Seems So - There's A 2019 Comment (I Recommend Sorting Them By Oldest For It) That Says That This Is

HAPPY IDES OF MARCH

i mean this as is they seem like they’re good at the subject but honestly interpret it as whatever

The ones for things other than Autism are worse - I tried to take a self-fill one for distinguishing dissociative disorders from each other and easily confused disorders, and it just went such that about a third of the way through, I had declared that so many of the questions were clearly related to known issues not included in the test, were just plain not applicable, or, worse, probably but not certainly refered to a particular model of DID, that it defacto invalidated the measure.

Speaking as someone who's a. a technical writer, and b. on the spectrum, I 100% agree that the wording of most autism self-assessment schemas sucks, but fixing that is also a legitimately hard problem. Identifying neurotypes boils down to identifying habitual patterns of behaviour, and one of the frequent hallmarks of autism is having difficulty generalising from anecdotal observations to identify trends. The upshot is that an autism self-assessment that wants to be useful to its target audience is very often going to find itself in the position of trying to explain what a habitual pattern of behaviour is to someone for whom the only discernible patterns are "Every Time Forever Without Exception" and "A Series of Isolated Incidents".

“Be curious about what you’re writing about” is not stock Common Writing Advice but it really, really should be. There are a lot of written works that fail due to the authors just being obviously incurious about what they are writing about.

Acknowledgement. Thanks. Explanation makes sense.

My kind sir, I've clearly fucked up my previous attempt to explain what I thought someone else was saying, but: This stressing out function sure sounds like it'd do what you'd want to be able to do if your the sort of person who just wants to blow the heck up. Said person likely also has other explosive functions; that one is just - I blow up, and I'm no longer in the scene. Fetch me next one, since I'll be back.

(With reference to this post here.)

When it comes to evaluating the cost versus utility of abilities in a tabletop RPG, it's important to remember that, from the player's perspective, a character being removed from play even temporarily is a cost. It's arguably the most significant sort of cost that can possibly be imposed, insofar as it's a cost which imposes itself directly upon the player by removing their ability to participate in the game.

This means that occasions to make use of such an ability are likely to be rare for two reasons: first, because players are disinclined to use a ability when the benefit doesn't measure up to the cost (and the perceived cost of being removed from play is high), and second, because frequent removal from play naturally limits the player's ability to do anything, even if their character gets better later on.

Of course, you can offset the high perceived cost by making the effect of the ability very powerful, but that runs the risk of our ticking time-bomb of a character overshadowing everybody else; even if they don't use their self-annihilating "I win" button in a given situation, the knowledge that they could is going to warp everybody else's priorities.

This isn't to say that abilities which remove a character from play as a cost are impossible to work with. They're just a huge pain in the ass to get right, and they're so strongly self-limiting in terms of how frequently they're likely to come into play that it's rarely feasible to build a character around them.

Which brings us back to the central conceit of Eat God, where every player character is built out of exactly three rules toys. Asking someone to take up a third of their entire character sheet with the ability to blow themselves up isn't a winning play from a player engagement perspective, no matter how you implement it; either they use it rarely and a third of their character sheet is dead weight, or they use it frequently and spend most of the session removed from play. Neither is something I'm inclined to randomly inflict on a game.

(x) id lose my fucking mind. imagine climbing nearly 10k ft of elevation thinking you're the first to ever do it n turns out someone beat you to it a millennium ago

By the way you say this, have you tried gathering all the nothing in a room and throwing it at something?

NO im NOT mad that my powers haven't activated AT ALL yet *my telekinesis throws nothing across the room*

Having of mostly grown up in western Washington state with regular trips back to Australia due to family being from here, I entirely get the point about all of the other creatures, but while I occasionally hear rumour of them being territorial, which is concerning, my understanding of rattlesnakes is "their like regular snakes, but their harder to step on and get bit, because loud."

im posting this too actually because im right and you all gotta fucking understand this

That's also how I tend to interpret it - I'm pretty sure I'm defaulting to the Ah-ee-shuh option, here.

Is this not, rather, a measure of fucked upedness? For instance, surely Skitter/Weaver/Khepri is a poor little meow meow, despite being the third best person in canon (beat only by Vista and Dragon)?

people need to realise that a poor little meow meow must be a character who has committed atrocities you cannot poor little meow meow a good guy that's not how this works