Posts made by Arkandel

@ganymede These questions reminded me of one of Reddit's most upvoted posts ever.

@kestrel This is my favorite topic. Let's debate it more!

An underlying theme in all of Lord of the Rings - to the point of it being explicitly brought up on multiple occasions by Gandalf and Galadriel - is that the fight between good and evil isn't really determined by mighty warriors but by everyday people stepping up in whatever capacity they have to defend their friends and communities.

It's for that reason that Sauron isn't defeated in some final showdown against Aragorn or Gandalf. In fact in the movies they debated that (and shot the scene, it's on youtube!) but then - correctly - realized it was unthematic. The hobbits are the true heroes; it was these complete nobodies' journey, hardships and sacrifice that brought down the Enemy.

Sam embodies all of this. He was no prophesized figure. He didn't come from a storied lineage. He didn't inherit a Ring of Power. The dude was into landscaping, he dug holes in the dirt for a living in a backwater village his whole life.

Sam, also, by the end of the story carried the fate of Middle Earth solely on his shoulders. He fended off the most corruptive power in existence that brought down Numenorian Kings and was feared by Maia and Noldor Elf Queens for its seductive properties to help his friend. He fought ancient spidery horrors in freakin' Mordor. The dude was hardcore. He was also a fucking gardener.

And at the end of it all he went back to gardening. What a madlad. Like... Grey Havens? Going to Valinor? Living like a goddamn hero in Gondor? Nah, he just planted trees, raised a family and, you know, had a good life until he passed away from old age.

I don't think it's even close who the hero in this tale was.

@misadventure said in Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings:

A setting where every sentient can conceive and carry a child, with control of conception.

To be honest it surprises me the second part at least isn't a default option.

Games that enforce pregnancies are weird. That's not even kink-shaming. It's just... weird. And kinda misogynistic, frankly.

@derp You misspelled Sam.

(Double post)

Also the trailer for Night Teeth looks like fun!

Frankly the original works that inspired great games are rarely that amazing themselves. At least I can't think of any.

The Witcher worked because the setting itself is brilliant. But yeah, I was curious in the past about the books so I read some reviews and they indicated more or less what @Kestrel says; they are apparently... okay.

However there's something to be said about setting a really good atmosphere, intriguing character dynamics, interesting magic system, etc. After all someone was initially inspired by this stuff and based a video game series on it - there was a good reason to do so.

@icanbeyourmuse said in Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings:

One thing to consider allowing an alt for is that characters in positions of responsibility can be draining and cause them not not desire to log in.

Is that a real problem though? I don't have nearly as much experience with L&L as many folks on this thread but I feel it's usually the opposite that's the issue -- there are too many chiefs and too few underlings. Sure, the positions involve work... but that doesn't seem to diminish their popularity.

So if there is such high demand for the top-end positions why give them away to players who aren't active enough for them? Isn't that a more desired solution than handing them away to the person who has multiple alts, or who wants the prestige of a rank but not the associated responsibilities?

@runescryer said in Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings:

@ganymede True, but a bit of further planning can eliminate that.

The issue with that (and we're going to stray off topic here a bit, I think) is that it's very difficult to prove the case or the opposite. Meaning there is always a case to be made about whether my alt was involved in shenanigans or not concerning my main's IC interests.

Even if he didn't, or it wasn't intentional, or even if the accusation itself is an attempt to discredit me, the doubt still taints the political picture.

@packrat One concern here is that players would leave most Houses bankrupt in the long run because they'd just spend gold on lavish parties.

Alt behavior would also need to be monitored. If I'm allied to you on my main character it'd be a bit suspicious when I roll a different PC, make a lucrative deal whose terms favor your IC interests then fade into inactivity leaving the rest of that second PC's family to pick up the pieces.

Another take on Lords and Ladies could be to introduce a level of strategic planning to it.

One of my peeves about settings like that, for some time, was that there was no cost to anything. Every other noble PC walks around throwing gold at problems; if Jane comes asking Jim for some ships to move her good he can just... give it since there's an inexhaustible supply. Here, have some imaginary ships, lady!

Similarly there's no downside in being nice. Hey peasants, I lowered your taxes! Love me! Which means playing cutthroat, cynical characters with an eye toward making money and using it to gain political advantages (think Littlefinger from Game of Thrones) doesn't give any edge over honorable ones (like Eddard Stark), and that ultimately cheapens both; honor is cheap without sacrifice, and bastardy is just dumb because... you act like an asshole IC yet get nothing to show for it.

