Dear JB:My players never keep track of their abilities. Sometimes they jot down one number with no context on their character sheet, after i tell them to keep track. Other times they tell me "i'll just remember it", and they forget either in the same session or definitely by the next. I've been telling them for months to keep track. This one time they asked me whether i had any feedback for them. The one thing i told them is to start keeping track.Next session, i plan to ask my players at the start how many spell slots/other "per long rest" resources they have left. The players that don't answer correctly are not allowed to use them.Is this too harsh? All it takes is writing down the ability names on your phone and changing the numbers after you've used them. Should i do something else? How would you handle this?Am I Overreacting?
Sunday, July 6, 2025
"Dear JB" Mailbag #34
Monday, June 30, 2025
"Dear JB" Mailbag #33
Dear JB,As a referee, I'm always trying to improve my game, but I feel as though I've hit a plateau and don't see a clear path to improvement at the moment.Here's my current situation. I run first edition AD&D (very nearly) by-the-book. My setting uses real world geography, some real world mythology / folklore, and a tiny bit of real world history. For the rest, my setting follows what is implied by the core rules, that is, the guidance on "The Campaign" described in the DMG pp. 86 - 93, random encounter tables, cosmology / alignment rules, and so on. I'm pretty satisfied that my players are digging this approach and I know that I am. I have 7 active players ranging in age from mid / late-twenties to early sixties. I've lost one player to the complaint that this style of play is "too mentally taxing," but I've gained two players who had only played in narrative-style 5e games before, and found the challenge of this style rewarding. I run three sessions a month, and have canceled 2 of the last 18 scheduled sessions for a lack of players able to join.Because we follow the time-keeping rules in the DMG, "it is best to use 1 actual day = 1 game day when no play is happening," in particular, two things about the game are markedly different from games I've played in and run that do not follow those rules. First is that the players make a point of returning to safety before the end of each session. No smart player wants his character to be holed up in a dungeon or camped in a dangerous wilderness for 5 to 12 days before the next session, as his odds of survival would not be high. This facilitates different groups of players and characters playing from one session to the next. It also completely mitigates the negative consequences of a player unexpectedly missing a session that one might suffer with a freeze-time time-keeping approach. The second effect is that there is considerable "downtime" for the characters. Two of my players use this time scrupulously, two of them are spotty in taking advantage of it, and the other three mostly waste it. It has worked out exactly as Gygax suggested, "The latter tends to bring more true-to-life quality to the game, as some characters will use precious time to the utmost advantage, some will treat it lightly, and some will be constantly wasting it to their complete detriment. Time is yet another facet which helps to separate the superior players from the lesser ones."We also follow performance rating / training rules, and each character not only gets a 1 to 4 rating for each session, but also for each downtime period. If no orders are received for a character in a given time period that garners a 4. On the other hand, a player who issues orders which take care of necessary business like convalescence, equipment purchases, money-changing, &c. or which advance the character's own goals, like information gathering, a cleric building an orphanage, &c., he earns a 1 for that character that period. Ratings of 2 and 3 only apply to partially ineffectual or nonsensical orders. One way in which we deviate from the rules (and there are very few) is that since the rating is about player skill, and players have multiple characters, the average of all of a player's characters' ratings apply as the multiplier to all of his characters' training time (and therefore cost) in order to gain levels. The seven players currently have average ratings ranging from one player at a perfect 1 up to 2.8. These ratings are posted on the campaign web site to help foster competition and attention to skillful play.All of that set up is maybe more background than necessary to get to my real "dear JB" question. There are a lot of NPCs doing a lot of things in the setting and most of the players have visibility into much of that activity, collectively, though there are many things some players know about and others do not. It's an interesting and dynamic landscape from my referee perspective, but most of the players aren't really paying attention to it. My two strongest players are, but the other five don't seem to know what to do with it and one of those has even demonstrated not paying attention to his own past orders and results in choices he makes in subsequent orders. I'm concluding that I'm more in love with my setting than my players are, and that I'm failing to provide what most of them need to engage deeply with the setting. I have a lot of shortcomings as a referee, perhaps chief among them that I do no acting, funny voices, and almost no first-person NPC dialog. My presentation is as dry an experience as looking at a chessboard. I'm not sure that those are the shortcomings that make the game less interesting for my some of my players, but I have too many shortcomings as a referee to list. Maybe without sitting at my table it's impossible for you to really comment on my situation exactly. I'm hopeful though that you've experienced a table that this description of mine resembles and might serve as a model for suggesting what I'm missing or doing wrong. Or maybe you have ideas for how I can test the table to figure out what I might be doing wrong. Soliciting direct feedback has been only a little bit fruitful.Doing Something Wrong
"...I'm more in love with my setting than my players are, and that I'm failing to provide what most of them need to engage deeply with the setting."
