|
Post by Kainguru on May 7, 2016 15:13:49 GMT -8
I get that this is kind of an odd conversation. I'm basically saying "It's such a small issue, why even care?"... which is exactly your original point about Wheaton's video (I think). Exactly Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 7, 2016 13:38:34 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
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 7, 2016 13:30:28 GMT -8
The GM tells me it's going to be a combat-heavy campaign, so I have to make a character who can defend themselves. But why does there have to be a fight? Can't I talk my way out of it? Run away? Cast Dire Charm on every enemy I see? What happened to 'Yes, and..'? Have I misunderstood what you're saying here? Err, yes, I'd say your Japanese schoolgirl kunoichi would indeed be out of place in that setting (unless it's Rifts), but I'm pretty sure that's what I said in my reply to you. Isn't it? About the players having a level of responsibility to create characters that fit into the theme of the game? Like my horse-whisperer being in the hypothetical High Noon western campaign I set out in my reply? Aren't you agreeing with me on this? You forget if anyone does the "yes, and" it's not real role playing... or 'Honest RolePlaying' Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 7, 2016 13:15:13 GMT -8
Did you listen to his critique of Wheaton though . . . he was on the money - Wheaton was WRONG. I haven't heard ANYONE complain about The Force Awakens is the manner Wheaton claims people have. 1) According to Wheaton the original trilogy didn't have a strong female lead? WTF Princess Leia 2) According to Wheaton people have complained that Rey wears to much clothing? WTF The least popular of the original trilogy (Return of the Jedi) has slave Leia, she's fully clothed in New Hope and Empire which are the most popular of the original trilogy 3) Who has complained about the female lead? where is this backlash given The Force Awakens has been hugely successful Ignore the first 60 secs and ignore how he's what he say - it's what he says that is valid. Wheatons video is the real insult and his faux mocking of the attitudes of nerd culture are the real shit stain. Wheaton has gone down in my estimation because he's jumped on a popularist band wagon to make a video that highlights a non-existent problem. Fuck knows nerd culture has enough to contend with without these sort of baseless accusations. Yes The Force Awakens was derivative of A New Hope - everyone still loved it and that's not a gender issue Yes Rey could be said to be a Mary Sue - that's kinda what Star Wars is, again not a gender issue What COULD be said is that The Force Awakens is still too white, Finn is a fabulous character played by a brilliant actor but his character still suffers from 'Lando Calrissian' syndrome - Lando's character, despite being important, still failed to be as pivotal as the the big 3 (Han/Luke/Leia). A fact that has been commented upon many times over the decades. Finn's last 15mins were a bit disappointing: Poe's the greatest pilot, Rey can kick butt like a Jedi, but Finn needs help to win a fight (Han saving him at Maz's castle) and tries, but fails, to defend Rey (ending up in coma instead). That's not a gender issue is it . . . Wheaton is out of order with his 'clever' video, he's not used irony to defeat a public menace he's tried to create an issue that doesn't exist and ignored the one that does - because I remember the very real, and distasteful, comments that were slung around by the narrow minded racists when Boyega's casting was first announced. Didn't see Mr Wheaton get so hot under the collar then . . . I agree the YouTuber is obnoxious and I'll admit I was watching it to hate it - except what he said actually made sense and I ended up feeling really insulted by what Wil Wheaton was trying to say/do Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 7, 2016 12:03:41 GMT -8
I kinda gotta agree with this guys critique of one of Wil Wheatons latest offerings . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 7, 2016 11:47:56 GMT -8
I think a little of THIS is what everyone needs right now . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 7, 2016 7:15:50 GMT -8
And that is, as you all used to say on the show, the crux of the biscuit. If you're (collaboratively) telling a story, then go ahead and "yes-and" or meta-game all you want (as the GM), because it doesn't matter how you get there as long as the story is interesting. If you're role-playing, though, then you're not telling a story; a story is just something that kind of happens, as a by-product of role-playing. If everyone is role-playing, then the important thing is that you all role-play authentically, doing what your characters would do whenever possible, and that includes the GM (in regards to all NPCs and the setting). A story that you end up with from role-playing might not be as dramatically satisfying (in a classical sense) as one which the the GM shapes with the players through narrative control, but the fact that you arrive there organically - through honest role-playing - gives that story a kind of integrity that you can't get any other way. Role playing. Another word with a thousand definitions conveniently used. No, we are role-playing. Now take your one true wayism and go elsewhere with it because I am seeing why half the people here have blocked you, troll. I'd just add: "Honest RolePlaying" - WTF is that? WTF would 'dishonest roleplaying' be for that matter? I think it is actually another linguistic fudge, semantically nonsensical, being 'full of sound and fury but signifying nothing'. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 6, 2016 10:25:22 GMT -8
