@Ghost said in Pro Wrasslin':
Now, all of the sudden, he's back as sucka white boy MC slow-jam rap battle heel John Cena, which is pretty much a muscular millionaire wearing a chain around his neck and snapback hats.
So...sign of the end for Cena's relevancy? Not so relevant anymore that he had to dig into a shtick that's over 10 years old?
Well, I hear that white people love Post Malone, so --
@kanye-qwest said in Period Piece Face vs Modern Face:
This is not that complicated.
So, we are playing hot or not?
Gosling has a modern face.
@Arkandel said in Bump In The Night: A Chronicles of Darkness MUX:
I read the Hobbit when I was in sixth grade and was absolutely blown away, and then the friend who lent me the book told me there was 'more to it' and handed me the Fellowship of the Ring. Holy shit, I spent that entire night reading it, it was the first time I ever lost sleep over a book - and it was so worth it. It single-handedly made a lifetime fantasy fan out of me.
See, I did this when I got my first copy of Guardians of the West, by Eddings. And I read the shit out of his books.
But then, I got older, and realized that Eddings produced an Americanized, tongue-in-cheek version of Tolkien.
However, when I started reading Tolkien, I realized why.
As interesting as some of Tolkien's stuff is, he's the George Lucas of fantasy writing. He should stick to the ideas, and let others -- like Lawrence Kasdan -- do the actual writing.
@Ghost said in The Hockey Thread:
Bertuzzi? Holmstrom? Red Wings fans saying stuff like "you just hate us because we're the best hockey franchise in history"?
That's not even close to accurate.
The best hockey franchise in history is still the Montreal Canadiens. No comparison. The Toronto Maple Leafs have won more Stanley Cups. The Bruins have a better win-percentage in the Championship series.
The Red Wings have the second most appearances, but also 13 series losses.
@faraday said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
Really? I would say people do that all the time.
Do what? Force people to deal with unpleasantness?
From a certain perspective, yes. You have to deal with unpleasantness on many games out there, such as the unpleasantness of watching your PC get torn apart by Cylon gunfire or failing at something they ought to be really good at. And I would agree that we do so when we step on games because we accept a game's resolution system when we engage in play.
But there's a difference between accepting a PC death in combat and being forced to witness racist, sexist, or derogatory slurs. As an analogy, consider a Call of Duty multiplayer match. I'll accept getting shot to pieces by some 12-year-old kid, but I will log the fuck out in a second when he starts crowing about how he "raped" me or how girls shouldn't be gamers.
@SG said in ROGUE: It is coming...:
We got only the finest butts in our cartel, EVERY DAY IS LEG DAY!
I was thinking more like:
@Arkandel said in Random links:
That name is the non-nerd equivalent of people dubbing their kid "Daenerys Stevens".
@faraday said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
So if that's the consensus, and modern/sci-fi themes don't generally have the historical baggage of dumb laws that have since been overturned (women can't own property, interracial marriages are illegal, etc.) ... what exactly are the problems you're seeing in WoD/modern settings?
GOOD LORD, WOMAN. How long of a post do you want?
(I kid.)
Regarding discrimination, IC discrimination is fairly uncommon, actually. In the old World of Darkness, you get an expected spate of racism or sexism through certain tropes, like the average Fenrir Werewolf. This is largely crushed in the new World of Darkness, and even moreso in the Second Edition of the new World of Darkness.
But, it's still there. Hardliner Sanctified PCs, for example, could be very anti-homosexual when it comes to mortals and vampires alike, and even punish vampire PCs for engaging in sodomy, which would probably be a violation of their dominant, hard-line creed. (In the new World of Darkness, they are the Christian/Catholic/monotheist vampires.) And an old Invictus could engage in the sort of racist behavior that was prevalent in his/her/its time.
Earnestly, I have not bumped into a problem recently. That doesn't mean I won't, or that it can't be a problem. I'm engaging in this discussion because I'm interested in figuring out whether there can be a sort of acceptable, pre-emptive policy that goes beyond the usual standard of: "knock it off with that shit if someone complains about it." My concern is that "knock it off with that shit if there's a complaint" presumes that a player will raise a complaint before leaving the game.
It's not beyond the realm of possibility that a boorish group of PCs will essentially turn other players off, and push them out. This happened on St. Petersburg, where an aggressive bunch of werewolf skinheads, essentially, carved out a territory, vociferously bullied others to stay out, and alienated just about everyone else who wanted to play. They did not intentionally drive people away from the game, and they were in theme, but the tone of their IC actions was so offensive that players simply walked off.
Ironically, Spider was trying to stymie them, but it was too little and ineffective, and too late.
