|
Post by Kainguru on May 11, 2016 8:15:01 GMT -8
Wow, gosh, right . . . 'Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People' : 'Pathfinder Doesn't Stop RolePlay, Players Stop RolePlay' In other words just because a Game System doesn't have specific rules to RP doesn't mean you cannot RP. Nor does it mean that you have instructions and a mandate to NOT RP. The rules of cricket don't tell you how to catch a ball, they simply tell you what happens when you catch the ball in specific circumstances. As to Pathfinder, you may feel obliged to combat, because it has combat heavy rules, but you don't HAVE to combat. One of the big mistakes of the D20 ruleset is that the RP elements are hidden away while the combat elements are made explicit (and in great detail) - to which I would point at many of the more obscure spells that, realistically, are only ever effective in RP situations or require narrative resolutions. ie: they're not very good combat spells, which why they often don't get picked and are thus often forgotten. Many, and most, ADnD (the grand daddy of Pathfinder) campaigns I have run have been very heavy on the RP with many sessions that have not resulted in any combat at all: just players getting into character and exploring their world. Though resource management is a constant focus BUT I'll just ask: isn't that the nature of existence? or does no one here check our bank balances?, pick games to buy based on ability to pay? use discretion when allocating time to pursue our hobby and attend to real life? etc etc. An economist would say so, but please if you have a fairy fudgey life that negates the need to make decisions based on available resources then, please, let me in the secret. To criticize an RPG because it has resource management as a tenant is a bit like criticizing an RPG because it demands the PC's breath air as a core assumption . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 11, 2016 5:47:00 GMT -8
. . . and I would direct you both, again, the video I posted above: "Adventure?, Excitement?, A Jedi craves not these things . . . " Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 10, 2016 11:53:59 GMT -8
I feel uncomfortable using race to describe anyone, not because it's controversial but because it's not relevant. A person is person is a person and they're either an arse or not an arse, nothing else matters. I forgot about wanting to address this as well... Why? Are you uncomfortable mentioning someone's hair colour? Their gender? Their facial adornments, or hairstyle? If they have tattoos or piercings? It's all in why you're using that descriptor. If you're using it to denigrate them, then yah, you're in the wrong. If it's a valid descriptor used to responsibly differentiate them from someone else, then fuck it... Intent is what matters. Because it's not relevant - I should have been more specific, in "describing a person" I intended to refer more to a descriptions of their character or my relationship with them - basically my assessment of them. It was a poor choice of words on my behalf and I should have been more specific. For example if I was asked to describe a friendship I wouldn't use a racial descriptor to describe it BUT (your point taken) if I had to instead describe someone so they can be identified by stranger then, yeah, of course skin colour etc would come into it. Even then I would probably default to using a cultural descriptor first eg "XYZ is a alright, but she can be a pain in the arse sometimes when it comes to the Manchester Arts Scene", "How will I know her?", "An older, tall British Jamaican lady usually well dressed".ie: 'British Jamaican' rather than 'Black' - though, intellectually, I don't have problem with the word 'Black' as a factual descriptor it's just 'me' (perhaps I've worked too long in healthcare where cultural specifics are more important because of potential health issues associated with particular demographics which tend to be linked to both cultural lifestyle and genetic predisposition; such as the significantly higher risk of heart disease in the older male Pakistan community in the UK related in part to their diet as their traditional cooking methods utilize high proportions of ingredients like ghee) Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 9, 2016 15:29:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 9, 2016 13:29:08 GMT -8
This is what I think when I see stuff like that. Maybe I've curated by Facebook feed to the point where I filter these people out -- I don't know. But very often when there are rants about some bigotry/racism/sexism, I realize I've never seen the original tirade that spawned the indignant response -- UNTIL someone provides a link so I know what they're ranting about. And I have to wonder: WHY link to hate speech? What's the purpose? Aren't you helping the guy disseminate his message? Isn't that kind of like going to a Klan rally and turning up the PA system out of righteous indignation? BTW, Wheaton and Felicia Day were at Faire on Sunday. I didn't see them, but several friends did. Because linking to the original would have missed the point - yeah the guy was obnoxious, and as I noted above I started to watch him with the intent of disagreeing with him, but then I saw (beyond the manner of delivery) a very real criticism. TBH I started out watching it with the intention of agreeing with Wil Wheaton . . . People shouldn't evaluate the validity of an argument purely on its presentation - being persuaded (or not) by style over substance is a sin we are all guilty of. Ignore the style of his presentation and that's when one begins to think, well maybe . . . its like the Troubles in Northern Ireland, I agreed with many of the reasons on both sides I just never agreed with the methods they used. Aaron PS I been watching a lota stuff I hate at that moment because . . . not smoking: it lets me vent