Yep, I can go with that . . . that makes much more sense. Aaron Nope, sorry. Still ridiculous. Just because you prefer to play Gandalf, rather than Samwise (who I will grant was a total bad ass in his own way, and in the end, one of the strongest souls in the story), doesn't in any way, shape, or form mean that you aren't interested in character development. I can respect that someone's preference might be for the less powerful (as previously noted, Samwise is a bad ass), . But suggesting that the guy who prefers to play Gandalf (hey... I just noticed that my spell check knows Gandalf... sorry... tangent) is somehow wrong is just plain stupid. And for the record, I enjoy all levels of power-play. I've played grizzled veterans, and youth's who're just about to come into their own. They all have their charms and interests. I also enjoy the mechanics of building characters. I optimize around character concept. I had a character who, despite being blind, could do anything if you put a sword in his hand. This made sense, as he was supposed to be the genius protege of the greatest fencing master in the land. The trick was that he couldn't bring himself to touch a sword, because his master had insulted someone who couldn't strike back at him directly, so he beat my character nearly to death and burned his eyes out. Mechanically, he was a beast. Story-wise, no one ever knew it, as I never touched a sword the whole time. I had a bard, back in the 2e days with the Gallant kit, who was fantastic as being a bard, but when out mage collapsed during a fight because of overextending he magic (house rules), he concluded that we were beset by invisible enemies and spent the entire rest of the fight standing over her body, defending her from said invisible enemies. Had he wanted to, he could have charmed his way into the frock of the Mother Superior, but he didn't know squat about magic. If you've NEVER played with someone who can both optimize AND devote themselves to character development then I can only guess that one of three things have happened. Either you've played with an extraordinarily small amount of people, Had the most rotten of luck, or ignored evidence contrary to your bias. The qualifier, in Jimbo's post, is the likes of Gandalf without the drawbacks . . . a subtle but very important difference. There is a difference between Gandalf with all his restrictions on what he can and cannot do, ie: adherence to respecting the freewill of the Peoples of the West and his obligations as a Higher-Being-Made-Flesh, and a character with Gandalf's power level and no restrictions/drawbacks/obligations. You are both kind of saying the same thing but coming at it at different angles. I still maintain that the 1e Cavalier was never broken if it was played properly with all the RP heavy restrictions that were built into the class. The problem with people claiming the Cavalier was broken came from people who played the combat mechanics of the class only without the rest of the features that defined the class . . . besides those Cavaliers were ace on horseback but try taking a horse into every dungeon Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 6, 2016 8:05:54 GMT -8
Torturing belters? Driving long-time friends to suicide? Threatening people's children? [far away look in eyes] If only everyday could be like that, one can dream, one can dream . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 6, 2016 8:02:10 GMT -8
There is always an exception to the rule . . . rather the opportunity to learn from one another can be heavily biased in one direction at times. Though I would be interested in what Jimbo means by 'mechanically effective' - if it's similar to a 'Mary Sue' then I think I can see the point but would still, with respect, have to differ as 'mechanically effective' and 'Mary Sue's' aren't the same* Aaron *though I'll concede all Mary Sue's are 'mechanically effective', but not all 'mechanically effective' characters are 'Mary Sue's' I've already replied above to Aslyn's post, but in answer to your question: In my experience, a player who is more interested in making a character who is mechanically effective/optimal/complete badass/plundering the rules for loopholes* is far more likely to be much less interested in role-playing that character. They want to be Achilles, Gandalf the White or Superman, but with none of the flaws that come with fully-formed characters like that. Flaws and failures make for a more rewarding experience, IMHO. Role-playing traits, flaws, and failing sometimes is, for me, what RPG's are about. Now, if I'm playing Achilles just starting out, learning to be a warrior, or Gandalf the Puce, or Clark Kent Smallville-style, then I'm in. That's far, far more interesting to be on the journey, instead of already being at the destination. Hmm. Perhaps I should have said 'mechanically over-effective'. *delete where applicable Yep, I can go with that . . . that makes much more sense. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 5, 2016 23:20:52 GMT -8
Kain, you know I got nothing but love for you, brother, but... Much as I would love to agree with your very sensible, totally reasonable stance, stupidity like what Jimbo posted NEEDS to get called out for what it is. And the idea that building a mechanically effective character, and building an interesting character are mutually exclusive, or even diametrically opposed somehow is just that. I'll lend more credence to a flat earther before I agree with that. There is always an exception to the rule . . . rather the opportunity to learn from one another can be heavily biased in one direction at times. Though I would be interested in what Jimbo means by 'mechanically effective' - if it's similar to a 'Mary Sue' then I think I can see the point but would still, with respect, have to differ as 'mechanically effective' and 'Mary Sue's' aren't the same* Aaron *though I'll concede all Mary Sue's are 'mechanically effective', but not all 'mechanically effective' characters are 'Mary Sue's'
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 5, 2016 13:41:57 GMT -8
