|
Post by natebob on May 5, 2018 8:56:50 GMT -8
I actually don't know anything about you personally; so I made no assumptions except that you didn't like MH2. I was just pointing out that there are tons of role playing games out there and surely some of them you will be in to, or else you would not be on HJ forums stirring up shit about a tiny little indie game that like a thousand people care and know about world wide. So all I meant was, there are lots of games out there and it's awful that you found one don't like; so don't play it. Play something else. Even MH1 was a good fit for you by your report. Not everything is supposed to be just to your liking. Yeah, bullshit. Every other game in the world was made for me? What could I possibly be that every other game was made for me? Were you suggesting that I was Asian? Perhaps trans? Maybe I was Black? Or perhaps a woman? My name is Steven. I play RPG’s and visit rpg forums. Take a wild guess at what I am. Go on. I’ll wait... Yeah, you can’t slander me as being the privileged majority and then claim you don’t know or haven’t made assumptions about me. I take offense to that kind of thing. I take even more offense to the fact that you seem to think I’m so stupid that I wouldn’t notice what you did. I did notice, and it’s not cool. Also, I like the game. The only reason I bother talking about it at all is because I like the game, and it’s a damn shame this sort of thing was included in it. I'm sorry you took offense at me stating that there are lots of RPGs out there that you probably like; and maybe a game about gender and sexual fluidity (and lack there of) is a probably not for you. After reading the defense of your opinion it seems that playing an open and welcoming game for all people on a sexual spectrum was a problem because someone might play an asexual to get some mechanical advantage in the game. Instead of slogging through the muck all over again with you, I decided that since your opinion seemed quite intractable that maybe your should play another RPG. I even suggested MH1.
|
|
|
Post by natebob on May 5, 2018 8:59:34 GMT -8
TLDR : I don’t think asexual players or character are getting a free pass. I think the game is including more options for situations that may arise. That's an excellent point.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 5, 2018 10:08:34 GMT -8
So, asylyn, your problem is one of definition. I haven’t paid for these books, so I only have the parts that you’ve quoted so far. Working off that, the author has used the phrase “asexual spectrum “. This leads me to believe that they decided to keep the word count down rather than specifically list what falls into that spectrum (for instance the demisexual who needs a strong emotional bond before feeling attraction). Once you move past the limited single definition and incorporate the gray areas that are not purely asexual but also not overtly sexual, you may find more meaning in this optional move. The move allows an option when the character would fall into those “almost asexual” moments, while not impinging on the fluid nature of the character’s identity. Furthermore, you are being deliberately obtuse over the term sexual trauma. If you can not reasonably determine what that term might constitute, I doubt I would want you as it’s artbiter at my table. The idea I’m gathering is this game is meant to be open and accepting, while the attitude you are showing is neither of those things. You like the first iteration, so it’s fair to assume you can be open minded, but you’re arguments as stated don’t support that. TLDR : I don’t think asexual players or character are getting a free pass. I think the game is including more options for situations that may arise. O.o I'mma gonna steal something from Luke Skywalker here.... "It's amazing. Everything you just said was wrong." You don't know me at all. Assuming anything about me is kind silly. I wasn't being obtuse about sexual trama (by the by, you might want to double check the definition of it), I was not addressing it. I can understand how someone who in the story (either during or before the game) suffered some trauma might display symptoms of asexual behavior. That's different than being naturally asexual. Someone who is naturally asexual does not feel sexual attraction. Period. It's not a matter of open mindedness; it's a matter of facts. Acknowledging those facts is not being closed minded.