I'd love to see a setting where clever players managing their estates well is meaningful and gets them the upper hand. Treating serfs well makes one popular - which grants bonuses - but empty coffers also translate to disadvantages that have to be played around.

Anyway. Lords and ladies. Resources. Meaningful choices. I'd like to see a good take on it.

One of my childhood heroes

@derp It sucks, but it's also great. You have a friend who has spent his entire life with you; there is history there.

Yes, you will outlive him and there are no words to soften that blow when it comes, but he's here now - so you can treasure your friendship - and he will be there after, too, with you for as long as you exist to remember him.

I'll throw my idea in the mix. I had been once (a long time ago) intending to try and make it into a MU.

Superheroes meets Lord and Ladies. A nation led by a JLA-like family of NPCs, supported by 'champions' who are essentially metahumans - which is what PCs would play.

The idea in my original writeup is to have a small kingdom like that surrounded by much larger Empires who'd consume it if it wasn't for the champions' ability to defend it.

Each House would be the equivalent of a generational superhero team with its background, rivalries with and ties to other Houses (think Titans and the Bat-family), specializations in purpose, powers and goals, etc.

Remember him for his sharp wit. Even about cancer!

"I'm pretty sure, I'm not a doctor, but...I mean if you die, the cancer also dies at exactly the same time," Macdonald said. "So to me, that's not a loss. That's a draw."

"It's not like cancer goes home to fuck my wife afterwards."

@tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

The Hog Pit is the newer, more sensible plan.

If that is true we need to be nuked from orbit.

I want to like Titans. An R-rated version of Gotham is such a good fit and several of the cast members are good fits for the team. The first season was actually a lot of fun, it established the dynamics and had a pretty decent Deathstroke as its main villain.

This second season though really isn't doing it for me.

I think the main issue is the dialogue. There is something... off. I can't quite tell what it is but it's driving me crazy - there are pauses after everyone speaks as if they are all taking turns conversing in a completely unnatural way.

There are other issues. Jason Todd's actor is... not great. The plot is okay - it doesn't always make too much sense which kind of devalues the 'detective' part of the heroes' work but that's kind of expected in the genre. What I don't like is that it takes some huge risks early on (like what Batman does in episode 1) then just lets itself fall flat and stagnate for half a season.

There is also a real issue with the characters' power levels. Superboy and Starfire are a bit much if they are going to spend significant time fighting generic Gotham goons. Poor Beast Boy also doesn't get to freakin' do stuff since the special effects budget would need to blow up for that, so he resorts to generic kung-fu with glowy eyes.

@ominous said in Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings:

Go read the last 22 pages <snip>

I will concede any point I've ever made or considered debating before I subject myself to that.

In terms of gaming in general I look for gameplay.

What will characters do? What challenges are they set up against? How does the setting itself help facilitate such goals? What is staff's role? Which positions are NPC only? How much power are PCs allowed to have over the course of how the game evolves?

In my opinion whatever the IC succession rules are and wherever power lies those answers still should take priority.

Now I'm no expert in L&L but for example what would the difference be between what is being discussed here and what's already the system on Arx? Gender or sexual preference don't make a difference (but please correct me if I'm wrong) in who wields political power there either.

@kk I can certainly understand the need to be compassionate. And I agree that is necessary to embrace our neighbors even if when they are being... difficult.

However just how far that can extend before it's met at least halfway is certainly debatable. Do you accept that woman's child to the same school yours goes to, knowing they may transfer Covid-19 and get your elderly relative killed? Do you accept them working at the DMV/grocery store you must also go to as part of your daily life?

There is nuance here. I don't classify anti-vaxxers in the same category as say, white supremacists, but there are also limits to how much I can tolerate.

Especially because it's my life, and those of my family's, who are being profoundly impacted by not simply the pandemic itself - meaning the medical aspects of it - but also the financial implications of a prolonged lockdown that could arguably be over, or much relaxed, if people did the bare minimum to help us get through it.

https://apnews.com/article/health-colorado-public-health-coronavirus-pandemic-826ccbd61443c244a26de19bdf44b9a3

...

How does the logic go from "my freedom to not be vaccinated" to "stop others from being vaccinated"?