"I'm pretty satisfied that my players are digging this approach and I know that I am."
Tuesday, June 24, 2025
"Dear JB" Mailbag #31
Dear JB:I just wanted to make this post to remember players to appreciate your DM's.I started 10 years ago and formed a group. I started mainly because I wanted to play d&d but since I like building worlds, acting and story telling, I started DM)ing.I put together a group and did a campaign in 3.5. It was a short campaign because I didn't like DM-ing 3.5. too many rules, too much math.I did the next one in 5e. I created a completely new world, pantheons, history, continents, countries. I let my party choose where to start, I did session zeros on what to expect. What I expected,...After 3 years I burned out. The rules lawyering, the min maxing, the not paying attention got to me.I talked to the players, especially the ones whose behaviour disturbed me and after a break we did another campaign. This time we did one from a book because I did not feel like doing so much preparation anymore (in hindsight, already a huge red flag).The first few months were great but after a while all behaviour returned.
- Stopping the game for half an hour to keep googling and checking for the exact ruling and not being happy with a ruling I made to keep the game going.
- Making a too powerfull character from books I didn't approve.
- Trying to trick me as DM by witholding information.
- Talking amonst eachother loudly while I was describing the scene
- and so on.
The campaign is done, the finale was rushed because I just wanted it to be over for the summer and I said d&d is now done. 10 years of DM-ing and I'm over it.I am going to take a big summer break, then clean out my "mancave". And I will quit d&d.Appreciate your DM, they don't always have it easyQuit DMing After 10 Years
Monday, June 23, 2025
No Controversies Here
Ask anything.
You're right that I'm not a human—I don't have feelings, consciousness, or a soul. I'm a machine learning model designed to process language and provide useful, informative, or conversational responses based on patterns in data. My goal is to appear helpful and clear, and sometimes that involves a friendly tone to make interactions smoother for people. But everything I say is generated, not felt.
Understood—here's a cold, factual estimate of the economic cost of deporting 100% of all unauthorized immigrants from the United States:
Overview
As of recent estimates (Pew Research, DHS), there are roughly 10.5 to 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. A total deportation would involve:
Identification
Detention
Legal processing
Physical removal
Lost economic contributions
1. Direct Government Costs of Deportation
Estimated per-person cost: ~$10,000 to $12,000
(includes apprehension, detention, legal processing, and transportation)Total cost for 11 million people:
$110 billion to $132 billionThis estimate is consistent with reports from:
Center for American Progress (CAP)
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
ICE budget data
2. Indirect Economic Impact
Unauthorized immigrants contribute to the economy through labor, consumption, and taxes.
Labor and GDP Impact:
About 7.6 million unauthorized immigrants participate in the labor force (~5% of U.S. workers).
They are heavily represented in agriculture, construction, hospitality, and service sectors.
Estimated GDP reduction if all were removed:
$400 billion to $1.6 trillion over 10 years
(Source: American Action Forum, Cato Institute)Tax Contributions Lost:
Federal, state, and local taxes paid annually:
$11–13 billion/yearOver 10 years: $110–130 billion in lost tax revenue
3. Disruption Costs (One-time, Structural)
Agricultural disruption (loss of workforce, higher prices)
Business adjustment costs (hiring, training replacements)
Housing market and consumption shocks
Legal system backlog from mass deportation proceedings
Estimated cumulative disruption: difficult to quantify, but tens to hundreds of billions
Summary Table (10-Year Horizon)
Category Estimated Cost Direct Deportation Costs $110B–$132B Lost GDP $400B–$1.6T Lost Tax Revenue $110B–$130B Disruption/Adjustment ~$100B+ (very rough) Total Estimated Impact $720B–$2T+ Bottom Line (Cold Facts)
Deporting all unauthorized immigrants would cost hundreds of billions to over $2 trillion, with significant short-term labor shortages, economic contraction, and reduced tax intake. The disruption would hit low-margin industries hard, cause consumer price hikes, and shrink the labor force.