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 9, 2016 0:13:38 GMT -8
ayslyn: He is really enjoying the character. But when he called in his handler regarding the infected girl, Agent Loxley just stepped in and coldly put two bullets into her and emptied the clip into the bulbous mass that was her womb. He was really conflicted after that because he assumed that the taskforce was created to investigate and not necessarily eliminate the preternatural. His first words were "I think I made this character wrong then..." I will delve more but I suspect this weakens his resolve to remain in the organization but strengthens his own personal motivation to investigate and save these people. That I will try to play around with as I think that makes for a great game. ---- Kainguru It is certainly outside of his comfort zone as he is used to play within the group makeup. Now, I suspect he felt that the character might really lose his job as a coroner at the police department or even lose support of a powerful organization and he goes outlawed, so he's conflicted in that sense. I suspect. He's always one to try to milk organizations for support so that's one comfort zone gone for him in a way. Hmmm, maybe I'm a douche but, especially once a campaign has settled in to itself so to speak, I like to get a bit edgy/dark by testing those sort of comfort zones. Basically give the players a more personal challenge beyond system math and stat blocks eg: a player is devote adherent of not splitting the party? I'll try an exploit a situation so that splitting the party is the better option. However, your dilemma leaves me conflicted: one side of my brain says 'push the player to experience a different sort of game because variety is everything' (otherwise we may as well play monopoly with it's consistent game play); while the other side says 'the object is to have fun, and if the player just won't have fun doing it, well [shrug]' . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 8, 2016 11:41:07 GMT -8
The trick is to behave as if we already do have that world - I feel uncomfortable using race to describe anyone, not because it's controversial but because it's not relevant. A person is person is a person and they're either an arse or not an arse, nothing else matters. I do apologise for misunderstanding what you wrote - it was a misunderstanding not a deliberate misconstruing. I don't think Greer is he only way but I do feel she is frequently, and unjustly, marginalised by her own movement and I suppose I'm a bit touchy about that. I admire the her and it really annoys me that her contribution is being almost systematically edited out by some quarters. I'm also very touchy about the 'thought police', I don't know what it's like in the USA but there is certain unwelcome level of it in the UK . . . Aaron PS: week 2 of kicking that filthy habit - smoking - so yeah, I'm a bit touchy - not angry it's more like having a discussion/disagreement is distracting enough so that I don't get angry in real life (angry in real life was last week and I didn't like it).
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 8, 2016 7:12:09 GMT -8
He is just not used to character conflict Is he ready to move out of his comfort zone? Is he the kind of player who will gain from the experience or will it make him retreat? Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 8, 2016 6:03:21 GMT -8
I also strongly disagree that "sexist bigots" are "a fringe element in nerd culture." We are clearly exposed to very different groups of nerds. I would agree that on the whole, nerd culture is probably a skootch more liberal and accepting than most... but I've been in/near far too many gamer groups with clearly stunted "men" with no concept of their own boorishness to consider it fringe. I will admit that my exposure to nerd culture has always been thru the prism of my own personal political leanings, ie: not all my associates are nerds but the people I choose to associate with tend to correspond closely with my chosen political outlook. I simply cannot be bothered to entertain people who have political views that are to far removed from mine: that's not say I don't take the time to challenge those views when they intrude. Eg: my house has been permanently removed from BPN (British National Party - which is a thinly veiled rebranding of the former National Front) doorknock canvassing in my area not because I was rude or confrontational, quite the opposite, I was reasonable and willingly entered into a discourse with them - I simply challenged their assertions with demonstrable facts and nothing scares a bigotry based organisation more than having their apostles not only fail to gain converts but to also start to question their own rhetoric. But these people exist, it's foolish to think we can change what people think and to start to go down that road is dangerous. Once we believe we have the right to change peoples thinking we become no better than they, what we have is a responsibility to give people the right and the opportunity to make an informed choice - through education and reasonable dialogue. Social Engineering is theory that over states it's effectiveness, because the most successful examples of social engineering are those that have the capacity to exploit our natural dispositions eg: it's easy to make us mindless morons happy to sit in front of the telly and do nothing, precisely because it's easy to sit in front of the telly and and nothing. when the Social Engineers set about reversing this trend - it's been an uphill challenge and only marginally successful to date (as evidenced by the ever increasing trend towards obesity and sedentary life styles in the developed first world). Thinking that one has the 'right' life