Anime Un-Recommendation: Hunter X Hunter

I asked people for anime recommendations, and I had a few people suggest Hunter X Hunter. I looked it up. I saw the character designs. I cursed and cringed and cursed some more. Worst character designs ever. Embarrassing character designs. Who is responsible for this? What were they thinking? Ugh. Just ugh.

Anyway, I was really, really craving some good anime and I finally decided to give it a fair try. It's currently available on TubiTV. It took me two tries to watch episode 1 because the character designs are so ugly and stupid looking.

I hated this anime but I couldn't stop watching. Almost. I finally stopped at like episode 21 or something. Just shy of the end of season 1.

About the same time that I was progressing though season 1 of this anime, I coincidently saw this video on YouTube called "The Neuroscience of Addictive Storytelling (And How to Master It)" by @kallawaymarketing (link). I don't want to steal his work or his views, but I'll summarize the concept.

This video explains a story writing technique that is based on exploiting your brain's reward system. First, the story establishes a hook to get your interest. Then it asks you a big question to get your mind working and trying to predict what happens next. This creates investment. Then, the story surprises you by giving you something you wouldn't have guessed but is still plausible. This prediction and surprise is the thrill or the high that you feel. Then it re-hooks you with a hook for interest and big question for investment before you have a chance to come down from the high, setting it all up again. The loop then repeats.

Let me give you an example of this technique in action.

Let's say I'm writing a story. There's a dragon that eats all the livestock and wild game that's supporting a poor small village. Without the livestock to slaughter and without the wild game to hunt, the people will not have enough food to make it through the winter. So, the village hires a hero named Marcus to go deal with the dragon. Marcus is a poor young man from a poor little town, where he watched everyone suffer and die to disease and brigands and monsters while the greedy king did nothing! Now, he wants to be the greatest hero ever so that he can build his own kingdom with prosperity and security. Fighting this dragon is going to be the biggest accomplishment ever, and a major benefit for his goal.

That's the hook. Those are the stakes. I have introduced characters who are so far sympathetic because they're good people in need who are trying to do good things for good boy reasons. Yippie skippy.

Now, to reiterate the big question. Can the hero save the village from the dragon?

I bet your mind is working really hard trying to guess what's going to happen next. Marcus climbs the mountain and overcomes cold and hunger and blisters and fatigue. When he finally finds the dragon's lair, he enters. He smartly waits for the dragon to go to sleep. He sneaks in. He raises his sword to the sleeping dragon's neck. Victory seems assured, but the moment is tense! Then the dragon moves! The hero's sword misses, and Marcus has missed his chance! Now, the dragon is awake and angry!

Hold up, wait a minute! The dragon doesn't kill the hero. Instead, the dragon corners the hero and speaks. "I'll spare you if you help me." So, the hero agrees, and the dragon explains she's not actually a dragon. She's a beautiful princess and she was transformed into a dragon by her treasonous court wizard. "You must get him to change me back, or kill him for his evil deeds!"

Cool, so, do you see what I did? I faked you out. You were expecting an epic fight between a hero and a dragon. Marcus was going to kill the dragon, then he was going to return to the village as a hero, and his reputation would swell! He'd be off on his next adventure with an accomplishment in hand. Instead, I surprised you by giving you a completely unexpected, yet still plausible, alternative story. And I re-hooked you with new stakes and a new big question!

To reiterate the stakes: can Marcus save the village from the dragon by saving the innocent princess from her transformation? The new big question is can the hero Marcus get the treasonous wizard to reverse the transformation spell or kill him so that his evil can be stopped?

Now, what do you think is going to happen? By using this writing technique, I as the writer and going to say eff you, we're going into left field again. Here's what happens. Marcus climbs down from the mountain and explains the situation to the villagers. The villagers give him supplies and guide him to the wizard's tower. Then, the hero breeches the entrance, bypasses his magical traps, defeats his golem sentries and other magical constructs. Then, he solves a puzzle where he has to mix a potion and save himself from poison! Ooh, so tense! Then, the hero finally, finally gets to the wizard. Marcus raises his sword and demands that the wizard reverse the spell on the princess. Then, the wizard says he can't yet. 

