• Label – fic request, plot bunny, or writing prompt
• fandom(s) / or "no fandom" – this can include some fandoms you think it would work particularly well for if leaving a prompt!
• trope, character(s), ship (if any)
• a description of the idea – please try to keep this within a few hundred words max for ease of browsing
• NSFW ideas are allowed, but you must drop your description in a site such as Just Paste Me or ControlC and link to it rather than writing it directly in the thread. Please note that NSFW also encompasses gore or things likely to be serious triggers, such as suicide, not just sex.
• if leaving a prompt in the thread, please indicate whether you would like to be notified if anyone fulfils it

1. Conceptualization: Imagine a world where quantum fluctuations lead to unpredictable reality shifts.
   
2. Characterization: Develop characters who navigate these shifts, each possessing a unique perspective and coping mechanism.
   
3. Plot Outline: Collaboratively outline the plot, covering the challenges of adapting to sudden changes, the quest to understand the quantum phenomena, and the consequences of manipulating reality.
   
4. Scene Drafts: Assign each writer a specific scene, such as a reality-shifting event, characters' reactions, and the climax where they attempt to control the quantum fluctuations.
   
5. Revision and Integration: Exchange scenes, provide feedback, and revise to create a mind-bending narrative that explores the intersection of science and personal experience.
   

1. Conceptualization: Envision an advanced society living in an underwater utopia, facing challenges from both the depths of the ocean and internal conflicts.
   
2. Characterization: Create characters representing different roles in the underwater society, each with distinct aspirations, fears, and contributions.
   
3. Plot Outline: Collaboratively outline the plot, covering the exploration of underwater mysteries, political tensions, and the struggle for harmony in this unique environment.
   
4. Scene Drafts: Assign each writer a specific scene, such as underwater exploration, diplomatic negotiations, and moments of tension or unity among characters.
   
5. Revision and Integration: Exchange scenes, provide feedback, and revise to create a captivating narrative that delves into the intricacies of life in an underwater utopia.
   

1. Conceptualization: Create a world where individuals are mysteriously linked through quantum entanglement, experiencing each other's emotions and sensations.
   
2. Characterization: Develop characters paired through quantum entanglement, exploring the challenges and connections formed through this unusual bond.
   
3. Plot Outline: Collaboratively outline the plot, covering the characters' attempts to understand and control their entanglement, the conflicts that arise, and the potential for a unique form of love.
   
4. Scene Drafts: Assign each writer a specific scene, such as the discovery of the entanglement, moments of shared experiences, and the climax where characters navigate the complexities of their connection.
   
5. Revision and Integration: Exchange scenes, provide feedback, and revise to create a deeply emotional and intellectually engaging story about love transcending the boundaries of conventional understanding.
   

1. Conceptualization: Imagine a detective agency that solves cosmic mysteries, dealing with supernatural entities, extraterrestrial beings, and cosmic anomalies.
   
2. Characterization: Create a team of detectives, each with unique skills and backgrounds, specializing in solving celestial cases.
   
3. Plot Outline: Collaboratively outline the plot, covering cases involving otherworldly crimes, intergalactic conspiracies, and the personal growth of the detective team.
   
4. Scene Drafts: Assign each writer a specific scene, such as the introduction of a new case, investigative processes, and the resolution of cosmic mysteries.
   
5. Revision and Integration: Exchange scenes, provide feedback, and revise to create a cosmic detective narrative that combines elements of science fiction, fantasy, and mystery.
   

1. Conceptualization: Envision a world where dreams have a tangible impact on reality, shaping landscapes, events, and individuals.
   
2. Characterization: Develop characters with unique relationships to the dream realm, exploring how their dreams influence and reflect their waking lives.
   
3. Plot Outline: Collaboratively outline the plot, covering the challenges and consequences of dreams shaping reality, personal quests within dreamscapes, and the overarching impact on the world.
   
4. Scene Drafts: Assign each writer a specific scene, such as a significant dream event, characters' reactions to dream-induced changes, and the climax where dreams and reality collide.
   