And in historic settings, what do you suggest? Just handwaving completely and having nobody be allowed to bat an eye at a female gunslinger or an African American sheriff, even in eras where, say, iRL women weren't allowed to wear pants and slavery was still a thing?
Here, I think a straight-up warning is in order.
To expand, when it came to a game like Fifth Kingdom, I expressly asked the staff as to their feelings on racism/sexism/homosexuality. They did not think non-whites would be in their fictional setting set in Ireland, but they weren't against it. They made it clear that men and white were generally considered equals, save perhaps for matrimonial matters. And they made it clear that they didn't really care what people did in their fun times but that marriage was a social thing, and the setting socially wasn't prepared to recognize same-sex unions.
And, as far as I can tell, there was no IC discrimination on that game. Especially when my big, bad-ass dude (Turtle) got mangled by some neophyte played by Maisie Williams (Snail).
My wisdom may be more anecdotal, but I think these concerns arise out of games that I do not frequent or visit.
@Arkandel said in Kinds of Mu*s Wanted:
Why do you need a time bitch?
I think the reasons are fairly obvious.
@Jennkryst said in Kinds of Mu*s Wanted:
I will be your time bitch.
Good. Make it 5 PM already.
@Sparks said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
I do not know, but I suspect it does not; despite working at an engineering firm with an international presence, my insurance coverage is absolutely abysmal. (If you have the option, avoid United Healthcare like the plague.)
See if they cover Viagra, and then claim a priapism-related injury.
@surreality said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
I agree with this, though there are some instances in which there really is no middle ground to be had that doesn't involve 'just don't interact with that person'. That's a valid option, in my view, but there are folks who will simply not accept anything but their way all the way, and nothing in between, and will be very aggressive about it.
Those are people you complain about.
@Jennkryst said in Kinds of Mu*s Wanted:
Let me rephrase. I will be your Time TS-slut.
It's still not 5 PM, so I don't have time to reciprocate.
Go make me a sammich.
@Thenomain said in Good TV:
Have you forgotten Dragon Age 2 so soon?
You played that game on my recommendation?
@thenomain said in System dealbreakers:
Bonus if Ventrue.
Nossie Garbage Princess? Overdone.
Ventrue Garbage Princess? Eh. Still a bit predictable -- all that power over the utility.
Now, a Gangrel Garbage Princess? That's priceless.
@surreality said in The 100: The Mush:
Well, we are technically land animals.
Technical arguments are the worst.
"In this case we are called on to determine whether a cow is an uninsured motor vehicle under appellants’ insurance policy."
Link to case, if you want to know the answer: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/11/2003/2003-Ohio-6695.pdf
I apologize for this digression, but it seemed a perfect opportunity to whip out this hilarious gem of lawyer humor.
@Ghost said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Better than I'd care to expound on.
Won't get into that here. Life is good.
I buy my World of Darkness stuff from DriveThruRPG. I stopped using sharing systems a while back. I don't mind sharing my .PDFs, though.
@Cupcake said in The 100: The Mush:
When you log into a game, isn't it with the expectation of playing within the theme, i.e. the vision that the staffers have put into play?
Yes, unless the theme described by the staffers is not the same as the theme they are actually cultivating. That is a completely different aside.
I am not suggesting that staff dispense plot to non-active players or not dispense plot to the pro-active players. That's not in my analysis because that's not what I'm getting at.
What I am trying to communicate is that it is a dangerous mentality for staff to cater to any group of players. While there is an expectation for staff to work with players, staff should be expected to cater to the game.
Let's take your suggestion and play it out. Suppose the theme of the game is going wildly off-track. Suppose you go to staff and point this out, and they were to respond that they are catering to the players who are pro-active and working with them. This seems sensible, but remember that the game is going off-theme; you know it, others know it, but staff are not doing anything about it. Because they are catering to the players.
It's not about a cult of personality. That's not precisely how Spider or the Ham Clique worked. They inculcated others -- specifically staff -- into catering to them because they were active, creating other activity, and cooperating. They appear to be your best players. They become staff to simply help out with mundane jobs. And then, you cannot afford to shake loose of them because all of the plots are tied to them, all of your remaining players are their friends, and they are essentially running your game. That isn't forming a cult of personality; it is the equivalent of a hostile takeover.
Don't cater to the players. Never cater to the players when it comes to your theme and setting. Protect the game. Keep your eye on the game.
Shelbeast and I were a bit concerned.
I'll get to work finishing up Blood Sorcery over the holidays. That should pave the way for edits for staff consideration. And public comment, if warranted.
