I'm just going to flat out say this...

[alexandraerin]

Anybody should feel free, when I'm blogging obsessively on a subject in the middle of the day and there are no stories out yet, to leave a comment saying words to the effects of, "Do you realize how much time you're spending on this?" or "Um, shouldn't you be writing?"

Because the answer may very well be no on the first and yes on the second. My reminders-to-self only work if I pay attention to them, and if I get really focused on something I may not notice them, or I may tell myself "I'll spend five more minutes on this", which might work if not for the fact that if I could tell when I'm spending "just five more minutes" I wouldn't need the reminder regimen.

There's no reason to be nasty about it, but you don't have to do a lot of bowing and scraping about it, which is probably going to come off with the opposite effect of what you intended. Just being upfront. I'm trying to be upfront about the issues I have. I won't snap and bite anybody's head off for noticing that I'm distracted and giving me a short and simple reminder.

Comments

[amandathegreat.livejournal.com]

I did almost leave a comment on one of those, to the effect of "I'll be honest; I scroll past all the D&D entries because all I see is 'nerd nerd nerd nerd, nerdnerd dork geek nerd.'"

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

I figure that's a given for a lot of people, though. :P

words to read

[chahuahuas.livejournal.com]

I love Tales of MU. In fact, I waste a good portion of my day every day reading MU & like 15 webcomics. This is why I have not looked 3 Seas and the others, because I might end up addicted!

That being said, I read your journal for the entertainment value as well. I find you have some interesting LGBT stories, and random other things. When blogging about your life, you put an interesting writer's spin on it, so I don't mind that either.

The one thing I do NOT enjoy reading about is D&D. This is my personal opinion, but maybe others share it. Please... don't turn your blog into a D&D editorial! If it's like one or two, of course I can just skip it. 7 blogs, though!

I can has moar non-D&D words? =/

Re: words to read

[sage-blackthorn.livejournal.com]

I gave up on D&D when TSR got bought out by Wizards Of The Coast. When Hasbro bought out Wizards, I just rolled my eyes and wished for the good ol' days when I started playing the Original Dungeons&Dragons Basic Set back in Colorado. Just can't seem to relate to all the new stuff anymore. I must be gettin' old.

Re: words to read

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

See, I feel you, and I didn't look at it for years after TSR faded into the distance. It took me getting into Order of the Stick, of all things, for me to look at Wizards' 3E.

But the more I look at it, the more I feel like nostalgia ain't what it used to be. Original D&D was something that was only fun for me in spite of the system... in spite of the non-sensical magic and magic items rules that had nothing to do with any kind of fantasy I'd ever read or dreamed of, in spite of the "roll the right number or die" mechanics for poison, traps, eye beams, etc., in spite of the paper-thin heroes who died the first time they got into a fight, in spite of the arbitrary limitations on who could hold what kinds of weapons...

I think it's a testament to the power of the imagination that so much fun was milked out of it.

Re: words to read

[sage-blackthorn.livejournal.com]

"in spite of the paper-thin heroes who died the first time they got into a fight".....

Oh boy does that ever take me back to my first game with my older brother and sister. My Thief got taken out early. I'll admit the original game had some huge holes in the rules. I liked AD&D a bit more when it came out. But like any game, it's the players who really make it or break it. My friends and I use to treat the rule-books much like Capt. Barbossa treated The Code: "They're really more like guidelines anyway." The DM (yeah, this was before everyone started calling the person running the game a Game Master (GM)) was the ultimate authority within the world they created. If they decided they didn't like a rule, they changed it. And naturally those who were fair and impartial became popular DM's, while those who were tyrannical couldn't pay players to game with them. It wasn't perfect, but it worked.

And yeah, imagination was a major part of the gaming experience. And as the years wore on the people I played AD&D seemed to loose theirs. By the time I was 14, the people I was playing with were so boring and unimaginative that I really lost my interest in it. I missed having a DM who was a storyteller, weaving together their descriptions in such a way that a player could close their eyes and see the world around them. I missed having other players who were actors, immersing themselves in their characters. Without imagination, games went from epic fantasy adventures to rolling dice and "You are in a 10 foot by 10 foot corridor that runs roughly North to South. You see nothing withing the radius of your torch."

