Coming Soon from D & D

D&D has really gotten progressive over the years.  The latest is the removal of the term Race in the game.  Lots of nerds can sleep better in their parents' basement but more needs to change.  I got the Time Machine out and got a hold of D&D's Feature Update from 2025.  Let's have a look:

Greetings, Dungeon Masters

Here at D&D, we're striving to make our game even more Diverse, Inclusive and Equitable.  While we know that Equity defeats the purpose of playing any game, we're still taking bold steps in this exciting new direction.  As a result, we will be updating some of the D&D rules.

Our first step years ago was to eliminate the word Race from being used in our literature and we replaced it with the word Species in order not to offend people who don't buy our products.  In continuation, to reflect our new philosophy, we have changed the rules of D&D to be a more updated game for everyone, and we mean everyone, to enjoy.

In our desire to make D&D more equitable, our first change to the rules will be every character will be the same level, whether you're starting a brand new Bard or you've have had the same Paladin for years.  Players that have super-strong, skilled and wealthy characters from years of playing and grinding it out will be now capped and will have to distribute anything above that unspecified threshold to newer, lesser characters.  While that may be a slap in the face to those that stuck by our product for years, we're sure you'll understand that here at D&D, we want a fair and equitable game that reflects a society based on how blue and pink haired lesbians think it should be.

While we all struggle with making opposites like diversity and equity work together, all classes will now have the same abilities.  We found that Wizards never had the strength of a Barbarian and that is hurtful to all wizards' feelings.  WLM.  Wizards can now take on an Aarakocrian Monk just like a Barbarian and Barbarians can cast spells just like a seasoned Wizards  Aasimars rejoice since every character’s stats from now on will be based off of Shriekers.  

We are removing Experience from the game.  Players all have their own unique experiences which makes us all truly diverse.  Through this lens, we believe that the Experience stat to be offensive as it only marginalizes players who have less experience.  Henceforth, leveling up will be removed from the game.  

There will be the removal of gender on all characters.  Now all characters will be sexless and unappealing, like real-life "non-binary" people.  You will still have the option to make your character unique, although we highly recommend against that line of thinking.  Player's characters will be able to wear either black, brown or grey clothing.

Collecting gold/treasure will be removed from the game.  In its place, a new QR code system will be introduced and everything will be based on a Social Credit system.  You will own nothing.

Depictions of species in the manuals will now be drawn by their own species.  In the past, sometimes 4 or 5 humans were allowed to draw all sorts of species: ogres, dragons, orcs, etc.  Now, only Goblins can draw Goblins, Skeletons can only be drawn by other Skeletons, etc.  This way they are accurately able to share their own personal experiences and tell their own stories.

 

More-sided dice.  We here at D&D feel there could be more room for dice.  Normally in D&D, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 20 sided dice are used.  We feel that leaves many other dice, most notably 3 and 7 sided dice, marginalized.  We are expanding dice usage to include 3, 5, 7 and 11 sided dice.  While we debated about having a 1 sided die represented, the term Mobius Strip is highly offensive to the players without a sense of humour.

We are so excited and we hope you'll embrace the new changes we've made to the game!  By focusing on making the game more inclusive, diverse and equitable, we're also making any D&D dungeon a Safe Space for everyone to enjoy.

- the D&D Team, Q3 2025

Not Hockey reLated

I love hockey and I love the Boston Bruins (17-2-0 at the time of writing) but I can't say the same about the current direction of the NHL.

Now, if I was in charge of the NHL, I would only tweet about hockey.  Pretty simple.  There's lots to tweet about: the previous night's scores, player milestones, etc.  But now you get garbage like this:

 

If I want to be lied to, I'll start dating again.  Spoiler Alert: people that say they're Non-binary are basically saying they're so unattractive that no one will sleep with them, but what does that have to do with hockey?  Right, nothing.  It was cringey when the NHL did the Kumbaya hand-holding a couple of years ago and this isn't any better.  Hockey is a competitive team sport, not group therapy for sissies.  Then I thought, why am I paying to watch a hockey league that's not even focused on hockey anymore? 

The NHL site even has a Diversity & Inclusion Report section, where the NHL "... is intentionally seeking a greater diversity of experiences throughout hockey, whether you are in it to play, work, or watch."

Why?  We may never know.  I'd focus on keeping the existing audience and maybe growing it but this is how you repel potential and existing customers.  There's only a handful of diverse experiences you can go through watching any sport, the two main ones being: happy when your team wins; letdown when your team doesn’t win.

"Since January 2020, the League Office and all 32 NHL Clubs have pursued with new urgency a variety of initiatives to make our game more welcoming, inclusive, accessible, and socially conscious. The information in "Accelerating Diversity & Inclusion: NHL Report on Strategies, Initiatives, and Progress" benchmarks the League's approach to D&I over the past few years with qualitative and quantitative data, following a "7 Dimensions" framework that shows the work underway across leadership, education, employment, marketing, partnerships, participation, and community engagement."