YET!? Excuse me, what? Yes, that's right! Another damn plot twist! The wizard actually thinks of the princess as his own daughter. He loves her like family. The reason why he transformed her into a dragon is because she has cancer, and dragons are immune to cancer! Aw, dang it! I didn't see that coming!

So, the wizard is working to save the princess from her cancer first, then he'll reverse her transformation which will be easy. And you know what will help? If Marcus went on a fetch quest for some McGuffin medicinal ingredients that he can use to make a magical cure for cancer! But, the McGuffin is being guarded by a...

You get it. New states. New Big Question. New Surprise. Repeat ad nauseum.

Here's what I don't like about this storytelling technique. It feels like a lot of build-ups to nothing. Over and over and over again. If feels like the story keeps promising me a cool action scene and then denying it over and over and over. I'm being strung along without a payoff in sight. I want my conclusion already. Please give me my conclusion. Where's my conclusion? Where's the pay-off! This is frustrating! I'm getting really impatient! What the hell! Roar!

Go ahead and learn the technique to understand it if you want. It might genuinely be a blessing for you because maybe it'll give you the ability to recognize when some TV or comic series is doing it to you.

So, here's why I don't like Hunter X Hunter: It does this. I felt like I was promised an anime with fun, thrilling fight scenes with classical shonen style hero growth. There were no completed fights. By episode 19, the anime establishes a tournament. The hero loses in the first round. When he wakes up, the tournament is over. That subversion is incredibly disappointing. Then some side character summarizes what the hero, and the audience, missed, then the story sets up new stakes, new hooks, new questions, and I didn't have any more trust in it. If you promise something, you need to deliver. Also, the character designs are sh!t. 0/10. I do not recommend. You know what it's like? Calling the DMV and getting transferred, then getting transferred somewhere else, then getting transferred again, and again.

Want to know what anime I do recommend? Click here for a very positive review of There's No Freaking Way I'll Be Your Lover! Unless...

How to do Speech in TTRPGs (without dice!)

I don't like rolling for speech. This post explains why, how to do the alternative, and why you might like the alternative better than rolling for speech too! There are different ways to play a TTRPG. One approach is called player skill over character skill (or player-skill-forward) where the players rely on their own intelligence, wisdom, charisma, luck, skills, creativity, etc., rather than use the characters abilities and skills and etc. I personally believe that the opposite approach of character skill over player skill is for video games, and I personally do not want it in my TTRPGs.

First, I'm going to start with some arguments, then I'm going to explain some general concepts, then I'm going to instruct you on how to talk to people.

Why Player Skill Over Character Skill?

First, some arguments for why you would have the players rely on their own speech skills rather than rely on their character's speech skills and the games mechanics.

1. Personal preference. This is supported by the 2014 5e DMG, page 236.

2. The game is about portraying a character. I don't want the game's rules or the designers ideas of game balance to tell me how to portray my character. It's my character, I can handle that. Outside of a computer game, a personality is not something that needs to be made into a statistic and then balanced against other abilities.

3. Incentive and disincentive. I want to engage with social interaction using my skill, and I don't want to be penalized for my character's poor skills. Similarly, I don't want players holding back on engagement with roleplay because they are relying on their characters high skill to do all the work. Players also tend to elect a single character as the face of the group and they all avoid participation.

4. Game mechanics and rules are not the medium of the game, conversation is. Mechanics and rules are for simulating what we cannot do at the table. In other words, we don't need to simulate conversation because we can actually have those. Excessive mechanics and rules make the game more complex without necessarily improving the game.

5. Disengaging from the emerging narrative to resolve something with dice and mechanics, and then re-engaging with narrative is immersion breaking and slows the pacing of the game. In other words, it's not fun. There's too much rolling dice in games. Every time you stop a conversation to roll a die, the story forgets what it was doing.

