Nobody wants to go to their computer and read about what you had for breakfast and how it called to mind your boyhood, which morphed into a meditation on the relationship between life and art and, by extension, a metaphor for all social interaction.

Good DMs take opportunities to create adventures around a single character. And this is awesome.

I'm going to have to recommend this to some of my groups, once we get back into the habit of long campaigns again.

I guess the Monday game started with Tim's character (and the wreckage of his old workplace), but it didn't really stay with him beyond a couple of encounters.

I've heard good things about Win7. Perhaps I'll have to check it out.

I have a couple of friends who are great, funny, socially awesome people whom I enjoy hanging around with, but if I’m matched against them at a PTQ, their presence suggests they want me to lose in fiery, horrific fashion that shatters my very soul. That’s fine.

Like any good geek hobby, board games give you an excellent chance to feel superior to the unwashed masses without actually having to wash.

In one interview, a lucky volunteer arrived with his leg in a plaster cast and described how he had fallen down a flight of stairs. I asked him whether he still felt lucky and he cheerfully explained that he felt luckier than before. As he pointed out, he could have broken his neck.

I know if I ever have [Sphinx of Jwar Isle] in play, I will respond to everything my opponent does by looking at my top card, just because I can.

This is so true.

Our #1 goal is to obtain information about the color balance of the set (which colors are stronger in Limited, etc.). Our #2 goal is to create ratings that are useful for collating the print runs of the set. These two goals are inconsistent with the following, less important goals: a) Gain an understanding of the power level of our set relative to other sets, and b) Have the same card have the same rating in different sets. We therefore decided to abandon those less important goals and we agreed that all ratings should be relative to the current block.

Thus, here is the fundamental definition of our rating: Given that this is the first card you see (of your 75-card sealed deck or first pack, first pick in draft), how happy are you -- on a scale of 0.0 - 5.0 -- to see it? Furthermore, your ratings should be linear (that is, you’d be just as happy with a 3.5 and a 2.5 or with two 3.0’s). Also, to be technically correct, this all assumes that your goal is to win – winning makes you “happy.”

The following elaborations of this scale are merely guidelines, designed to clarify the scale defined above:

5.0: I will always play this card. Period.

4.5: I will almost always play this card, regardless of what else I get.

4.0: I will strongly consider playing this as the only card of its color.

3.5: I feel a strong pull into this card’s color.

3.0: This card makes me want to play this color. (Given that I’m playing that color, I will play this card 100% of the time.)

2.5: Several cards of this power level start to pull me into this color. If playing that color, I essentially always play these. (Given that I’m playing that color, I will play this card 90% of the time.)

2.0: If I’m playing this color, I usually play these. (70%)

1.5: This card will make the cut into the main deck about half the times I play this color. (50%)

1.0: I feel bad when this card is in my main deck. (30%)

0.5: There are situations where I might sideboard this into my deck, but I’ll never start it. (10%)

0.0: I will never put this card into my deck (main deck or after sideboarding). (0%)

Those guidelines break down for artifacts and gold cards – fall back onto the fundamental definition when rating these categories of cards: the happiness scale.