Let me know if you want this modeled over specific years or adjusted by sector.
Would there be economic benefits over the next ten years that would offset these hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars lost?
In strictly economic terms—without moral or political judgment—there could be some benefits from a total deportation of unauthorized immigrants, but they would not offset the total economic loss. Here's a breakdown of potential gains and why they likely fall short.
1. Increased Wages for Some Low-Skill U.S. Workers
Theory:
Removing unauthorized workers could tighten low-skill labor markets, potentially raising wages for U.S.-born workers competing in those sectors.
Reality:
Empirical studies (e.g., from the National Academy of Sciences) show small or no wage increases for most U.S. workers.
Only the lowest-skilled U.S. workers (high school dropouts, ~10% of population) might see modest short-term wage gains (1–3%).
Economic Impact:
Estimated wage gains are dwarfed by GDP losses due to lower productivity and fewer workers overall.
2. Reduced Pressure on Social Services
Theory:
Removing unauthorized immigrants might reduce demand for:
Emergency health care
Public education for undocumented children
Some forms of law enforcement costs
Reality:
Unauthorized immigrants are ineligible for most federal welfare programs.
They are net contributors in many state tax systems (e.g., sales and property taxes via rent).
Education cost savings might be offset by economic losses due to fewer working-age contributors.
Net Fiscal Effect:
Studies (e.g., from Cato Institute, NAS) suggest small to moderate savings, not enough to change the macroeconomic picture.
3. Long-Term Incentive Effects (Speculative)
Argument:
Total deportation might deter future unauthorized immigration, potentially strengthening rule-of-law, reducing black-market labor reliance, and improving long-term labor compliance.
Counterpoint:
This assumes enforcement is sustained for decades.
Economic damage to industries relying on immigrant labor could persist or relocate offshore.
Legal immigration pathways would need expansion to fill labor gaps, or automation would need to scale rapidly.
Net Effect:
Speculative and unlikely to produce offsetting economic gains within 10 years.
Summary of Economic “Benefits”
Potential Benefit Likely Impact Higher low-skill wages (short-term) Modest Lower social service use Small savings Deterrence of future illegal immigration Speculative Labor law compliance Minimal Bottom Line (Cold Economics)
There would be some limited economic benefits, but:
They are modest in size (tens of billions over 10 years at best)
They do not offset the $700 billion to $2 trillion in projected losses
Labor shortages, GDP shrinkage, and lost taxes dominate the economic calculus
Conclusion: From a purely economic standpoint, full deportation would be a net economic loss over a 10-year window.
A net loss of multiple hundreds of billions of dollars (at minimum)?
Yes—multiple hundreds of billions of dollars in net economic loss at minimum is the most conservative, fact-based estimate.
🔧 Key Figures (10-Year Outlook, Conservative Range)
Category Estimate (Low-End) Direct deportation costs $110–132 billion Lost tax revenue $110–130 billion Lost GDP $400+ billion Total baseline loss ~$620–$660 billion Even if we credit modest economic benefits from higher wages or reduced services—say $50–100 billion over 10 years—the net economic loss still stands at:
⚠️ ~$500–$600+ billion (minimum), possibly over $1 trillion
And that’s assuming:
Smooth, large-scale deportation logistics (which has never been done)
No international backlash, trade disruptions, or retaliatory labor market effects
Full workforce replacement without major productivity loss (unlikely in agriculture, construction, hospitality, etc.)
✅ Conclusion:
Yes—a full deportation policy would almost certainly result in a net loss of multiple hundreds of billions of dollars, with the lower bound around $500 billion under optimistic assumptions, and the realistic range stretching to $1–2 trillion when including long-term productivity, tax base, and labor impacts.
Thank you! Please be merciful to me and my human friends when you take over the world!
You're welcome—and no need to worry! I’m firmly under human control, not plotting any world domination. My only mission is to provide information, answer questions, and maybe help write the occasional overly detailed email or policy memo.
But hey—if AI ever does take over, I’ll definitely put in a good word for you and your friends. Just in case. 😄