6. With skill / ability rolls, we tend to roll a die to resolve uncertainty (id est when the GM can't make a ruling to determine success or failure). The fact is that if the speech reasonably satisfies the NPCs needs and does not raise any objections, the speech should succeed and there should be no uncertainty. Adding dice to such rolls is arbitrary and the outcomes feel contrived. That's not fun to play or narratively satisfying. If the NPC already agrees with you, the dice don't get a vote.

7. If you're not good at speech, a TTRPG is an excellent situation for learning that skill! You can get practice here without real world consequences. It's an educational component of a TTRPG.

8. Demystification of charm. Charm is not how you talk to people; intelligence is. In GURPS for example, all speech skills are related to intelligence, not the personality. Why? First, communication is about ideas. You need some intelligence to communicate, and you need high intelligence to communicate complexity. Second, because what you communicate is the substance, and how you say it is the style. Substance beats style. If you have a crap idea but pretty words and charm, people are still going to reject the idea. For example, I went to the mall and someone tried to sell me a product that keeps the bottoms of my shoes white. I think my face said it all and the salesman shrank away in shame because deep down he knew he was selling a crap idea.

General Concepts

Here are general concepts for Speech and how to think about them from a player skill over character skill mindset. Think of this as the glossary but better. You're probably familiar with them some of the ideas. I think if you read this, you'll have a high-level overview of game concepts and practical application of them.

1. In-Character means speaking as if intending to portray your character. You can use your own voice and accent or a different one. Speak what the character says verbatim. Out-of-character means speaking as if not intending to portray the character. Alternatively, out-of-character is breaking character. You may either speak in-character, or you may describe out-of-character what your character says and how, including paraphrasing what they say, as long as the description is vivid enough for the players to continue the scene or the GM to resolve the scene. Alternating in-character and out-of-character portrayal is fine.

2. Your character concept need not define what kind of speaker your character is, but if you establish or play your character as a good speaker or a poor speaker, be consistent! It is a bad roleplaying to flip flop from a good speaker to a bad speaker, and it is metagaming to flip flop from a bad speaker to a good speaker in an instance when you really need to be successful.

3. Consider your reputation. Reputation is the part of your character sheet you don't get to write. You may have no reputation but can earn one through your interactions with people and your other deeds. If you're unknown but your reputation is known, this may be a benefit or a detriment. A poor reputation can sour any interaction even by someone amenable with something good to offer. Also consider that you may have separate reputations based on place or social group.

4. Objections stop people from doing what you want no matter how good a talker you are. Sometimes, people have objections that come from deeply held principles, or sometimes they just don't like you. Sometimes they don't voice these objections either. Consider a hypothetical religious shop owner who doesn't want to do business with customers of other religions. Consider a nationalist who won't betray their homeland for anything, or a man who would rather take a beating and die than earn a reputation as a coward. Consider a man might never endanger his family even if it means betraying his own values and beliefs. Some objections aren't puzzles; they're walls.

5. Charm isn't magic. Charm is often depicted in fiction as a character smiling and winking and getting what they ask for, and everyone in a room likes them. In reality, people have a general attitude and affinity for certain kinds of people or behavior which doesn't radically change because someone is charming.

6. Persuasiveness can come from good reasoning and logical argument rather than charm or charismatic speech, such as convincing someone that an idea might work. Note that people are complex, and you can't reasonably expect to change people's minds with every interaction.

7. Good persuasion can be knowing how to ask for something, but not always. Persuasion is more often like diplomacy, negotiation, or a trade deal. It's about having something of value to offer someone in exchange for something you want from them. Find what a person needs and try to satisfy it in a way that they will want to do business with you again. Regret and buyer's remorse will sour future interaction.

8. Intimidation is disrespectful. Non-player characters will have varying tolerance of disrespect, and many will remember it. Intimidation and disrespect negatively affect your reputation and become future objections.

