :)

'Course then there's 5e Bard where words are literally weapons.

That sounds like fun; I haven't played much 5e at all yet (I sporadically run 3e because the buy-in for my players was a lot cheaper, the books go for practically nothing at used bookstores)

I've never played 5e. But I've watched 1 For All and they did an episode on Vicious Mockery.

I pretty much just play Pathfinder 1e and Fate Condensed/Accelerated.

Both of which have entirely-online SRD.

Oh dear... time for some different challenges?

I have a player who tends to really dominate combat so I try to add in things that will disrupt him doing that and let the other players do fun stuff too, it's made me think more about what I'm doing when writing sessions

Which... pretty much directly lined up with his motivations. So he just threw the thing at them.

Hahhah, well, I guess that's a way to resolve it

I've been looking at resources for things like that; I like the "Yes and/but, no and/but" kind of system where they don't necessarily get off easily with things like that.

Sure, but how would I even apply that there? I didn't want to change his personality/motivations on the fly, after all.

Without knowing much about the setting/NPC, I'd maybe go with a "Yes but you have to guarantee me that no one else is ever going to come here"

Oh hey that'd work. Could even apply it retroactively - later on unrelated NPC breaks in and he blames the PCs.

ooh, yes

I was thinking "now they have to be super public about having the macguffin, and now they become targets"

They're just ferrying it back to another NPC, so.

Yeah, in that case your option would make more sense

Though different factions want it. Military might try to confiscate it if they see it. Depends whether the PCs carry it openly or not.

But yeah; I'll have someone disturb the guy in like a week in-game time. Thanks for the idea/prompt!

you're welcome! Hopefully it works out well :)

It was a bit surprising, though. The PC who solved it is socially awkward, shy, and speaks in broken sentences. But I guess 'knowing when she's not wanted' is a skill she would have.

That does make sense. And occasionally you do get things like that. Back when I played, we had an encounter with a sphynx that would kill us if we got the wrong answer to the riddle it gave us. While all the other characters were discussing the answer, the 6 INT barbarian walked up and blurted one out (and thankfully had it right)

So we figured that fit with everyone else overthinking it because of the pressure, while he wasn't smart enough to either overthink or feel the pressure

Riddles are always finnicky because PC Int != player Int.

very true!

and Int != clever, which is what riddles often want

Oh yeah, absolutely. Though I could also go with "freezing under pressure" with those kind of things, too. (Which is 100% a thing my friends and I have done in escape rooms so I know how that feels!)

The char in question is a wyrm-age dragon, so. Freezing under pressure is even less likely. :P

hahhah, yeah, in that case I think out of character calls like "yeah he could solve this one" totally count

Umbral wyrm, climbing Heaven in hopes of turning into a silver wyrm.

neat!

oh dear, we're about to get smacked with a nice storm and I have a package out for delivery

Don't die.

oh it's no big deal, not even worthy of a watch, just a "special weather statement." I just don't want my package or the mailman getting drenched

Ahsee.

But yeah. I stole the riddle from WoTC (actually from YouTube), but it's... weird. All rambling and vague. My player correctly guessed the answer is 'suicide', but it's actually a very specific form of suicide.

Now I want to put a rambling vague riddle somewhere in my game...

Haha. I gave my players a trauma about pedestals. All-told, they probably spent upwards of a hundred, maybe even a thousand hours over the years trying to figure it out. Before they finally did by accident.

We're on a break atm but the current quest is that the PCs have infiltrated a neighboring nation that's been kidnapping people from their homeland and selling them into slavery; they're there to find those people and sneak them back home without starting a war in the process.

Player trauma is good. Mine are afraid of empty corridors. :D

Interesting. Why would the kingdom do that? Is it done legally or illegally (from the kidnapping kingdom's perspective)?

