I'm working on a Solo RPG supplement around modeling relationships with NPCs, it's meant to be genre/system-agnostic so that it's not tied to any specific setting or ruleset per se. It's just something that could be used alongside other games if a player wanted to include a companion NPC (romantic, platonic, business, whatever) in their game and work out how that NPC might behave in different scenarios, or provide different prompts for random events or different factors that might affect how two characters relate to each other. In a weird way, it's trying to gameify or abstract out 1-on-1 character relationships (PC to NPC).

I was kind of just throwing the idea out here for feedback and ideas on what other factors I might consider when trying something as ~~stupid~~ weird as trying to model human relationships? As this is mostly intended for solo RPGs (though it could be used in multiplayer RPGs), I'm not trying to overcomplicate things, alot of things in Solo RPGs are left open and to the discretion of the player, but it can be helpful to have an unbiased set of Oracles to help with generating ideas the player can react to.

The general idea is kind of weird to me, even attempting to model something as crazy and convoluted and messy as human relationships just seems like an exercise in futility, but I figured I'd try it anyways for the challenge. The closest thing I can think of that's similar to this is a "dating simulator", but in my mind that's not really the point of this, this is more a general storytelling tool that helps create potential plot points or drive character development. Most RPGs tend to focus more on action & adventure, while kind of ignoring social interactions.

Currently, the basic mechanic I'm going with is that the relationship status exists in two different ranges: Current Mood and Relationship Level. Current Mood is a short-term reading on the relationship (5 steps, from 'Very Negative' to 'Very Positive'), while Relationship Level is the overall state of the relationship between characters, (10-steps ranging from 'Hatred' to 'Love'). Individual actions/events push the Mood up or down, which if it reaches either end of the spectrum (1 or 5) and goes past either of those numbers, it pushes the Relationship Level up or down a level. So even if the Current Mood is 'Very negative', the overall Relationship level might still be high, it just indicates a rough patch, while conversely, just because you have a good day in a shitty relationship, doesn't mean everything is gravy.

After that, many of the other tables are a series of Oracles that help determine NPC character elements, like a supplemental character generator for determining personality, appearance, beliefs, quirks, sexuality, and other non-mechanical factors. There's also randomized Oracles similar to Ironsworn Action/Theme tables or even topics of conversation and the general disposition of the conversation.

I just had a weird online encounter on Bluesky that made me start wondering what people are willing to accept when it comes to negative online social contact (comments, replies)? What sorts of things are red lines for you personally?

Previously, I would accept quite a bit and would only block/mute/report somebody if it was incredibly offensive, but I would still try to explain myself, argue my point, or defuse a situation or whatever, still honestly trying to engage and make my case. I would rarely block anybody because that seemed almost like cowardice, like I was running from a fight. Since joining Bluesky however, I will not hesitate to block people for the simplest of reasons. Oftentimes if they start parroting obvious right-wing propaganda, if it's a bot, if they're offensive, make it personal, or if they're obviously trolling. As soon as a person starts calling names or makes accusations about the person themselves and strays away from the topic at hand, that's kind of become my personal red line. If you don't know me and you make it personal right away, we're done.

To give some background, my conversation that prompted this was over books vs audiobooks (it's been a subject for weeks on bluesky). I was responding to a librarian's post saying that it's a pointless debate, books are books, doesn't matter if you read a book or listen to an audiobook. I replied, agreeing with her point, saying that the experience of taking in a story is what we're doing, whether it's a regular book with text, picture book, audiobook, movie, or whatever. One format or another may have trade-offs, but you're still absorbing the story, it's still a similar experience you're getting. Not particularly controversial, just adding input, just whatever.

A reply came in from another person, somewhat combative from the start, not particularly long, but there was edge to it I could tell ("So what are you saying? Reading is reading, listening is listening" or something like that). I assumed they wanted more clarification (thus the '?'), so wrote back just kind of explaining how media formats are different, our brain takes in the information differently, but that one format or the other wasn't better, just different. Again, not directed at the person, just discussing the idea.

They replied back with something fairly negative, really sounding like they wanted to start an argument and directing it personally at me as if I was the one being argumentative for replying to their question. Without hesitation I just blocked them. I was like, I'm not going to waste my time engaging with this person (though I apparently will waste my time posting about it on Lemmy). I'm not really afraid of getting feelings hurt or anything, call me whatever you want, but if it's an obvious negative experience they're trying to goad me into, I'm not going to engage, I'm just going to walk away.

It's an interesting thing that's happening on Bluesky, because that's the overall behavior that seems to be encouraged on there that I haven't really seen elsewhere, don't engage with obviously negative people, it's not worth it. Is that what we should be striving for, starving the trolls and trying to encourage polite, civil discourse?