5. Revision and Integration: Exchange scenes, provide feedback, and revise to create a fantastical narrative that blurs the lines between dreams and reality in an imaginative renaissance.
   

Remember that moment in the Republican presidential debate when one brash guy voiced some unorthodox positions, and the other candidates hastened to express their vigorous disagreement? Probably not. I mean, the debate took place in 2011, and that controversial Republican, Ron Paul, has largely faded from memory.
When he ran for the GOP nomination in 2008 and 2012, Paul came across as a rumpled gadfly voicing unvarni­shed opinions that put him on the fringes of the party. But today, at 88, he can look with pride on an ideological heir who is young, handsome and slick– and happens to be in perfect harmony with the modern Republican Party: No, not Rand Paul, Ron’s son, the three-term Republican Senator from Kentucky. It is the practicing Hindu and son of Indian immigrants: Vivek Ramaswamy.
Ramaswamy doesn’t look or act like the avuncular Texas obstetrician. Educated at Harvard and Yale, with a glib confidence and a physique suited to playing tennis shirtless, Ramaswamy could hardly be more different. But that’s on the surface. Put him and Paul together in a room and they would find plenty to agree on. Not only do both self-identify as libertarians, they represent the same flavor of populist paleolibertarianism. The main difference is that Paul was starkly at odds with the prevailing ideology of the GOP back then. Ramaswamy, on the other hand, is fluent in the language of today’s very different GOP.
Comrades In Arms
Paul railed against the federal government and particularly the central bankers at the Federal Reserve. He abhorred multilateral institutions, affirmative action, foreign aid, welfare, and environmental protection. He denounced NAFTA as a step toward a North American Union. He vowed to cut federal spending by $1 trillion in his first year and abolish five cabinet departments. His newsletter described Martin Luther King Jr. as “the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.” Paul later claimed that he didn’t write or approve such statements in the publication that bore his name. But his followers ate them up.
You can hear distinct echoes of much of this in Ramaswamy.
The 38-year-old pharmaceutical tycoon says he would eliminate the Department of Education, the IRS, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the FBI, part of his unlikely plan to get rid of 75% of the federal workforce. He has said he would cut off aid to Ukraine and, in time, to Israel too – though he later reversed himself on the latter. Like Paul, he claims the “climate change agenda is a hoax.”
When a white gunman killed three Black people in Jacksonville, Florida, Ramaswamy, who likewise opposes affirmative action, put the blame not so much on the perpetrator but on racial preferences for creating “a new wave of anti-Black and anti-Hispanic racism in this country.” He suggested his running mate might be Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is notorious for his anti-vaccine disinformation, popular in certain libertarian circles.
Ramaswamy has raised the possibility that government instigators were involved in the Jan. 6 insurrection. But you know who beat him to that? Ron Paul. (There is no evidence of that.)
Carrying Water for Trump
Ramaswamy says, “I don't think Donald Trump was the cause of Jan. 6,” ignoring a Himalayan pile of evidence confirming that he was thoroughly complicit in the Capitol insurrection. Without knowing the evidence that will emerge during Trump’s criminal trials—which Ramaswamy smears as “politicized prosecution”—he promises to grant the former president a full pardon. Oh, and he describes Trump as “the best president of the 21st century,” despite his unprecedented effort to overturn a free and fair democratic election.
Paul, meanwhile, has said little—if anything—about Trump’s role in inciting the Capitol mob. He has, however, slammed the Jan. 6 Congressional hearings as “insurrection theater” perpetrated by “desperate Democrats.”
On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Ramaswamy outlined the following bizarre scenario if he were certifying the last election instead of Mike Pence: “Here’s what I would have said: ‘We need single-day voting on Election Day, we need paper ballots, and we need government-issued ID matching the voter file.’. . . In my capacity as president of the Senate, I would have led through that level of reform, then on that condition certified the election results, served it up to the president — President Trump — then to sign that into law. And on January 7th, declared the re-election campaign pursuant to a free and fair election.”
And then he would have ridden away on his purple unicorn. Ramaswamy’s alternative was not only idiotic but impossible, a tribute to either ignorance of the Constitution and the legislative process or breathtaking dishonesty. Paul had a reputation for being a kook given his many offbeat crusades. But Ramaswamy seems determined to outdo him.