I remember my older brother really use to tell a story with his games. "You see irregular walls of rough hewn grey stone periodically shored up with masterfully carved collumns and lintels that betray the work of dwarven stone masons. The dust of ages lays thick upon the ground, showing you are the first living creatures to walk here in a millenia. The air is stagnant and filled with the sickly sweet scent of decay. From somewhere beyond the light of your torch, water drips and echoes amongst the walls in the darkness."

I've always thought that a good Game Master must possess creativity and imagination, be a superb storyteller able to draw their players into the world they have created, be a bit of a tease giving just enough treasure and XP to keep them coming back for more, but not "Monty Haul" a campaign and make it so easy there is no challenge. Maybe it's not the old rules I miss, so much as the caliber of players that I use to know when I lived back in Colorado that I lost when my family moved to California.

Who knows, things just ain't like the use to be.

Re: words to read

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

I hate to tell you, but there is going to be quite a bit more. Even when I'm ranting about D&D, I'm writing about something I enjoy and something that fires my imagination. I think it's healthy for me to do this, and I know that it's fun.

(And incidentally, 3 Seas is very short... each update is about one printed page's worth of words. So it's not like it would be a huge timesuck. All the cool kids are reading it, and it will make you feel super groovy.)

So random

[chahuahuas.livejournal.com]

This is entirely, entirely random and unimportant. I was looking at your quote, "I want to be cool, tall, vulnerable, and luscious." Recently, I had an English Composition professor tell me that the rules had changed, and they decided to omit the comma before "and" in a series. So under these new rules, it would be "tall, vulnerable and luscious."

When googling this, I can't find any evidence of it. Being a mildly nerdy, I find this interesting... Have you heard of such rule changes?

Re: So random

[gillian-y.livejournal.com]

At some point during the course of my education(k-12 and two years college,1985-2002ish), I was taught that the comma before the "and" is optional. I usually omit it but it doesn't bother me to see it.

Re: So random

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

There is and always has been a split on whether or not to use the "Oxford comma" (or "serial comma", as it's sometimes known). The people who eschew it claim that it should only be used to prevent ambiguity. For instance:

"Last night I met my fiance's parents, the president of the United States[,] and a hooker."

Without the comma after the second item, it might read a bit differently.

But I am of the school that contends that if a comma is not the standard practice then the ambiguity remains because we'll all be using different standards to figure out what is or isn't ambiguous.

In my quote (which is a song lyric by Liz Phair), the qualities of "vulnerable and luscious" aren't paired together any more explicitly than "vulnerable and cool" or "tall and cool" or any other combination. I can't think of a single good reason to group them together by omitting a comma.

Re: So random

[luke-licens.livejournal.com]

Huh. I have 15 years of education in the english language under my belt, and I have never before had that explained to my satisfaction. Learn something new every day.

Re: So random

[ferwe.livejournal.com]

In legal circles the comma should always be used.

"I split $3,000 between my son, my daughter, and my wife," means each gets $1,000. "I split $3,000 between my son, my daughter and my wife," means the son gets $1,500 and the daughter and wife each get $750.

Note that the rule of leaving out the comma comes from newspaper articles (where space is at a premium). It's never been completely unacceptable to leave it in.

[aniraangel.livejournal.com]

I try to read the DnD ones every now and then because I'm interested in DnD (I'm fairly sure that's your fault, actually.) but I have no one to play with/be taught by. Oh Australia, will you stop letting me down? I usually read them until I get confused then skip them for a while. ><;

*goes back to her sort of RPG, the kind with lots and lots of words and a forum.*

[mpilnick.livejournal.com]

I have this theory about myself. It goes "I get antsy if I don't process enough words in a day." There are corrolaries, like that consuming isn't worth as much as producing, and cleverness is a multiplier, insight a high multiplier. The relevance here is that I'm not bothered much that your portion of my throughput occasionally comes from wild blogging digressions, except that I don't get notified via Twitter or your story RSS feed :p