Normally by this point in time in the year, I would already have 80-90% of my holiday shopping done, yes, even before Black Friday, I just try to stay on top of it. However, I don't feel connected to Christmas as a holiday and don't want to take part in gift-giving this year. I've got three children and some nieces and nephews, though primarily it's my children I buy for, and I've bought for them every year of their lives. I think it's due to a few different factors, there's some amount of guilt for having participated as long as I have, but at the same time, I feel that I shouldn't be participating anymore, or at least for this year. Is anybody else feeling this way this year?

1. I'm not a Christian, more Agnostic/Atheist, so it's not even anything I feel particularly spiritual about, it's just been this secular tradition that my family did when I was a kid and I've just kept going with it out of sheer momentum without really questioning it. I wanted to give my kids a "normal" childhood and obviously you do Christmas for your kids if you're a good parent, right?
2. I've been the only active participant ever since my kids were born. My wife, a Christian, doesn't even participate in gift-giving and has even actively sabotaged the Santa Claus "game". She's literally told my young kids (12 , 7, & 6) that there is no Santa Claus and it's just been me giving the gifts. She's always done this, but the kids have at least pretended to play along most years (12 year old has known for awhile). So now I feel like I just want to throw the towel in, what's the use anymore? It's obvious nobody believes in it anymore, why bother?
3. My wife and I are already talking about getting a divorce (due to other long-standing issues) and things have been tense in the household for some time now. I want a dissolution because we agree on most terms, she refuses to participate and won't budge unless it's a full divorce. I'm hesitant to bring in lawyers for a divorce with how biased it feels like the court system is in divorces, I would rather have everything negotiated between us beforehand and bring a lawyer in for dealing with details.
4. I've been getting treated poorly by my wife and other family members particularly bad this year. My kids have been fine, and I hate to feel like I'm "taking it out on them", but I don't know why I'm contributing to this family holiday when I'm being made to feel like the black sheep of the family, like I don't contribute anything anyways (despite being the only one who has ever participated in gift-giving).
5. Due to the above family situation and some other events, I'm feeling a bit of depression. I realize that giving gifts could probably raise my spirits, but it just all feels so hollow, like even the temporary hit of happiness from just buying consumer goods for others isn't enough to make it worthwhile.
6. The "magic" is pretty much already gone, probably due to a little bit of above the wife essentially spoiling Santa Claus for multiple years and also due to the kids just growing up naturally. I'm pretty sure all the kids already know what's going on, so there's just no impetus to keep the charade going, though it was always going to have transition at some point.
7. Some small part of me, despite not being religious, thinks that just mindless gift-giving of consumer goods is not "in the spirit" of Christmas. It's just this Retail-driven holiday being pushed on us by corporate overlords who want us to BUY MORE STUFF.
8. Financials are tighter this year. Certainly not the tightest it's ever been, I've been in much worse situations financially (and still bought gifts), but it is a factor this year, and with potential upcoming hardships due to the incoming administration, it might be better to tighten the belt a little. If this was the only thing, it wouldn't be much of a factor for me.

I think I'll sit the kids down at least and talk it over with them, their ages seem young, yet they understand alot at their ages, but I feel like I'd rather be up-front with them about it, rather than them waking up Christmas morning expecting gifts and finding nothing under the tree. Just wondering if I'm just being a douche about the whole thing.

I noticed this Summer I started transitioning my morning walks to pre-sunrise hours to try to escape the heat (since even mornings in Ohio are getting to be hot). Since global warming (or climate change in general) is happening and there's apparently nothing to be done to fix it in our lifetimes, it made me wonder if our overall society might move towards more nocturnal working hours instead of the standard 9–5, just to escape overheating during the day?

There's probably no incentive currently, since workers aren't dropping like flies yet, but I could see it coming into play as global warming gets worse over time and it causes legitimate production issues. Probably some jobs wouldn't have the option, but most I think would be able to benefit from it. Does this sound like something realistic, or are we cursed to have to endure extreme temperatures because we've always worked in the daytime and we can't/won't change now?

Whether it's a sense of superiority or just to be funny or asinine or out of a genuine need to spread the truth, people online generally try to be contrarian as often as possible because it gives them some sort of personal gratification or a sense that they're correcting something wrong in the universe.

prompt: "generate an image of Patrick Bateman as Batman"

Copilot: "create a picture of Marvel's Fantastic Four in Leonardo's the Last Supper painting"

alternates:

Streamer Perrikaryal uses an electroencephalogram (EEG) device to play games