From their perspective... it's marginal. The kidnappers crossing over are technically bounty hunters looking for escaped criminals (which my players don't know yet), but since they don't always have detailed descriptions, they just grab anyone who's close enough, and if they don't match up exactly, well, they need to get paid for the efforts anyway and know where the black markets are...

And along the borders there's enough corrupt officials who've made a purchase or two and therefore don't feel motivated to make any changes

Aah, that makes sense.

So it's more a side-effect than a primary business model.

For the most part, yes. I'm sure there'll be a group somewhere that decided it's just easier to go grab whoever and sell them, but for the most part the pay is better if you get a bounty

I'm still working out all the "crimes" too, some of them are legit (murder, etc), but some of them are nothing (sorcery; the wizard class isn't fond of "oh I can just do magic without dedicating years to study")

Like a sort of biological lese majeste.

Something along that line, yes. Ultimately I want them to discover that their patron in their homeland is actually a fugitive wanted for sorcery

Why didn't s/he just tell them that?

He's hiding his identity; they don't actually even know his real name currently. And they're a random group of crazies he picked up for a different task on his superior's orders, so he didn't know how much he could trust them at the time anyway.

Fair.

Plus he's naturally kind of secretive anyway after discovering he was a sorcerer and knowing it was outlawed where it came from. It just ends up being something interesting that the PCs might have to do something with later :) (Not originally planned out, either, since the initial point of the game was to give them some experience with D&D, so the story's evolved as we've played)

Funny how campaigns can evolve. I have one that started with "You're on a caravan" and now is "Well we just killed Bel. Now what?"

I love how they can evolve. Those games are much more fun to me in both roles :) I played one once that was a years-long campaign with massive worldbuilding and rules and everything, and it was just too restrictive for my looser play style

? Why would worldbuilding and rules contrast with evolution?

@JourneymanGeek I wondered the same thing!

@Sarov Ordinarily I don't think they should have to, but in this case the DMs had built something so rigid it couldn't evolve. We were totally railroaded from the start.

I'm sure they liked having that very rigid style, but it's not for me, and it wasn't for the people I was playing with, so I think all of us only lasted one session with them

Ahsee.

Flavor and culture and stuff are great. "You can't do that, didn't you read the 100 page document we sent out before the game?" not so much, at least for me

Oh, yeah. I hate when a game has its own giant wiki.

That would have been better, this was before the days of wikis so it was a massive word doc

Eurgh.

It probably was at the point where they should have just written a novel instead of running a game, they had very strong ideas of where things should go and the players had to go along with it

I'm often guilty of the same. Though I'll generally more plan 2-5 'likely paths'.

With the PCs' actions reasonably causing one of them.

That's a better way of doing things, let them make choices that affect the story

I plan out very little, because my players love to go in unexpected directions, and I let that form the story

I'm not so good at improv, so.

I need to plan.

I'm okay at it. For a while my players didn't realize how much of the story I was making up on the fly until they made a comment about ruining my plans, and I replied, "These are my plans, I know you guys too well" and showed them a 3x5 index card. :)

Thankfully I'm good enough at guessing and tweaking plans that 98% of the time, my plans aren't ruined. 2% of the time I have to go "Whelp, I didn't plan for that. Let's end the session here and I'll come up with something for next time."

(Or "Let's pause here and figure out the implications".)

That's good! :D My players are the embodiment of chaos

(We play on Roll20). There were a couple times I legit took over her char with a possessor-NPC and posted as her. I'm pretty sure the other players didn't notice, aside from 'She's acting a little weird' (which was intentional).

Nicely done :D

Pros and cons to always playing the same char, even among different campaigns/settings.

is it possible to get UV skin burn from starlight at night?

'Possible'? Probably, if you have a skin condition or something.

I was web searchng, but no answer :( thanks for your message.

Hey did you know we just got today a third yellow tag medal for cats?

We now have 3 people with yellow tag medals for cats and 1 person with yellow tag medal for dogs. And before November 2020, we had only 1 total!