|
|
jedidroid
Initiate Douchebag
I feel a Glitch in the Force
Posts: 32
|
Post by jedidroid on May 5, 2018 16:12:24 GMT -8
O.o I'mma gonna steal something from Luke Skywalker here.... "It's amazing. Everything you just said was wrong." You don't know me at all. Assuming anything about me is kind silly. I wasn't being obtuse about sexual trama (by the by, you might want to double check the definition of it), I was not addressing it. I can understand how someone who in the story (either during or before the game) suffered some trauma might display symptoms of asexual behavior. That's different than being naturally asexual. Someone who is naturally asexual does not feel sexual attraction. Period. It's not a matter of open mindedness; it's a matter of facts. Acknowledging those facts is not being closed minded. Note how, in my addressing the situation, I was only referring to things you actually said. No I don’t know you. I do know the things you have said. That’s why I said that stuff about what you are saying doesn’t support certain thoughts. You’re on Happy Jacks, so assuming you are into role playing games isn’t silly. You stated you liked Monsterhearts 1, so that’s not an assumption, it’s following evidence you supplied. I could treat that as an unreliable narration, but that doesn’t seem conducive to discussion. I’d rather give you the benefit of the doubt. The phrase asexual spectrum was used. Maybe you disagree with the definition of asexual, which is perfectly fine. But the author used spectrum, implying that they didn’t mean the binary on/off nature of just asexuality, but rather the gray and demi terms as well. And what that means is the definition of that situation and that particular move is something that should be discussed at the table. I could see how the optional move could be powergamed at the table, but I also see multiple potential in game moves that follow the narrative without impinging on anyone’s fun. I think the game is better for it. It seems from your writing that you are treating the player and the character as one entity. Am I misreading something there? Does it matter if it’s an asexual (or gray/Demi) player or an asexual (or gray/Demi) character? Does it matter if it’s the player who has had the trauma (which is more an X card issue in my head) or the character? Ps: Only Sith deal in absolutes
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 5, 2018 17:00:03 GMT -8
O.o
It's amazing how wrong you can be.... Only once did I say anything that could have been misconstrued as if I were conflating the player and the character, and I was clearly doing so only as an example. I opted to do so that no one could claim that I was putting words in their mouths, or labeling them anything. It's something that I regularly do, use myself as the focus of a hypothetical so as to curtail such strawmen.
I am strictly speaking about the characters. What the player is/isn't is completely irrelevant to anything. Honestly, I don't care who's sleeping with whom. So long as everyone is a consenting adult, and they're happy, then God bless.
And yes, not only do I disagree with the author's definition of asexual, so does the dictionary....
PS. Perhaps you've not noticed the irony of absolutely condemning absolutes....
|
|
jedidroid
Initiate Douchebag
I feel a Glitch in the Force
Posts: 32
|
Post by jedidroid on May 5, 2018 19:20:04 GMT -8
Okay, pretty hostile response to a clarifying question. Not once have I claimed you are wrong, nor put words into your mouth. I’ve made suggestions that might change your mind on the usefulness or appropriateness of the move in the game. You, however, have been aggressive in your responses and maintain the absolute definition as the only correct meaning.
I accept the dictionary definition of the word asexual. But that is not the in-context use. The context should not be dismissed or ignored. It should inform the definition you use.
It’s a shame that you think the addition of an option meant to aid inclusiveness and broaden the potential narratives is a shame. But that’s all it is. Have fun, fellow gamer.
Ps: that was the point of the quote. “Period.”
|
|
jedidroid
Initiate Douchebag
I feel a Glitch in the Force
Posts: 32
|
Post by jedidroid on May 5, 2018 19:39:51 GMT -8
I need to apologise. I have directed my responses erroneously. A lot of what I said was based on a major misreading on my part. Sorry asylyn, most of I have said was based on you having been the OP. I need to reread everything I’ve posted to issue a full correction, but for now, I’m terribly sorry for my stupid misunderstanding.
Ps, I’m not going to blame posting from my phone.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 5, 2018 19:53:42 GMT -8
Do it... Phones are the tools of the devil....
No worries though. We all do it at one point or another, right? Props for coming clean and apologizing. ^.^
|
|
jedidroid
Initiate Douchebag
I feel a Glitch in the Force
Posts: 32
|
Post by jedidroid on May 5, 2018 20:57:16 GMT -8
Okay, looked through, and I still think the problem of definition stands. It has been quoted as an asexual spectrum. Would you accept, asylyn, that the use of that phrase implies more than the singular definition of asexual? That it extends to those who, by definition are not asexual, but might respond to certain situations in a similar manner to an asexual? Whether you do or not, I accept that the dice landing would reflect that reaction without the use of this optional rule. So the rule is just another option to forward the narrative.
With regards to the sexual trauma discussion, none of that is directed at asylyn. I recant that fully. I’m not even going to redirect it, it’s a moot point.
To Steven, who opened this discussion, do you agree with my tldr that the limited option to change a turn someone on to another move is simply broadening the available narrative options rather than giving them a free pass?