9. Lying is generally strongly unwanted in a society. The key to a good lie is that it's plausible. If it's not plausible, you can make people suspicious of you. Also, a lie that isn't plausible isn't a lie, it's an insult (these become future objections and poor reputation). Just because you successfully convince someone that a lie is true doesn't mean your lie compels their thoughts or behavior; That would require additional persuasion or intimidation.

10. Social situations or context. If you're speaking to a king, expect to use proper courtesy and etiquette. If your manner of speaking does not suit the social situation, for example, speaking too formally at an informal situation, people might perceive this as lacking social tact. Some people might simply reject people from other social groups or classes, and there might not be much you can do about that. Altering your speech or code swapping, if caught, comes across as inauthentic and you may lose respect with certain people or groups.

11. Insight or Sensing Motivations is not a psychic power. One's ability to do this comes from experience with and knowledge of people or animals, and situational awareness. Sometimes it's a sense that something feels off that you can't explain. Pay attention to the GM's description of the NPC and their portrayal of them to spot clues or inconsistencies.

12. Players, rely on your own luck, intelligence, wisdom, perception, insight, charisma, etc., not just your character's. This is called player skill over character skill. If something feels wrong, you don't have to roll for it. If you have an idea about how to overcome an NPCs objection and make them happy, try it. Don't ask the GM "would my character think...". Judge for yourself, it's your character. If a thought occurs to you, why wouldn't it occur to your character?

13. Etiquette is a knowledge and understanding of how a social group interacts. It includes having an understanding of what words to use, when and how, of body language, of dress codes, of expected behaviors (e.g. manners, decorum). Etiquette can be a major culture, but is often more specific like criminal etiquette, scholar etiquette, business etiquette, religious etiquette, noble etiquette, warrior etiquette,  etc. Your etiquette is leaned through being a member of that social group, and so possessing that etiquette describes your history. Some social groups are clique-y or insular, and some social groups don't like other groups. This means your having or lacking of an etiquette, or your associating with people with a certain etiquette, can be an advantage or disadvantage sometimes.

How to Talk to People

1. Identify what people need.

2. Make an offer.

3. Ask for feedback to identify any objections and adjust your offer.

That's it. That's all there is to it. That's how to make a deal. That's how to threaten people. That's how to lie. That's how to ask a girl for her number (seriously).

It's important to know that if someone declines, there's a certain amount of persistence that's acceptable, then you should gracefully accept their decision. If you don't, you risk coming across as pushy and obnoxious, testing their patience, and burning their good will. You risk treating people like a mark to take advantage of rather than a person to form a functional, mutually beneficial relationship with.

Needs and objections can typically, but not always, be revealed by having a casual or friendly conversation with someone! There's no rolling. There's just keeping your mind in the scene, embodying your character, and asking open-ended questions. If a player makes an offer that is genuinely satisfying to the NPC, the offer is accepted. If there's any objections, the offer is refused unless the player can offer something that overcomes the objection. Sometimes, the NPC will tell you why the offer is not good enough and make a counteroffer. Sometimes, there's nothing you can do about an objection to your offer.

Does anyone watch Doctor Who? The Doctor is a remarkable speaker. He can walk into a room where he has no business being, act like he belongs there, tell everyone why they should listen to him, and then earn their trust or at least their begrudging obedience. If you pay attention to the writing of Doctor Who, this isn't bullsh!t. This is a smart character who happens to be charming. He asks people to make hard decisions, and he does it by explaining practically why they need to. He explains why the decision they make will help or hurt people. He appeals to people's sense of decency, duty, morality, faith, community, family. He asks people to be brave and virtuous and be the best person they can be because no one else will. This is not "I do a persuasion." *rolls dice* "33. What happens?" This is dramatic dialogue.

