|
Post by Kainguru on Apr 29, 2016 12:12:49 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 . . .
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Apr 29, 2016 11:45:06 GMT -8
Actually, I liked the (ultimately wrong) decision by Roddenbury to try and create a society 70 years more advanced than that depicted in the original series. I loved the idea of a councillor on the bridge (which has a precedent in Soviet commissars), and the men in in skirts and the laid back lounge style Conn on the first series. It was a brave attempt to put a perfect Socialist (remember the episode they told a bunch of 21st century cryo-sleepers that they'd abolished money, and everyone contributed the work they were capable of and received the sustainance they needed?) society on American TV screens. All the more brave for managing to create and broadcast it in the broadly Libertarian US. And you have to admire the chutzpah of making the new bad-guys the Ferenghi, capitalists! On an advertising funded network no less! It forms a great companion-piece and counterpoint to the military/citizen society of Heinlein's Troopers. Of course, the problem with a perfect Socialist society is a big one for a TV show: no drama. So they watered that side of it down over the years, especially after Roddenbury's death, with libertarian Marquis, a more traditional Bad Race in the Authoritarian Cardassians, and that clumsy satire on collectivism the Borg. The drama came back, with the best episodes coming from the mid-seasons The Inner Light, Chain of Command, Yesterday's Enterprise, etc. The only episode of the Roddenbury premier season that comes close was the re-run of an Original series idea, The Naked Now. Despite that however, everything stu hated about that iteration deserves to be lauded. It was proper science fiction. Oh, and Best. Captain. Ever. This sums up neatly why Star Trek was better than TNG: Because TNG could never spawn a classic like this^ Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Apr 28, 2016 12:39:52 GMT -8
If you think about it she knew full well about Riker wanting to bang her and she played the ultimate game of cat and mouse. Wasn't she bumping uglies with Worf by the end of the TV series and then back to banging Riker when the movies started being popped out? Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Apr 28, 2016 12:37:24 GMT -8
Regarding TNG - the biggest problem I had with it was the insane conceit that in the future we'd have a Social Worker on the bridge as part of the command crew WTF!!!! Actually, I really like that concept. We played a game of Kingdom where we played roles on the first colonizer ship being sent from Earth. There was total freedom in character choices (it's a hippie game), so I went with The Psychology Officer. Despite not being up at the top of the command chain, I had the specific ability to override and demote the captain, if necessary. Because... SPACE MADNESS! (or maybe just humans being psychologically fallible). Besides, it's Star Trek... shouldn't she use her empathetic powers to sense that the giant space slug just wants a space hug. I mean c'mon... blame the writers. Psychologist I could see - because it's a science (specifically the science behind the techniques used by Social Workers - apologies to Social Workers but think about it: the likes of CBT came from RET which was researched and developed by the Psychologist Dr Albert Ellis) - but to have a Command Chair on the Bridge? Shouldn't the Chief Medical Officer have one as well and the Xenobiologist/Anthropologist and the Diversity and Inclusivity Officer and . . . ahhh you get my point But you're right, the writers were woeful. I mean I fucking hated the Wesley Crusher character as a smug, entitled little git on a par with being Star Treks Scrappy Do analogue That's why Star Wars is better . . . you know those space slugs were simply out to get you Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Apr 28, 2016 0:00:16 GMT -8
Regarding TNG - the biggest problem I had with it was the insane conceit that in the future we'd have a Social Worker on the bridge as part of the command crew WTF!!!! Troi - "I have a valuable contribution to make to this moment Captain, I sense the crew are scared" Pickard - "No shit, what gave it away? Your amazing powers or the fact that the Enterprise is seconds away from being swallowed by a space slug?, now can you offer something that'll stop the latter or are you just going to waste our precious time pointing out the fucking obvious" Riker - "Well if it's that bad can we have sex before we all die?" Pickard and Troi - "No!!!!" Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Apr 27, 2016 3:12:26 GMT -8
So far, as specific topics, none: BUT I do believe it's more to do with intent and context than the content itself eg: if it's a dark game with, as in your example, a burnt down town then yes the inclusion of kids would be appropriate and mood setting . . . conversely a 300lbs sweaty neck beard graphically detailing every detail of his characters sexual dalliance (you know, blow by blow so to speak) while leering at the female players and rubbing his genitals then that crosses the line. It wouldn't be the graphic sexual descriptions per se it'd be the obvious intent in context . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Apr 24, 2016 3:54:06 GMT -8
The problem with signs, and I believe what Fiona was trying to get at, is that they are usually pretty ineffective on their own. Signs only work as part of much broader strategy to implement change and tend to come in two forms: 1) Signs that are tokens of subscription to an idea/ideal/cause eg: those wrist bands people wear to show support for something. Note that the wristband is not the solution or the cause . . . it's a way getting people on board with the broader campaign by parting with cash to support that campaign. 2) Signs that indicate enforcement of a regulation eg: speeding signs. With out the actual regulation they become ineffective, do you stick to the speed limit because there is a sign or because you know that there is additional enforcement with real consequences for not sticking to the speed limit posted if caught. A 'SafePlace' sign needs a universal understanding combined with consistency and an aim to bring about social change that encourages the 'policeman in our head' to be 'on' all the time - you don't speed because you fear being caught and penalised whether the speed sign is in view or not you are aware of the posted speed limit for the road you are on. If it's a token of subscription to an ideal then the purpose is to bring about change that renders the use of symbols redundant by making it universally accepted; or else you run the risk of further marginalising the very people you are trying to protect. Unfortunately humans are deeply flawed at all levels this most salient point Fiona and fredrix made was overlooked: making certain behaviour unacceptable within a 'safe place' does (as unintended consequence) make it acceptable everywhere else . . . a ghetto of rational thought. The No-Smoking lobby has learned this to it's detriment, no-smoking signs just move the problem along . . . they don't reduce the number of people smoking and that's the real goal. Instead the focus has shifted to address personal responsibility and the consequences of smoking thru education and tangible consequences to the individual eg: higher health insurance premiums etc. Nor is it a problem of 'gaming culture' the sort of behaviour described in the email occurs ALL THE TIME across ALL STRATA of SOCIETY. The events detailed reflected a social problem IN GENERAL not a gaming culture problem - it's simply ignorant to assume that it's endemic across 'gaming culture' and making this assumption evades the very real fact that every person has an individual responsibility to respond to this sort of conduct. It shouldn't be tolerated in a restaurant, a movie theatre, a festival, the Houses of Parliament or any other formal social gathering . . . and it isn't and when it occurs people speak up. Too often we hide behind the excuse of 'gaming/nerd/geek' culture based on the sampling of random misogynistic rantings posted on the internet - leave 'gaming/nerd/geek' culture behind and have a look at the equally misogynistic rantings across ALL of the internet across a variety of interests. The question is should we shut down the internet to silence these and other unsavoury opinions? are we surprised that the internet is full of opinions? by not entering into a rational discourse about something distasteful do we make it disappear or does it just continue, unchecked and unchallenged and out of sight?. The best way to change these things we believe we should not accept is not to piss about about with signs and tokens and attempting to restructure the language. Because the adoption of PC language to effect societal change really worked out well didn't it? no, because the same problems still exist, the linguistic solution was flawed and ineffective eg: we ceased using the term 'cripple', because it was being used offensively, and adopted 'special' which was then replaced because, surprise surprise, it started to be used offensively. Why did it fail? because it made an assumption that the relationship between thought and language was a two way street - it isn't, changing our lexicon doesn't change our thinking it simply changes the way we express those thoughts and the values and judgments we attribute to those selected words. Even Orwell realised this when he wrote 1984 with it's 'newspeak': BB believed that by reducing the language to a few words you could stifle creativity and thus rebellion, but it fails as our protagonist still rebels as do many others. We have to change the thinking of people by each and everyone of us being ambassadors for that change all the time by standing up and objecting to the unacceptable and, more importantly, entering into discourse with those who don't understand why their behaviour/beliefs are unacceptable - the change occurs when it becomes obvious that these unacceptable behaviours/beliefs are overtly no longer normalised, because when one person says it's not OK 'they're just a freak' but when 20 people say it's not OK 'then maybe I'm the freak'. Nor should the original poster beat himself up for not noticing it going on . . . you're human and (despite what crystal waving hippy's might say about using our full mental potential*) we can only process so much information. This sorta shit slips thru all the time, especially when it's tied to emotional events like saving your arse in a bar fight (we've all heard of confirmation bias that's exactly what what going here and why Cartman was given so many chances - whether he deliberately exploited this human failing? who knows). The real point is you do know now . . . as you say hindsight is 20/20 foresight is exceedingly myopic . . . Aaron * we already use 100% of our mental capacity, the 'we only use 10% of our brains' is a misunderstanding of an unresearched observation made in the 1970's - which was in no-way-at-all meant to suggest that we have some incredible store of untapped mental reserves that could grant us superpowers. Limitless is an amusing story with no credible basis.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Apr 21, 2016 7:51:43 GMT -8
Stu Venable : thank you for the 'No Agenda' podcast Aaron PS: tho, by their definition, I am indeed now a douchebag.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Apr 20, 2016 8:49:35 GMT -8
Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Apr 20, 2016 6:10:09 GMT -8
SPI's Dragon Quest Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Apr 20, 2016 2:33:26 GMT -8
I can answer that - child PC's make good meat shields, strap them to your arm and you're good to go . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Apr 19, 2016 22:36:24 GMT -8
Gah, have you never seen 'Home Alone' - children obviously get BONUS points that they loose as they get older . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Apr 15, 2016 4:06:34 GMT -8
What 200 word challenge? do tell me more . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Apr 14, 2016 1:22:37 GMT -8
The final thing I'd put would be a barrier akin to the iris used in Stargate SG1. While up messages can come through but it needs to be lowered before people can arrive safely. Exactly this Plus have it an underground chamber, like SG-1, as a secondary defence measure - ie: you can only fit so many invaders in a 30ft X 30ft room with one entrance (and more doors and a couple of murder holes) Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Apr 11, 2016 1:07:32 GMT -8
As for Manuel's passive player problem, I think he should have an out-of-character talk with them all. Just straight up tell them that he'd like everyone to be more proactive and that there aren't any wrong moves. Much like Stu Venable did in his Vampire game. It may or may not work, but as all these players are fairly new to the pen & paper hobby, they may not know what's expected of them. Absolutely, RPG's may be games but they have that fabulous benefit of simply being able to talk to each other - out of game - to fix something that may not be working well. Too many times people struggle to find 'in game' fixes - some of which border on attempts at behaviour modification - when all that really needs to be done is to say 'Hey, dudes . . .'. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Skinner et al and operant conditioning but there is a time and place, think of it as a PC problem: an application keeps crashing, now you could spend hours trying to recover from the crash or finding the other running process that's conflicting or you could simply try 'turning it off and on again' with a hard reboot to clear the system memory and cache and carry on again . . . The players behind the characters are right there and no one is going to punish you for talking to them about the game outside of the game . . . metagaming (whatever that really is) can be a force for good Aaron
|
|