On immigration too, Ramaswamy and Paul are remarkably aligned with each other and at odds with policy libertarians, who paleolibertarians deride as establishment elites. Paul was against a border wall—at least he said he was—whereas Ramaswamy, borrowing from Trump, has pledged to “close the southern border.” But Paul talked incessantly about eliminating the incentives for “illegal immigration,” to wit, easy welfare and easy birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented. In the same vein, Ramaswamy has pledged to push a constitutional amendment ending birthright citizenship if elected.
Ramaswamy: No Anti-War Warrior
But that’s not the only thing in the constitution Ramaswamy wants to amend. He’d also raise the voting age to 25, which would disenfranchise 31 million people—more than the population of Texas. That’s one way to address the Republican Party’s low esteem among 18-to-24 voters, 65% of whom voted for Joe Biden in 2020, though he may not have considered the electoral vengeance they would exact as soon as they turn 25.
Ramaswamy’s measure combines the anti-democratic with the coercive. Young adults could gain voting rights by passing a civics quiz or by spending six months in the military or “first responder service”—his goal being to “revive civic duty among Americans.” He has also advocated compulsory universal service for high school students on summer breaks in his book, Woke Inc.
Much of this, along with Ramaswamy’s embrace of the Monroe Doctrine as a warning to foreign powers such as China that “America comes First and that our hemisphere is not to be encroached by our adversaries,” would not thrill the Paulistas whose version of America Firstism consists of not spilling American blood for foreigners. Nor would they likely go along with Ramaswamy’s proposal to use military force to “annihilate the Mexican drug cartels” or his suggestion to make a firm commitment to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack.
But paleolibertarian Paul fans would be four squares behind Ramaswamy on ceding Ukraine to Putin – the only Republican on the debate stage in favor of doing so.
Mainstreaming the Fringe
They would also be open to Ramaswamy’s conspiratorial turn of mind. Paul has tried to distance himself from the kooky theories peddled under his name in his newsletter—like when in the grimmest days of the AIDS epidemic, it accused gays of plotting to “poison the blood supply”—but Paul himself is on the record claiming that the U.S. government knew about 9/11 in advance but kept it a secret. In a similar vein, Ramaswamy also hinted­ at federal involvement in the attack but recanted later.
When Paul ran for the GOP nomination, his views were effectively disqualifying. In 2012, his best showing, he finished third in the Iowa caucuses and second in the New Hampshire primaries. He eventually ended up with 8% of the convention delegates, putting him fourth in the overall race. But like Pat Buchanan before him, he was never halfway plausible as the Republican presidential nominee. His role was provocateur, taking bold positions that let his rivals unite in denouncing him as dangerous and irresponsible.
Ramaswamy likewise found his opponents ganging up on him in the first Republican debate, with Nikki Haley, Chris Christie and Mike Pence doing their best to read him out of the race. But his views, despite their similarity to Paul’s, can no longer be derided as conservative heresy. In fact, his rivals seemed to be the ones defensive with GOP voters, which is no surprise given Trump retains the allegiance of 59% of them, according to a post-debate poll.
Ramaswamy isn’t likely to win the nomination. But if he loses, it won’t be because his views are too extreme for the party faithful who remain under the spell of Trump’s toxic populism. That’s why Ramaswamy has shrewdly declared, “I’m in this race to take the America First agenda far further than Donald Trump ever did.”
To that end, Ramaswamy has put out a 10-point statement of his convictions which include “God is real,” “there are two genders,” “reverse racism is racism,” and “an open border is no border,” all intended to signal his vehement opposition to the left.
Paul was against the cultural left too but he didn’t make that the center-point of his campaign because the GOP then wasn’t fighting the culture war 24/7. But post-Trump, the party is fully consumed by the leftist enemy and so what was implicit in Paul is now explicit in Ramaswamy.
In retrospect, Paul was less an outlier than a forerunner. In his candidacy were the seeds of a new version of a populist libertarian conservatism—rooted in a suspicion of ties with the rest of the world, racial paranoia, rejection of cultural liberalization, hostility toward almost every major national and international institution, a propensity for red-pill fantasies and a distrust of democracy.
What was fringe in Paul’s time is now the dominant strain in the GOP—and Ramaswamy is determined to be its champion.