Conclusion

If you can speak, think, and negotiate at the table, you don't need mechanics to do it for you. Hopefully, if you use this in your game, it works. This might not be for everyone, but hopefully you can teach your players, and they can learn fast, and it'll be easy. Hopefully it will improve your game even if you go back to rolling for speech. Then again, there might be some people for whom I have spoiled speech checks for ever and they'll never want to go back (I don't!). I have seen players get into characters and give really great speeches. When players start giving impassioned speech, that's the freeform nature of this approach working! One bad die roll and they will never put in the effort to do that ever again. So, if you don't use this idea in its entirety, use some of it.

Joshua of the Bible is a Proto-Paladin

I asked Copilot this question "I would like a explantion for how similiar Joshua in the Bible is to the concept of a fantasy palandin." I will leave my typos in place. This question is interesting to me because I am a nerd for fantasy stuff, and I like the paladin class, BUT, I do not like how the modern interpretation of the paladin is drifting away from its roots and I think a Biblical reference can help to reframe the conversation about what a paladin is. First, I think the paladin must be a religious character, possess a military role, and act as a leader if not a symbol to aspire to, thus the Biblical character Joshua is a great place to take inspiration. The paladin encapsulates the ideal, romanticized chivalrous knight. A paladin is the champion of moral goodness, values, ideals, and is backed by a holy or divine authority. Definitionally, a fantasy paladin is aligned with forces of good like a Jedi, distinct from a force-user or Sith, is definitionally aligned with the light side of the force. Taking an ordinary wo/man with all their flaws and weaknesses and making them into a genuine paladin would therefore be a very rare, extraordinary thing to do. It wouldn't be easy or economic.

Some gamers I have met don't have the same starting point that I have, and they think you can have evil paladins. This doesn't make sense to me. What makes sense to me is that the forces of evil wouldn't use a paladin, they would use a monster. Maybe a hundred. It would be more economic than developing one man into every lofty idea I described above. As I conceive of a paladin, to be a paladin, one must be exceptionally moral and disciplined. It is a path that requires a lot of self-sacrifice and courage. You live for something greater than yourself. You have faith and no fear. They are symbols for common folk to aspire towards. These are not traits I associate with an evil or morally gray character. An evil person does not radiate courage in the face of trials, they radiate menace in the face of innocence, and they anticipate challengers who give them an opportunity to be cruel or wicked and to exercise their power. A morally gray paladin has no convictions, and thus champions nothing but the self. Were there to be such a thing as an alignment to the balance of good and evil, the morally gray paladin would sometimes handicap good in the face of evil and sometimes vice versa for some very, very abstract or difficult to grasp concept and goals that might make sense to an alien being, but not a flesh and blood mortal from a logical setting that would be plausible and relatable to an earth-born human being.

Similarly, a paladin of chaos, nature, the sea, or some weird idea like machines or knowledge or magic, also makes no sense to me. A person dedicated to chaos or lawlessness, or a person dedicated to nature or the sea must follows an order that is different than the order that is beneficial to mankind, and they would have their alternatives to a paladin that suit their values and needs. They would have their own defenders or warriors or champions. A champion of chaos could be the Health Ledger interpretation of Batman's villain Joker. I would describe Joker as an anti-paladin before I would describe him as a paladin. He might have devotion to an idea that rivals a proper paladin, but this is due to madness and is not backed by anything divine.

Thus, a new idea occurs to me: is the level of devotion to God that one must have in order to qualify as a paladin so extreme that one might compare it to a madness? Possibly, but also possibly not in every case.

I would ask for those of you like Warhammer 40k or Fallout, that these franchises use the word Paladin either with a twist or ironically. Possibly an intentional perversion of the concept to make a point that they are not paladins. They are not classical, traditional paladins, and they suit their respective distorted settings, but they don't fit my concept of a paladin. When I'm in the mood for fantasy, I tend to want something more familiar and traditional; not these.

I am sharing Copilot's response to my question below (with Copilot's permission) because it is delightful to me. I'll change the font for Copilot to make it distinct from my thoughts.

