@aria Well, xenophobic wasn't even a concern.
I mean a very common phrase in antiquity was "πας μη Έλλην βάρβαρος" which literally means "whoever is not Greek is a barbarian".
@aria Well, xenophobic wasn't even a concern.
I mean a very common phrase in antiquity was "πας μη Έλλην βάρβαρος" which literally means "whoever is not Greek is a barbarian".
@faraday said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
This is why I don't like the whole "attack the idea not the person" strategy.
In a forum that's largely about presenting ideas for others to comment in it would be counter-productive to discourage the concept of 'attacking' them. That's what peer reviews are about, after all; you invite conversation, others try to point flaws out, and in the end - hopefully - the original concept is fortified, stronger for having been doubted.
We can't not have that. 'Criticism' is still part of 'constructive criticism'.
Is there a gray line folks on forums are happy to strand or just plain cross? Sure, but again we need to make sure we can have some conversation without stepping on seashells around each other.
Do I wish we were all more civil in general? Damn right I do, but we are still human. I've put ideas out there that got shot down hard - some harder than others - but a thick skin is necessary on the interwebs, which isn't news to anyone reading this.
@sg said in Good or New Movies Review:
2 1/2 hours of fanboy porn. I quite enjoyed it! Last Jedi made my back hurt, but this one I didn't notice how crazy long it was.
MVP seating is where it's at. Almost all cinema seats hurt my back after the first hour, but a reclining seat for an extra $5 or so is magic.
@friendlybee @surreality could you please take this feud to personal messages or other threads?
Does this count as a RL thing?
After the GoT season finale today I get to see the internet explode. Hee. Hee hee. Hah.
It's the Red Wedding all over again!
Somethingsomething ban.
@bored said in Do we need staff?:
@ganymede said in Do we need staff?:
The big problem is the player base the games attract, and how the handful of foul, power-gaming, goal-oriented, fun-sucking, must-be-dominating players really take the piss out of the fun that others have.
I don't buy that at all. Where are the magical positive, happy games where no one is a dick? Which genres are those? What systems attract that unicorn of a playerbase, rather than the eeeevil terrible one WoD draws in?
I don't see why protesting there is usually a handful (as quoted above) of bad apples in certain kinds of games making a mess of them for everyone else if left unchecked suggests every other game is a happy-go-lucky paradise of unbridled positivity.
The WoD gaming culture isn't great. It's not a secret, but no one's claiming it to be a unique trait either.
Hey, I ran into this quote by Grant Morrison today and I wonder how y'all feel about it.
"We’re all Superman in our own adventures. We have our own Fortresses of Solitude we retreat to, with our own special collections of valued stuff, our own super–pets, our own “Bottle Cities” that we feel guilty for neglecting. We have our own peers and rivals and bizarre emotional or moral tangles to deal with... Batman is obviously much cooler, but that’s because he’s a very energetic and adolescent fantasy character: a handsome billionaire playboy in black leather with a butler at this beck and call, better cars and gadgetry than James Bond, a horde of fetish femme fatales baying around his heels and no boss. That guy’s Superman day and night. Superman grew up baling hay on a farm. He goes to work, for a boss, in an office. He pines after a hard–working gal. Only when he tears off his shirt does that heroic, ideal inner self come to life. That’s actually a much more adult fantasy than the one Batman’s peddling but it also makes Superman a little harder to sell."
Also, this video.
@thenomain said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Hey Steam, about your suggestions:
Fallout 3
Since you recently played Fallout 3: Game of the Year Edition
Really?
Is it really better than Netflix' suggestions?
"Since you watched Daredevil you might want to watch Daredevil!"
Genius algorithm guessing what I like there, guys.
@thenomain said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
Yet I almost never saw anyone use them.
I don't know if this is because there's a tacit "no social rolls against PCs", there's a more obvious "if I do this people will drag this into a headache that I can avoid", or what.
Yeah, a hundred per cent that.
I'd be willing to bet big internet bucks the major reason social powers are so rarely even attempted on PCs is the potential for headaches following it.
@Luna said:
I mean really, it's a fucking Hello Kitty vibrator. They had to be imported at the time. It was a thing. My best friend got hers jacked during a move.
I initially read this as "my best friend got hers jacked during a movie", and had all sorts of questions.