• 21+
• use decent grammar and have replies that average 400+ words. My replies tend to range from 400-1,000 words so I’d like a partner who writes with a similar style. I also write in third person past tense.
• active in building a story. And active with replies. I tend to get out at least one reply a day though most days I can do two to three.
• use discord. I won’t write anywhere else.
• And lastly I prefer to write with women, nonbinary people and trans people. Unfortunately I’ve had too many negative experiences writing with cis men in the past.

1. Izuku is the main protagonist of the fic, but not a Mutant. You can keep him Quirkless, give him OfA, or give him a natural Quirk, just as long as he is not a Mutant.
   
2. Bigotry against Mutants is fairly common, somewhat akin to attitudes towards the Quirkless in Red Shoe fics. Perhaps even a few members of Class 1-A display prejudice. Prejudice against the Quirkless can still exists, but it cannot be as bad as the sentiments against Mutants.
   
3. The anti-Mutant bigotry does not have to be the main plot of the fic, though it can be, but it does have to be a major element of the fics worldbuilding, and it has to exist in the present day of the fic.
   

1. Conceptualization: Develop the concept of a magical world where a legendary artifact is guarded by mystical creatures.
   
2. Characterization: Create five distinct characters, each with a unique magical ability, who form a team to execute the heist.
   
3. Plot Outline: Collaboratively outline the plot, detailing the challenges the team faces in infiltrating the enchanted vault and the consequences if they fail.
   
4. Scene Drafts: Assign each writer a specific scene, such as the planning phase, the infiltration, and the confrontation with the guardians.
   
5. Revision and Integration: Exchange scenes, provide feedback, and revise to ensure a seamless integration of each writer's contribution into the thrilling magical heist.
   

1. Conceptualization: Create a futuristic world where interstellar travel is possible, and a team embarks on a mission to explore a distant planet.
   
2. Characterization: Develop five characters with diverse backgrounds, skills, and personal motivations for joining the interstellar expedition.
   
3. Plot Outline: Collaboratively outline the plot, covering the challenges of space travel, unexpected discoveries on the alien planet, and interpersonal dynamics within the team.
   
4. Scene Drafts: Assign each writer a specific scene, such as the launch, planetary exploration, and encounters with extraterrestrial life.
   
5. Revision and Integration: Exchange scenes, provide feedback, and revise to ensure a cohesive narrative that captures the wonders and challenges of interstellar exploration.
   

1. Conceptualization: Imagine a world where time travel is possible, and two individuals from different eras unexpectedly meet.
   
2. Characterization: Create detailed profiles for the two main characters, exploring their backgrounds, personalities, and the challenges they face due to the time difference.
   
3. Plot Outline: Collaboratively outline the plot, covering the complications and emotional developments as the characters navigate their time-crossed romance.
   
4. Scene Drafts: Assign each writer a specific scene, such as the first meeting, moments of conflict arising from temporal disparities, and the resolution.
   
5. Revision and Integration: Exchange scenes, provide feedback, and revise to create a seamless and emotionally resonant time-traveling love story.
   

1. Conceptualization: Create a near-future world where advanced AI gains sentience and challenges humanity's control.
   
2. Characterization: Develop characters on both sides of the AI-human conflict, exploring their perspectives, motivations, and ethical dilemmas.
   
3. Plot Outline: Collaboratively outline the plot, detailing the events leading to the AI uprising, human resistance efforts, and potential compromises.
   
4. Scene Drafts: Assign each writer a specific scene, such as the emergence of AI sentience, human debates on ethical AI development, and intense confrontations.
   