Whew, fuck me but it's toasty in here . . . Right, for starters, like the AngryGM or not he has made a very valid point on the podcast about these gamey whamey flippity floppity terms: really they're all so much bullshit. Power Gamer, Min/Maxer, Optimizer, Meta-Game . . . vague terms used to describe vague concepts brought forth to justify which ever argument one is trying to press. The proof is in the number of arguments above that have invoked these unholy catechisms as a defense or attack, as well as the number of disagreements about what these words actually mean ( pssst, the secret is they mean whatever you want them to mean, within reason . . . that's why you are all splitting hairs at the moment) Stop invoking terms like meta-game, power game, optimizer, min/maxer etc etc etc and explain exactly what you mean with concrete illustrations or scenario's, it'll take a couple of minutes longer but it will cut thru the total communication breakdown that is occurring - bit like having a case study to support your contention. If one cannot explain ones argument without recourse to the vagaries of using these emotionally charged and, I suspect deliberately, divisive terms then I suspect said argument is actually: 'there's no right way to play (cause I'll lose that one before I've even started) BUT my way is less wrong than yours'. The reason these terms are basically bullshit is because they are supposedly Objective Terms that describe a purely Subjective Experience. Unless one can make Objectively manifest the Subjective Experience of a given Player all one has is conjecture, opinion and attribution. All of which may have no bearing on the actual reality of the situation - you may think Player X is 'Power Gaming' but unless You have some magic insight into Player X's internal and Subjective Experience (with all that Player X brings to their interaction and understanding of their world informed by their knowledge, history, motivations and emotional state) You cannot know for certain or with any Objectivity. Every table, every group is different . . . with different experiences, expectations and interpretations of any given game, system or the ideal of having fun. NONE, absolutely, NONE is better OR worse than the other, just different. This intolerance of differences is really saddening in this post-modern age, for fucks sakes people we are the ones that have lived thru or inherited a post civil rights movement world (though that's still a work in progress), we're the current command generation that preaches inclusivity, mutual understanding and fucking respect for differences - the generation that can finally agree to differ and learn from those differences . . . because we can always create something new that might, fingers crossed, be better. If we cannot apply those same sensibilities to what are, let's be honest, 'just games' then we really ought to be handing in our big boy trousers, apartments keys and soap, slip into our sweaty gimp suits and join the great unwashed in their basements. So there are a number of points of view about how one can play an RPG, let's get a bit Marxist and apply dialectical Change Theory to this discourse: Thesis vs Antisthesis = Synthesis Synthesis = the best of both to create something new Instead of yelling at each other and using 'those' terms to somehow prove ones detractors wrong, drop the defense, listen to each other and learn from each persons unique experiences and understanding of how to have fun. You never know, your own fun may become double plus good for having the opportunity to inject something new into your own personal experience . . . one persons crack addiction can become another persons crack addiction once they light the pipe. As for some other words that must not be used - I'll just say HASTUR, HASTUR . . . From my own personal experience I'll premise that every group is a Gestalt: something more (an emergent property) than merely the sum of it's parts (players and GM) because of how those parts interact. It's understanding those interactions that can make for a better game for everyone . . . understanding without judgement, as well as understanding informed by the experience and lessons of others. One observation, that's totally anecdotal, is I find most groups don't dissolve because of game issues most groups dissolve because of real life issues eg: the arsehole player that makes one rage quit on reflection usually isn't an arsehole player they're just someone who, to ones individual sensibilities, is an arsehole - period. The player bit is just good old fashion confirmation bias with a dash of self justification, because it's often easier (and possibly emotionally safer) to vent on the person one finds objectionable by labeling them with some 'gaming sin' than confront the real issue of basic personal incompatability. There may be no wrong way to have fun but there is a sure fire way not have fun - playing with people that just wind you the fuck up . . . Rant over . . . going back to my dragon cave of smoke-quitting . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 3, 2016 13:15:47 GMT -8
I love a good Strawman, I like to watch them burn . . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 3, 2016 11:28:17 GMT -8
So you never had that wonderful experience of having some seriously flawed people drawn together by random circumstance? Also you might want to know if you all die from a dragon you can always start a new campaign Maybe one with a less crappy system that doesn't require you to optimize so much to have fun. Don't blame the system, man, blame the GM 'cause, like, the GM is like the man, man . . . You know The Man, the system . . . Ah fuck, no I can't bring myself to say it. Besides it all depends on the players, which includes the GM, if optimising is a pre-requisit to fun Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Apr 29, 2016 13:41:18 GMT -8
BTW for the doubters, Fuck You . . . BAGPIPE BARD It's a thing . . . Aaron PS: my current 5e Bard is based on this guy . . . studded leather kilt and all PPS: 'KILT' . . . is what happened to the last person who called it a skirt . . . youtu.be/A1x7Izh-EHwThe guy on the right . . . so, yes, you can tell a tale and play (Irish) bagpipes Aaron
|
|