philosophy and therefore a 'moral obligation' to impose this thought upon the rest of the world is exactly what led to the likes of Cambodia's Pol Pot and his Year Zero. From my point of view Pol Pot was wrong, from his point of view he was simply trying to make the world a better place - and he felt justified. Suddenly a certain political agenda enters the zietgiest and peoples from the extremes of both sides have started rattling their sabers at each other. The real shame is, from my point of view, they are on both sides ALL bigots. I have my Trotsky stripes and special branch file labeling me a political dissident from my younger days when I was an actively political activist who subscribed to the notion of Positive Action (riot, protest, march, occupy, defy); but I believe I have cahnged more peoples opinions, for the better, over the long span of time by simply entering in constructive dialgues with them than I ever did in all those years of being more publicly active. "You cannot have a revolution to bring about change, you bring about change to have a revolution". As to Jon Boyega: he didn't need defending because they did the right thing - they carried on filming regardless and people went to the cinema regardless. I don't know how it is the USA but the KKK still exist? I only ask that a question because 30 years ago everyone knew who they were outside of the USA and by vilifying them the opposite started to happen they gained recruits - hell they even had an 'offical' chapter in Oz. Now I'm happy to say that a lot of under 25 year olds I meet don't even know who the KKK were, let alone who they are . . . this is a good thing. There is still racism but it's not as openly vitriolic as it was and don't believe the SJW's contributed to that change . . . ordinary people did by ignoring the radicals and forcing them to change their own positions. This is the first step in the right direction: with many more steps to go, lasting change is a generational thing. I don't think I'll ever live long enough to see a world without Neo-Nazi's but, despite their claims, there are less of them now* than when I was younger . . . they'll eventually fade away. *An example of the contradictory news media: they give these political movements more and more air time because they are controversial and controversy sells yet in real terms their numbers are falling as evidenced in documentary's (by the same broadcasters as the news) where these groups either bemoan their recruitment numbers or see this documentary exposure as an opportunity spread their propaganda: eg Reggie Yates Extreme Russia: Far Right and Proud (BBC) Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 8, 2016 4:30:41 GMT -8
That's just it I do like Wil Wheaton . . . but I just feel really uncomfortable with what he's doing here. TBH I can't shake the feeling that he's doing what he's doing because it's a popular thing to do at the moment - maybe I'm too cynical but I feel like he's jumped on a band wagon. It's the same feeling I got back in my Student Activist Days when I realised that many of those the so-called SNAGs and Left Wing Pro-Feminist Liberal Guys were actually middle class sexist jerks reacting to the fact that their parents had the audacity to give them a decent start in life. Worse was, when in solely male company, they'd drop the facade to reveal that their political activism was motivated less by a concern for social equality and more by belief that 'liberal left wing girls are easy' - basically they were playing a role, often very successfully, simply to get laid. It was this insincerity that made me a total cynic, and really made me angry because they would assume that because I was male I was motivated by the same thing - which is why they would suddenly drop the facade. But then again I was the guy that was permanently barred from the International Socialists because I was 'too left wing' - I still consider that an honourable achievement. Yes feminism has many flavours, but like classical (eg: Roman) fascism there are set of core beliefs. Nazi's called themselves fascists but they weren't fascists in the same manner as the Romans. It would be more accurate to say that many new and derivative ideologies have appropriated the term feminism - when something evolves to a point that it seems to be something else then it's time to call it something else. IMHO Germaine Greer is Alive and Well and still a very active commentator, at least on this side of the Atlantic (she is regular contributor on the only radio station I listen to anymore BBC Radio 4) - she hasn't stood still and continues to add to her understanding of the movement she helped to define, being old shouldn't marginalize her opinion, in fact to marginalize her opinion because she is older is exactly the problem that her understanding of feminism set out to abolish. TL:DR/ Basically I think Wil Wheaton is 'white-knighting' and I feel let down by someone whose opinion I usually respect (even if I don't always agree) Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 8, 2016 0:52:44 GMT -8
Stilton and it's variants - the bluer the better Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 8, 2016 0:50:42 GMT -8
The second scenario, Faust, the player is thinking too much about the Game in RPG's. Basically he's adhering to RPG doctrine- 'Don't Split The Party', 'The Group Should Be Balanced', etc etc etc. He needs to ease up and ignore the 'truisms' of RPG's because the most interesting games can happen when you do. If it's what the player feels the character feels then that's what the character would and should do. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 7, 2016 22:54:25 GMT -8