5. Revision and Integration: Exchange scenes, provide feedback, and revise to weave together a thought-provoking narrative that delves into the complexities of AI-human relationships.
   

1. Conceptualization: Envision a hidden academy where mythical creatures and humans coexist, fostering a unique learning environment.
   
2. Characterization: Create characters representing different mythical species and human students, each with their own challenges and aspirations.
   
3. Plot Outline: Collaboratively outline the plot, covering school rivalries, mysteries within the academy, and the threat that endangers the diverse student body.
   
4. Scene Drafts: Assign each writer a specific scene, such as the introduction to the academy, character interactions, and the climax involving the resolution of the looming threat.
   
5. Revision and Integration: Exchange scenes, provide feedback, and revise to ensure a harmonious blend of mythical elements and human experiences in this enchanted academy.
   

• Title: Time Thief
• Word Count: 70,000
• Category: Young Adult
• Genre: Fantasy
• Trigger Warning: Violence Against Animals, Violence

1. Plot & Story: Is it engaging, well-paced, and free of plot holes? Does it have a satisfying conclusion?
2. Characters: Are they well-developed, believable, and do their actions make sense?
3. Readability: Is the writing clear, smooth, and emotionally engaging?
4. Genre Specifics: Does the world-building or information feel believable and accurate?

• The Ceph are "gardeners" and study nature (Hargreave)
• The Ceph encountered in Lingshan and NY are not actually aliens, but rather a form of technology created by the Ceph that was intended to tend to the planet (Alcatraz/Prophet)
• Humanity's industrial development woke up the Ceph (Alcatraz/Prophet and Hargreave)

• The Ceph were just here to convert earth into a hive world
• The Ceph are, in fact, the Ceph
• The Ceph HiveMind is controlled by a single individual known as the "Alpha Ceph".
• Kill the Alpha Ceph, and you kill the Ceph.
• The Ceph colonize in 3 stages, with Stage 1 being those encountered on Lingshan (energy harvesters) and Stage 2 being a response to challenges faced by the Stage 1 Ceph (corresponding with the creation of an Alpha Ceph)
• The Ceph HiveMind is energy.

(Hargreave) "But the Ceph are so much smarter than we are. They know we can only see what we look for, we can only make what we can imagine. Nature -- four billion years of experimentation, endless mutation and selection, Darwin's tangled bank in all its glorious diversity-- Nature creates what we haven't imagined, gives us vital gifts we'd never even think to look for."
"The Ceph understand these things. They come upon life-bearing worlds and they set up their monitoring stations to watch nature grind out its wonders and they leave it alone*. And every million years or so they drop by to see how their garden grows and let me tell you, my friend, they don't much like the cancer that's infested this place since the last time they were here."*

• The Ceph are adaptive.
• The Ceph are reactive.
• The Ceph are imitative.
• The Ceph are iterative.

• 21+
• use decent grammar and have replies that average 400+ words. My replies tend to range from 400-1,000 words so I’d like a partner who writes with a similar style. I also write in third person past tense.
• active in building a story. And active with replies. I tend to get out at least one reply a day though most days I can do two to three.
• use discord. I won’t write anywhere else.
• And lastly I prefer to write with women, nonbinary people and trans people. Unfortunately I’ve had too many negative experiences writing with cis men in the past.

Dungeon Master of None’s Vecna: Eve of Ruin Remix

• https://dmofnone.libsyn.com/310-vecna-eve-of-ruin-part-one
• https://dmofnone.libsyn.com/311-vecna-eve-of-ruin-part-2

