Heh, yeah. I think a lot of it comes down to comfort with my world and with improv.

I reward all kinds of problem solving, and I don't scale all encounters to the PCs, so I have high-level areas and NPCs in the world. If I didn't let PCs negotiate or flee, I would cut off those parts of the world.

Yes.

I will say that, in my experience, roll-to-cast is less mechanically onerous at the table for the player. They can cast their whole list without tracking slots, and that keeps them involved in the fiction instead of looking at their character sheet.

Just my preference, though.

Yeah, I dislike that. It turns magic into a technological tool, removing mystery and mysticism.

I have run many games this way, and it can be fun, but it doesn't feel like magic to me. Fireball feels more like a rocket launcher with ammo (slots) than a "spell".

I prefer magic be weird.

This is why I like roll-to-cast mechanics with consequences for crits, like DCC and Shadowdark. It creates a potential consequence for magic use.

Spell slots and guaranteed spell success are two of the worst widespread mechanics in TTRPGs, IMO. Every other action has a roll, but magic just works?

Cool. Congrats and good luck!

I think, outside of the RPG paradigm, this is why crowdfunding interests me most. Big media and publishing are problematic, from gatekeeping to wealth accumulation at the expense of creatives.

I don't know that KS is the right model, but the idea has potential to be a fly in the corporate ointment.

Fair. I see it, as someone that has freelanced and has that bias, as the pitch being monetized. Not bad, probably mostly good. Just weird.

As for funders, spend your money where you want. I waited to buy Shadowdark until I could play it, and it was finished before the KS. Totally a personal choice.

"Normal and good" is an opinion. Crowdfunding, just like crowdsourced information, comes with caveats and bad actors, IMO. It isn't unilaterally "good".

The buyer is paying for a product that doesn't exist. This can be awesome for community-centric projects and funders, but it is a pre-purchase.

Yeah, I get why developers would do it. Some will be great and some will be vapor.

It is suprising to me how many people will buy unwritten books, though. Untested systems surprise me even more.

Traditional writing means I have to pitch and deliver to get paid. This feels like pitch and get paid.

I mean, some will be normal and good and some will not, right?

As a writer, I have never considered trying to fund an outline. As a freelancer, I have to pitch, and don't get paid until I deliver.

I am not against it. Shadowdark was written first, and it rocks. Lots look very light to me, though.

Nope. Making anything indie is already hard enough.

I don't know how popular solo stuff is, but I would guess the work is more costly than the return.

This said, I have never met anyone who has bought or played a solo game IRL, with a decent sample of gamers, so my perspective is likely biased.

I agree with Strahd, though old I6 Ravenloft seems easier to run (haven't run 5e Strahd). Fleshing out classics makes sense. I like Yawning Portal and Saltmarsh well enough, too. Not much new creativity there, though.

Storm King is a OK guide for The Sword Coast.

LMoP is so good, the rest are not.

Reading them is fun, IMO, but adventures are like all fiction, mostly bad with a few gems.

Other than LMoP, I haven't seen a "playable" adventure book written for 5e, but there is lots of stuff you can steal and adapt in most of them if 5e is your jam.

Of course, if the setting calls for it.

I also write full descriptions of the available races/classes for character creation if it is a homebrew world.

If my players have specific ideas in mind before we play, we talk about it and figure it out.

Never had an issue with a player on this.