Finally, since I have no access to the books at the moment, just what does the “shut someone down with hot” come out as?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 0:36:09 GMT -8
To Steven, who opened this discussion, do you agree with my tldr that the limited option to change a turn someone on to another move is simply broadening the available narrative options rather than giving them a free pass? Finally, since I have no access to the books at the moment, just what does the “shut someone down with hot” come out as? No, I don't. The specific point of Turning Someone On is that they have no control of the outcome emotionally. Having any choice about the emotional outcome is not a broadening of options, its a negation of the move as written. When you choose to negate Turn Someone On, you become subject to Shutting Someone Down. That is not a choice any other character or player has access to unless they claim the privilege of this optional rule. Therein is the problem. This optional rule creates a specific class of people who are able to ignore the rules that the rest of the game are subject to. Even further than that, the allowed use of the optional rules hurts the intent of the game by allowing players a choice in how they will be effected emotionally, which is entirely counter to the goals of the game. Shut Someone DownWhen the optional rule is in play, you roll with +hot as normal, but the outcome is swapped to the results of Shut Someone Down.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 6, 2018 4:52:20 GMT -8
Okay, looked through, and I still think the problem of definition stands. It has been quoted as an asexual spectrum. Would you accept, asylyn, that the use of that phrase implies more than the singular definition of asexual? That it extends to those who, by definition are not asexual, but might respond to certain situations in a similar manner to an asexual? Whether you do or not, I accept that the dice landing would reflect that reaction without the use of this optional rule. So the rule is just another option to forward the narrative. I fully understand that such is his implication. I disagree with that implication. Also, please understand that I am only speaking about someone who is naturally asexual, and not those who are displaying asexual symptoms due to some issue. Further, I am only expressing my opinion on this issue as part of this conversation, and not trying to suggest that everyone must capitulate to my view and play under my rules. If your table enjoys the optional rule, and everyone there is fine with that implication, then you certainly don't need my permission/agreement/approval to use it. And that opinion is that in the case of suggesting that a character is naturally asexual, and not as a symptom of some trauma, this option runs contrary to the idea of the game. That of teens exploring their uncertain sexuality. That it would be the equivalent of allowing a player in a Call of Cthulhu game to say that their character is naturally immune to Sanity loss.
|
|
jedidroid
Initiate Douchebag
I feel a Glitch in the Force
Posts: 32
|
Post by jedidroid on May 6, 2018 5:30:41 GMT -8
Okay, Steven, that’s a much more clear answer, and I can see the mechanical issues it brings. It definitely is a character and not a player situation that is being addressed. I understand the argument better.
I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion. If the central conceit is that sexuality is fluid, and the rule is about a character identifying as asexual, isn’t the optional move available to all characters when the changeable nature of their sexuality touch on the aforementioned spectrum of asexuality ?
If that is the case, then the rule adds another aspect to gameplay. My reading of the text about asexuality points me to the conclusion that, in the realm of monsterhearts 2, not everyone is sexual all the time. There will be moments when nothing turns your character on and others when everything turns your character on. The optional rule allows a player occasional agency.
Perhaps the only problem I see is that there isn’t a definitive limit on that moves use. Which leaves it to the table to decide. With a good bunch of people at the table, the issue hopefully won’t arise. Still...
At the end of the day, there is no one answer to the question of this optional rule. It will vary according to the trust at the table. I respect the alternative opinions on this thread, and thank you all for respecting mine.
|
|
jedidroid
Initiate Douchebag
I feel a Glitch in the Force
Posts: 32
|
Post by jedidroid on May 6, 2018 5:51:51 GMT -8
Asylyn, Thanks for the clarity. And, with the provisos you describe, I’m of a very similar opinion. But just to touch on the last analogy, I think I remember Call of Cthulhu allowing an option that prevented sanity loss without rolling as a one-off response. Which lines up with the way I would accept the optional rule at my table.
I don’t think any character’s sexuality should be fixed. I’m just not sure that the only way to demonstrate the demisexual or the (allow me this misnomer) graysexual is through others poor die rolls. The rule as written isn’t great, but it is optional. Talk it out at the table first, just like you said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 22:44:56 GMT -8
Okay, Steven, that’s a much more clear answer, and I can see the mechanical issues it brings. It definitely is a character and not a player situation that is being addressed. I understand the argument better. I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion. If the central conceit is that sexuality is fluid, and the rule is about a character identifying as asexual, isn’t the optional move available to all characters when the changeable nature of their sexuality touch on the aforementioned spectrum of asexuality ? That is not for the player to decide under normal rules. You can no more decide that you are asexual today than you can decide to be heterosexual today. Further, realism has nothing to do with it. It is very real that most people will not be homosexual or bisexual. A majority of people are that way, however the game does not allow that kind of outcome. Monsterhearts is not a game where I get to choose to be gay today, straight tomorrow, or trans on Tuesday. The choice is not up to you. Not now. Not ever. Adding in an option that lets you choose how you feel is counter to the point of the game, regardless if everyone can do it (selectively or otherwise). In Monsterhearts you choose how you act, not how you feel. This rule allows you to decide how you feel, which is wrong given that it is the complete opposite of how the game is meant to function.
|
|
|
Post by akavidar on May 7, 2018 3:14:41 GMT -8
This poor horse... no bones left. It's been mentioned several times already, but here we go again. The asexual rule is OPTIONAL, don't use it if you don't like it.
|
|