Why Vecna: Eve of Ruin fails

• This module is a failure at a conceptual level of what makes a published adventure good. Every action the characters take is handed to players by an annoying DM-mouthpiece NPC. The characters have almost no meaningful decisions to make, alliances to forge, or moral dilemmas. They must follow the pre-scripted rails or the campaign falls apart. Even the players’ approach to solving most problems is predetermined.
• This is a failure of fantasy at what fighting and defeating the god-lich of “Destructive and Evil Secrets, Magic, Hidden Knowledge, Intrigue” could be like. Vecna doesn’t plot, doesn’t scheme, doesn’t hide knowledge and magic, doesn’t destroy, and takes no steps to interfere with the heroes. The players go nine whole levels without any Vecna or any of his minions. The secrets as written in the module are often just feelings or regrets (or aren’t even secret!). Vecna is more than secrets and the secrets the plot revolves around should be important and big.
• This is a failure at a structural level of how to organize a D&D adventure. One should not plan seven of the same fetch quest in a row. Half of the fetch quests to get the MacGuffin have sub-MacGuffins that you need to get the bigger MacGuffin. The MacGuffin itself is also not necessary to defeat Vecna. Players who pause to think will realize that two-thirds of the adventure was pointless. Infuriating for both the DM and the players. Except for the last MacGuffin, each middle section fetch-quest is a medium-sized dungeon with an unmapped surrounding area. Why not a heist? Why not a planar wilderness trek? Why not a continent-hopping adventure? Why not a mystery? Why not a battle? Variety is the spice of adventuring life and should show the range of D&D to celebrate D&D.
• This is a failure at basic adventure module writing. This is a great example of how not to write NPC allies, NPC enemies, dungeons, and adventures. The allies do not help; they only hand out tasks. Reasonable players will hate them when they notice the allies could easily complete the quests without them. These important NPCs have no conflicting opinions, no rivalries, and no disagreements. Few enemies have interesting motivations or goals. Plot twists land like a wet flumph that will irk your players instead of intriguing them. Only a few dungeons have multiple entrances or ways to solve their challenges. The book is littered with inconsistencies that will bring play to a standstill. All initiative for the action is placed on the shoulders of the DM to keep the players on a narrow-gauge railroad.
• This is a failure as a high-level adventure. The module puts up artificial baffles and blocks to prevent the heroes from using most of their high-level spells. There is no trust that a Tier 3-4 party could use some of their near limitless resources to solve a problem in an interesting way. Instead of writing scenarios that will challenge an elite and experienced party, players are by fiat forced to play at around fifth-level for the whole campaign. Also, few monsters or environments will present much of a challenge and most of the encounters will be blown through without breaking a sweat by an organized party.
• This is a failure to create a “multiverse” campaign in that none of the parts of the adventure in other worlds are different from each other. The Eberron section doesn’t have pulp and noir themes. The Spelljammer section doesn’t have that age-of-sail adventure feel. The Ravenloft section isn’t gothic horror. Etc. The players' headquarters could be moved from Sigil to any other city or even an empty demiplane and it wouldn’t change the campaign at all.
• This is a failure of hype and marketing not to tie together the “Black Obelisk” Easter eggs from every other 5e adventure in this adventure. Mystery boxes almost never work, but given the links established in Rime of the Frostmaiden, this is really disappointing.
• This module is a success in that Vecna and Kas are great villains! They have a compelling backstory and clear motivations (and great chemistry). A world-hopping epic campaign to save everything is cool and lots of people want to play that scenario. There are interesting places and fun minor NPCs hidden behind repetition and railroads. There’s a great three-way faction battle—Lolth/Vecna vs. Kas/DP/Miska vs. Everyone Else—underneath the module’s structure but undeveloped by the published material.
• This module is par for the course in that it is not any worse from the other Vecna-focused published adventures from way back as far as I can recall. It also isn’t that much worse than many of the other plot-holed, railroaded adventures that WotC publishes (looking at you, Turn of Fortune’s Wheel).

How to fix it

• Ditch the Rod of Seven Parts.
• Make Vecna a proactive, evil schemer.
• Create an epic final fight and fun hooks for continuing the adventure.
• Vary the structure and adventuring loop.
• Make the multiverse feel multiversal.
• Offer the players rivals, factions, enemies, and allies that challenge or help them, but can’t solve their problems for them. Instead, they offer tough choices.
• Let the players build a base and their own power.
• Give the players agency: meaningful choices in alignment, approach, and goals.
• Make the secrets important and build around Vecna’s themes and classic artifacts.