godzillabacter @ godzillabacter @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

88

Joined

2 yr. ago

I personally wouldn't recommend it, I've seen babies die miserable deaths of sepsis and it's heartbreaking. But I'm not going into pediatrics or OBGYN so thankfully this isn't gonna be a discussion I have to have.

To somewhat play devil's advocate, what's wrong with a minute? What benefit are you expecting from leaving it on longer?

The long and the short is Delayed Cord Clamping is really the only thing we have data for, and that's what we should do without evidence something else is better.

This is an alternative birth method called "lotus birth" or more formally "umbilical non-severance" in which babies are left tethered to the delivered placenta until their cord desiccates and detaches from their body on its own, usually in 3-10 days, while applying salt to the placenta to increase the speed at which it dries. It will eventually fall off, however, after its delivery the placenta is no longer being supplied with the oxygenated blood it needs to survive, and becomes necrotic (dead). This can act as an easy entry point for infectious organisms to enter the neonate, and can result in life-threatening infections. Neither the American College of Obstetrics or the American Academy of Pediatrics have explicit guidance statements as to whether this should be recommended against. AAP has published that there have been multiple case reports of severe infections with various bacteria secondary to this practice.

This should not be confused/conflated with Delayed Cord Clamping, which is waiting 30-60 seconds after the baby's delivery for some of the residual fetal blood in the placenta to be delivered to the baby's circulation to prevent anemia. This has good evidence for benefit to the baby, is recommended by ACOG, and is basically standard of care in the US.

Source: ACOG and AAP publications, also I'm a 4th year medical student that has completed OBGYN rotations

Oh, absolutely, there was going to have to be a discussion well before I would be willing to do that. I'd never take unilateral control of a player's character like that

My table tends to not metagame at all, even in situations I really wish they would. I think of all the answers I've gotten, this is the most reasonable and actionable answer. Just remind the player more often. I'm gonna have to come up with a good way to not sound like a condescending asshole because this is the only player I'm going to have to do it to. It just sucks cause it's one more thing I've gotta do while running combat. But that's life I guess

That's a really cool narrative way to go about fixing this, though it does feel kinda rail-roady. I'll give it some thought.

I go back and forth on this. I feel like I'm enabling these choices by pulling punches. But it feels excessively anti-fun to just kill them and be like "sorry lol be better". I don't think I have the heart to just murder characters all the time.

It's not quite 3 years. I've been DMing for about 3. This player has been playing on-and-off for about 1.5. I have complicated the rules a touch because in the last 8mo or so I've switched to PF2e. I mean this problem in specific isn't that system specific, so I don't think that really excuses it.

But all-in-all you're right. The most effective answer is find another group that is more invested in the game. I'm moving across the country in a few months, so I guess I should just ride the issue out a little longer and then move on, which is a huge bummer. I guess in the meantime I'll try and remind them more regularly and once again have the conversation about "Why?"

Thank you

I don't try and TPK my players, quite the opposite. I'm actively downgrading encounters and making mechanically disadvantageous choices to avoid them. The only thing I'm not doing is fudging rolls.

I am reaching out to the community to help me try and better understand how I can resolve this problem at my table, and everyone else in this thread seems to agree that this player's choices are, at a surface level at least, baffling. I recognize it is probably reflective of some underlying assumptions that I have tried multiple times to elucidate so I can better understand the situation. But for some reason, you are the only person I have encountered who has become hostile and accusatory towards me. I don't know if you've been butt-hurt by some DM in your past or if your games live by the rule of cool. Regardless, you're being disrespectful and I don't appreciate that. I won't be engaging with you anymore.

That's why I came to the community. I feel like I'm a reasonable and half-way experienced DM at this point. The player is aware cantrips are unlimited use. The player is a very intelligent individual. I've had the conversations about spell use. At its core, I genuinely think the player is attracted to the "cool factor" and "aesthetic" of playing a caster but doesn't actually want to engage with any of the mechanics. I can remind the player about spells and that reminder will last for a combat, sometimes less. I feel like I've done everything I know to do aside from straight banning the player from playing full casters or queuing them to cast spells every-other turn, I'm at a loss.

This is a great thought, I'll definitely give it some thought

They generally pick combat focused spells, minimal utility cantrips/leveled spells. But then don't use them. When they have utility cantrips, they rarely use them outside of combat (like won't cast detect magic to look for things, won't use prestidigitation for intimidation, etc).

I haven't explicitly stated "your poor choices are killing your friends" but after the last TPK, they were sad and I apologized for killing them, but then immediately went into a discussion of "you know you were fully rested for this, why didn't you use any of your more powerful spells?"

Unfortunately none of my players are exceptionally well versed in the rules of the system/their characters. They know the basics well enough. Unfortunately they (and I) have very demanding professional lives and reading a rule book is too low on their priority list to ever make it to the top.

I totally agree that the individual would be better suited to an eldritch knight, Paladin, arcane trickster rouge, etc. We've had that discussion twice, and it seems to go over well and they agree, until the next session comes up and they have made another caster character.

Accurate, just less hostile 😂

All of my encounters with individuals who feel liberal arts are useless and STEM is the way seem to, at their core, feel that way because of earning potential, and I've never heard one of them bash Econ/finance/investment as a career path. But 🤷‍♂️

Then no, I don't agree with this specific implementation of the system, at least the second half. I do think more productive/effective workers should be compensated more. But being a good engineer does not make you a good manager, and the issues associated with promoting an excelling worker into management (a job requiring a substantially different skill set) are so common there's a name for their inevitable failure, The Peter Principle

I didn't say it did, but I am a citizen of the USA and the vast majority of my cultural experience and knowledge, and therefore what I can intelligently comment on, are centered on the US.

Well you need to clarify further then. Are you saying we should make the best scientist the president, or the person with the most aptitude for politics and rule to be president? I don't see how this is functionally different than what I said.

If I was guessing, in general, I think people who advocate for a pure meritocracy in the USA feel the world should be evaluated in more black and white, objective terms. The financial impact and analytic nature of STEM and finance make it much easier to stratify practitioners "objectively" in comparison to finding, for instance, the "best" photographer. I think there is also a subset of US culture that thinks that STEM is the only "real" academic group of fields worth pursuing, and knowledge in liberal arts is pointless -> not contributing to society -> not a meaningful part of the meritocracy. But I'm no expert.

As a general rule, yes. People who are able to better perform a task should be preferentially allocated towards those tasks. That being said, I think this should be a guiding rule, not a law upon which a society is built.

For one, there should be some accounting for personal preference. No one should be forced to do something by society just because they're adept at something. I think there is also space within the acceptable performance level of a society for initiatives to relax a meritocracy to some degree to help account for/make up for socioeconomic influences and historical/ongoing systemic discrimination. Meritocracy's also have to make sure they avoid the application of standardized evaluations at a young age completely determining an individual's future career prospects. Lastly, and I think this is one of common meritocracy retorhic's biggest flaws, a person's intrinsic value and overall value to society is not determined by their contributions to STEM fields and finance, which is where I think a lot of people who advocate for a more meritocracy-based society stand.