Generally speaking I prefer weighed randomness as well if for no other reason than because otherwise all outcomes are predetermined; if I made you believe my lie (or punched you in the face) today then I will be able to do so tomorrow, guaranteed, every time.
Now, for a mostly statless game this isn't a bad idea. It simplifies a lot of things without letting people be perfect at everything (hence the 'mostly' part). If I know you're a better liar than I am at reading you then I pre-emptively pose buying into your shit - how much? Well, by 15% or so.
Yeah, I can see that working out.
@faraday said in Historical settings:
@seraphim73 I don’t think “Hollywood” is an adequate framing adjective for a game, because it could mean anything from Band of Brothers (highly accurate without being a documentary) to Inglorious Basterds (total fantasy) to Kellys Heroes (vaguely plausible but not meant to be taken seriously) and a dozen other levels in between.
All 'Hollywood' means to me is that we shouldn't let gameplay get bogged down in unnecessary details. The game oughtn't be about the minutiae of history but about characters, plots, pace - all the usual elements of good storytelling.
An easy example is clothing. It should be fine if someone describes themselves in a fashion that's not quite from that exact period, or require materials that wouldn't get used for another thirty years, etc because they want to wear a fancy dress or cool suit. If it wouldn't raise eyebrows in a TV show it should be fine for a MUSH; sure, don't put Air Jordans on your WW1 veteran with PTSD but it's probably okay to wear a hat that'd only get popularized during the Prohibition era.
That's what I mean by it, at least. Others' takes may vary.
After spending a few hours at the FanExpo on Saturday I must say I loved it... again. Some notes:
I really like the zero judgment atmosphere. There were people there from all walks of nerddom, in all shapes, sizes and genders. Plenty of them were in wheelchairs and everything was accessible, folks were very considerate in general, and I spoted nothing I'd complain about in that regard.
So many families, which was awesome! Young'un nerds are the best ones. It's great to see kids coming in with their parents (this one family were doing a Sims cosplay which was adorkable), learning how to look but not touch, etc.
Cosplay... damn, although I know some costumes were definitely bought from somewhere others were clearly manually made and they required so much work. It's really impressive. The "Cosplay does not mean consent" signs everywhere plus Canadian politeness kept things civil, too.
My one complaint was trying to find a Firefly and/or Stargate shirt for a female friend. She needed an XXL and apparently women don't come in that size. Also maybe 1/6th (if that) of most vendors' shirt merchandise was for women at all... and their staff really didn't know, well, anything. "Stargate? I don't think we have that but... just in case, you know, so I can help you better. Is that a video game, a TV show or...?" Like come on, man, Jason Momoa is right there.
Overall, awesome stuff. Looking forward to going again next year.
@faraday said in Historical settings:
I had fun, personally, but I don't know how "historical" it was in the end.
Again this is only my opinion, but if I ran a MU* and someone told me "hey, I have fun here but I don't know how historical it is" I'd take it as a win - any day.
@mietze @mietze said in Historical settings:
So that's one thing that you'd need to take a hard look at. What DO you want in the scope of your game? Then be honest about it.
I think one of the early hardships involved in setting up a game in a period you're clearly excited about ("oh boy that golden age of Rome under Augustus!!1!") is then allowing your players some agency both in terms of not knowing everything you - in your excitement - do, or interpreting them the same way. Some might care for the constant education, correcting their pig latin or resolving somewhat minor anachronisms but probably most won't match what's locked inside your head. Not exactly.
In other words, and to generalize wildly, there are three types of players:
People who will play any era as they picture it in their heads. They'll play a stereotype - a "fighter", a "medic", a "businessman" as appropriate, but won't try to get too ambitious or take too many liberties. Those are probably most MU*'s bread-and-butter.
Folks who know or are willing to try more with theme on a meta level. They will set your culture as much or more than staff will, since they often set the IC tone; they'll play deviants, mavericks, important political figures and so on. It's these guys staff need to win over and work with more than anyone.
Finally there are those who might or not know as much as the ones above but they will be more disruptive because that is pretty much their goal. Play them in a medieval setting and they'll try to invent gunpowder, create corporations in all but name where the very model doesn't exist, try to revolutionize military strategy decades in advance.
These groups all need attention, but both the approach and degree of education and hand-holding they require is vastly different, and it needs to be handled without taking their ability to make meaningful, interesting choices.