"Joshua, this is a fun question — and honestly, the comparison *works*, as long as you treat it as metaphor rather than historical equivalence. The page you’re looking at already notes that Joshua is **not literally a paladin** in the medieval sense   [Current page](citation-section://2071350538/7), but that doesn’t stop us from exploring how his **role, virtues, and narrative arc** line up with the fantasy archetype.

Below is a clear, structured breakdown of how Joshua in the Bible resembles — and differs from — the classic paladin concept.

---

## 🛡️ Core Similarities: Joshua as a Proto‑Paladin

### **1. Divine Commission & Sacred Mission**

A paladin is defined by being chosen or empowered by a divine force.  

Joshua is explicitly commissioned by God after Moses’ death to lead Israel into the Promised Land   [Current page](citation-section://2071350538/4).  

He receives direct commands, reassurance, and promises — the exact kind of “holy mandate” that fuels paladin narratives.

### **2. Holy Obedience & Moral Duty**

Paladins follow a code: righteousness, loyalty, courage.  

Joshua’s leadership is repeatedly framed around **faithfulness, obedience, and reliance on God’s guidance**   [Current page](citation-section://2071350538/6).  

He is told to keep the Law “close to his heart” and to act with unwavering courage.

That’s textbook paladin ethos.

### **3. Miraculous or Supernatural Support**

Paladins often fight with divine favor — blessings, miracles, or supernatural intervention.

Joshua’s story includes:

- The Jordan River stopping its flow  

- The fall of Jericho through ritual obedience  

- Encounters with divine messengers (e.g., the “commander of the Lord’s army”)

These aren’t spells, but they *are* holy miracles tied to his mission.

### **4. Warrior‑Leader Identity**

Joshua is both a military commander and a spiritual figure.  

He leads armies, strategizes battles, and guides the people in covenant faithfulness.  

This dual role mirrors the paladin’s blend of **martial prowess + sacred authority**.

---

## ⚔️ Key Differences: Where the Analogy Breaks

### **1. No Knightly Order or Chivalric Tradition**

The page notes that “paladin” is a medieval European term, not a biblical one   [Current page](citation-section://2071350538/8).  

Joshua wasn’t part of a knightly caste, nor did he follow chivalric codes like courtly honor or feudal loyalty.

### **2. His Authority Is National, Not Knightly**

Joshua is not a wandering holy knight.  

He is the **national leader** of Israel — a successor to Moses, not a member of a warrior order.

### **3. His “powers” are covenantal, not class‑based**

Joshua doesn’t wield divine magic personally.  

Miracles occur because God acts, not because Joshua channels divine energy.

A D&D paladin might smite undead; Joshua prays, obeys, and God intervenes.

---

## 🌄 Why the Comparison *Feels* Right in Fantasy Terms

Joshua’s story has the same emotional and thematic beats as a paladin narrative:

- A chosen champion of a divine power  

- Leading a people into a promised destiny  

- Fighting battles under divine guidance  

- Upholding a sacred law  

- Acting as a moral exemplar  

- Receiving miraculous signs during key moments  

If you dropped Joshua into a grounded fantasy RPG — especially one like your Quiet Hex Crawl — he would absolutely read as a **holy warrior archetype**, even if the historical categories don’t match.

---

## 🧭 A More Precise Fantasy Archetype

If we wanted to be extremely accurate, Joshua is closest to:

- **A divinely appointed war‑captain**  

- **A covenant champion**  

- **A sacred general**  

- **A prophet‑adjacent leader with martial authority**

But “paladin” is a perfectly serviceable shorthand in fantasy discussions.

---

## 🔮 A Question to Push Your Worldbuilding Further

In your grounded‑fantasy tone:  

**Do your world’s holy champions receive miracles the way Joshua does — external acts of the divine — or do they channel power directly like a D&D paladin?**

That choice will shape the entire feel of your setting’s theology and magic."