I think what we're seeing is a larger segment of society basically saying, "Screw you ignorant dipshits. We're not putting up with your bullshit any more." They don't want it to "go away" in the sense that it just retreats to the shadows until the next flare-up of boorishness. They want it dragged into the light, confronted, and told "No. Enough. We do not accept your bigotry." We may disagree on the efficacy of such a shift, but that is definitely the way the wind is blowing. Ignoring the cro-mags sure hasn't worked, so who knows? I also think you'd be hard-pressed to cast "sexist bigots" as any kind of fringe element. Frankly, some days they seem the majority. They are a fringe element in nerd culture - especially when you consider the mainstream response of nerd culture to the TFA and/or Mad Max: which has been overwhelmingly positive. Because 'the great the good and the well intentioned' want to drag things into the light doesn't want make them 'right' or 'effective' . . . these opinions are going to exist no matter what and doing what Wil Wheaton has done only emboldens them. FFS they've gone and got the attention of a celebrity, suddenly 'they' matter - their opinion is validated precisely because someone suddenly gives a damn It's also hypocritical, massively . . . because I didn't see anyone high profile and white standing up to the racists when they were slagging off Jon Boyega. That was very noticeable, but do you see how Disney and Jon Boyega dealt with it? They simply ignored it, dismissed it as the irrelevant and insane ranting it was . . . because to acknowledge these toxic views only gives those views power. There is no dodging the fact that confronting toxic ideologies empowers those ideologies - unless, in the confronting, you have the tools to eliminate the expression of that ideology. But then, just because you stop people expressing it, that doesn't mean the ideology dies - look at persistence of Nazi thought and the rise of the Neo-Nazi movement across parts of Europe, where it is rising faster in those countries that have historically being the most reactive to it's existence . Confronting and dragging into the light of day this toxic ideology has only served to recruit and empower a new generation of fascists. Wil Wheatons message? he pretends to understand feminist theory but doesn't because feminism is also the fight against racism/class/social inequality. Germaine Greer would have a coronary, as that kind of confrontational bullshit is NOT part of proper feminist doctrine . . . "the opposite of patriarchy isn't matriarchy it's fraternity" (Germaine Greer). Ironically Wil Wheaton has been disingenuous to the very people he hopes to defend by assuming they need him, a white male, to champion their cause because in so doing he has sent a very negative message that, again, reinforces the beliefs he claims to oppose. Besides that very visceral desire of wanting to 'drag the cro-mag's kicking and screaming into the light of day' to confront them and expose them is, I hate to say it, a very typically patriarchal response. This is the very opposite of classical feminist doctrine - because it's using aggression, privilege and power to impose an ideology on another rather than persuasion and education. The road to hell is paved with good intentions . . . Aaron PS: I have a confession to make too, I grew up with a single parent who was the 'Women's Rights Officer' (later changed to 'Equal Opportunities Officer') in the Local University Students Union. I know my Germaine Greer inside and out
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 7, 2016 15:43:59 GMT -8
People, people, people . . . Seriously take 10mins, watch the video above and chill . . . I like a good flame war and I like using pointed sarcasm and irony and I fucking love swearing - nothing warms my inner Sith than a well crafted and amusing string of profanities - and I enjoy seeing fucktards called out as fucktards but I hate to see two decent and affable peoples of the forum fall out like this . . . It's not like seeing mum and dad fight when I was a kid, cause this time I actually give a damn . . . Aaron Please tell me you are not talking about me and saelorn. Oh no no no no. . . see the bold above Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 7, 2016 15:41:49 GMT -8
By playing up to this minority of a minority view he's enabling them by validating them and actually creating the very problem he's supposedly trying to oppose. Yeah, I heard the criticisms of Fury Road and like every one else ignored it because - MAD MAX!!!!! (being that it's Australian and Miller comes from my Home City it'd be treason not to go); and it was a fucking fantastic movie. An action movie directed by a gay man past retirement age who's last success was 'Babe: Pig in the City' that owned all the action flicks released by his younger and more prolific competition. All the people who went and saw it and gave it thumbs up didn't give a fuck about the stupid opinions of what amounts to a fringe element, that fringe element had a total impact of zero . . . Sometimes fighting something is the problem because it gives it substance and makes it real. The best tactic is to ignore fringe elements like that because, without the validation of cause celebre, it'll then just fade away be forgotten and become no more than a dusty anecdote taking up server space and haunting an unvisited webpage nobody reads anymore . . . It's basic behaviour modification 101 aka BF Skinner Operant Conditioning - to extinguish a negative behaviour you should ignore it, because even negative reinforcement is still reinforcement and any reinforcement will prevent it from being extinguished. Wil Wheaton has clumsily just helped to create the very problem he's supposedly trying to stop. Given his high profile and celebrity status he has acted very irresponsibly. He's been reactive rather than proactive and that's never a good thing . . . Aaron
|
|