Makes sense.  2020 is when everyone stopped watching since no games were played because of the Lab Leak.  Watching sports used to be an escape.  It's not the NHL's job to be socially conscious because they don't do it well and they're already on their way to being another sports league that nobody wants to watch.  That's not a very good strategy.  One thing the NHL might figure out is that the people that they're trying to pander to don't spend money.

I'm pretty much an average person, so what does the NHL's Diversity and Inclusion direction mean for regular hockey fans like myself?  If the NHL really wants to make the league more accessible, then show more games over the air.  Not even NBC is showing NHL games anymore.  Having to pay either ESPN or Sportsnet to watch hockey isn't what I would call accessible.  Also, if the only place I can watch hockey is through 2 corporations, I wouldn't call that very inclusive.  Being excluded doesn't make things any more welcoming.  So far, I'd say this isn't a very good plan.  It doesn't attract eyeballs or dollars.

People stopped watching the other National leagues once they started going woke so I don't know why this would be any different for the NHL.  Remember when Gary Bettmen came in and his goal was to spread the NHL to more US markets?  Canada has a built-in market already but the NHL in the US had to compete with the NFL and NBA.  And he did a great job as far as that's concerned and it worked well, up until I guess January 2020.  Imagine doing all that work, then to have it all pissed away because of something un-hockey related?  Maybe when the league shrinks down to 28 teams in the next couple of years it'll sink in to the higher-ups that maybe all this diversity and inclusion isn't bringing in the viewers or the dollars after all. 

I currently have a good bit of disposable income but I'll be spending it somewhere else.  I'll still root for the Bruins but I won't be giving a dime to the NHL.

How Many People Does It Take To Write A Song?

 For me, one is enough but apparently it takes 24 for a crappy piece of Pop.

https://nypost.com/2022/08/02/diane-warren-responds-after-criticizing-beyonce-songwriting-credits/

"Diane Warren faced backlash on Twitter after questioning Beyoncé’s songwriting credits on one of her new songs.

“How can there be 24 writers on one song?,” she tweeted, adding an eye-roll emoji.

The songwriter followed up her original tweet saying, “This isn’t meant as shade, I’m just curious.”

“Ok, it’s prob samples that add up the amount of writers,” Warren, who has written songs for artists from Cher to Celine Dion, continued.

While Warren, 65, didn’t specify Beyoncé, 40, or her album by name, the Beyhive was quick to respond."

24 "song-writers".  If you threw 24 random food ingredients in the same pot and cooked it up to make one dish, chances are it would taste like shit.

The eye roll emoji was perfect too.  I tweeted "I wouldn't apologize to these Ding Dongs", as a sign of support.  I’m good like that.

But somehow, the lack of talent, where 24 people do the same "work" as 1 semi-talented person, turns into oppression:

“You mean how’s does our (Black) culture have so many writers, well it started because we couldn’t afford certain things starting out, so we started sampling and it became an Artform, a major part of the Black Culture (hip hop) in America. Had that era not happen who knows. U good?,” The-Dream tweeted.

I was going to look up The Dream but why?  He/she won't be around in another year and he/she couldn't even answer the question of why this song has 24 writers.  He/she turned it into imaginary oppression.  You know who couldn't afford certain things when starting out?  Everyone.  I had to get a day job to afford my gear.  Hell, sometimes I would even use gig money.

Something must have happened last night because I don't ever remember sampling ever being considered an artform.  Isn't Sampling like appropriating someone else's hard work?  Where's the art in being so lazy you can even deliver your own goods and then take pride in that?  I'll answer that question: Sampling is not an artform.  The Dream, if you don't want to work to pay for things, then shut that portable glory hole on your face.  U good?

Another fan wrote: “This is kind of a boring ass narrative at this point and it’s sad to see artists attempt to devalue one another."

What was the "boring ass narrative"?  That it takes 24 people to come up with a so-so song?  Here's a lesson on devaluing: 1 song, 1 song writer, one stream = $0.02 cents.  Take that .02 cents and divide it by (at least) 24, and not only will you see what each "songwriter" will receive, you'll get the actual value of that song.  Said song will be here and gone by the time school starts so don't spend it all in one place.

Ms Warren has wrote, or co-wrote, more real songs than an arena full of Hip Hop "writers" ever will so most of the criticisms are just out of jealousy.  Substituting the jealousy with the Oppression Card just shows how unaware some people are of themselves and the situation.  It's another reason why they'll never be a great.  But why try and be better when you already sabotaged yourself into thinking you can't?

Unfortunately, Ms Warren eventually apologised without having anything to apologise for.  I wouldn't apologise to those losers.  If they attained a level one could call an achievement, then what they say might be considered constructive criticism.  But it wasn't, it was just shallow insults. 

Everyone that threw in their misguided two cents owes Ms Warren an apology.