Posts made by peasoupling

I don't know. The fact that there is a Thrax aside exception means that other exceptions may be possible, particularly if they are relatively small things. Everyone else would be free to view this group's beliefs as nonsensical superstition.

It's obvious that gender equality and player freedom is the goal. There is an IC justification for it, but the IC justification exists to serve the goal of letting players play any sort of concept as male, female, or other, without having to deal with sexism in the setting. Those who don't mind dealing with gender restrictions can play Thrax.

Unless there is going to be a big plot revolving around pearl diving in that little county that would exclude male characters, my only reaction is an enormous "Eh. Why not?"

On the other hand, it's such a small thing that it may be simpler not to include it, if reactions like these are anything to go by!

And while princes and princesses are one and the same,, you do see a lot of princesses in dresses, not a lot of princes.

I enjoy running PrPs. I haven't tried any on Reno because there are bits of second edition I'm still not completely comfortable with, but I'll probably try something simple on the Hunter/Law/Crime/Mortal side of things.

Reasons why I haven't signed up to any PrPs other than the starting Hunter plot yet:

If I see 5 characters signed up to a PrP, I might begin to think that's plenty and I shouldn't take up room unless it's a scene that really appeals to me. Outside social scenes, with the understanding that people are just mingling and may go off to do their own thing, 6+ people in a scene can start to look overcrowded. I may still give it a try, but I'm just less likely to.

I can't justify my character being there. This happens with some contrived scene setups or events that require a character to have taken some sort of off-screen initiative to be involved. I'm not complaining about this, I think it's great and it often helps move scenes along, it just means that sometimes I won't be feeling creative enough to come up with an excuse to have my character there.

And sometimes, something about the tone of the writeup suggests it's not for my character. This is a good thing! Sometimes (particularly with Mortal or Hunter) I have a character that is relatively low-key on the weirdness meter, your average Jane getting used to things, who goes on a PrP with a harmless description and is suddenly thrust into a world of fiery tentacle alien-demons taking over bodies for their Venusian dragon king, in grand explicit detail.

And there might be an amazing story to tell there, but I have to RP the aftermath of that. And I feel like politely requesting that my character take a blow to the head and suffer cartoon amnesia.

Which is why I like to suggest what kind of scene it's going to be in my +event descriptions, so people can avoid them or join them as they please, and I like it when others do the same. If I avoid a scene because of something like that, it's not you, it's me.

@Thenomain said in Dragon Age: Dread Wolf's Rise:

What? As one of the last two Grey Wardens in Ferelden, even with an old treaty you have to lick the boots of pretty much every group who signed just to get them to agree. And the only group who has any respect for you by title are the Dwarves.

With the right origin, you can always throw in the title of worthless Brand alongside Grey Warden, to ensure the dwarves really look up to you.

Dragon Age has a somewhat gritty setting and history, which is what might make for a fun MUSH**. But you still end up with a big heroic protagonist, who can be, depending on player choice, a traditional fantasy hero, more or less, and make for a more or less traditional fantasy narrative.

I'd probably say that DA:O and DA2 make better use of the gritty aspects of the setting, though in pretty different ways. Moreso than Inquisition, though it's still vaguely there. But they're all RPGs. If life was so cheap that the protagonist died to an infected knife wound or of some acute intestinal affliction on the way to Denerim, I don't think the game would do very well...

** Preferably one that has some stated goal or premise or something other than letting people play their favourite OTPs. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Historical accuracy isn't a binary condition. It's not like a game can actually be historically accurate. Not even history books can be, unless they are very, very boring, dry, factual accounts of things that happened in the last couple of centuries. If a game has "historical accuracy" as its stated goal, I worry they'll mostly be policing people's descriptions for styles of belt buckle that hadn't been invented yet.

I'm a History person by training, but I can overlook a lot of anachronisms for the sake of fun, while other deviations might make me decide not to play on a game because I'd have to grit my teeth excessively.

The issue, for me, isn't really one of accuracy in general, it's consistency. Staff really should set the tone and the historical flavor they're going for and have some reason to pick a setting other than "it's a neat time period and I want to play a craftsman who specializes in belt buckles and dying of tuberculosis."

If you know what themes you want to explore, you'll have a better idea about which bits you think are important enough to have in the news files as a common baseline, and which bits are meaningless trivia. And then staff can enforce the former and make sure players understand they aren't the history police when it comes to the latter.

@tce Ohh. I don't think I ever met Zenobia on Oathcircle, as I only made a Changeling-adjacent character towards the end, but I always enjoyed playing with Nausi as Ione.

These are some characters I've played. There were a bunch of other characters and other games, but either I played them for 5 minutes (I do that) or I don't really remember their names and the wikis are gone. I'm an enormous flake.

Former:
Oathcircle: Mildred, Cam, some Nosferatu Indiana Jane...
Phoenix Rising (Werewolf game): Sarah
City of Hope: Elise, Ione, Veronica
Fallcoast: Anya, Rebecca, Shelby
BITN: Rachel, Angela
Arx: Leta, Maude, Ylva
The Descent (2017-18): Gabby
Welcome to Lovecraft: Callie
FtA: Detroit: Jordan
San Francisco: Steph
Portland: Angie

Current:
Gray Harbor: Abby
NOLA: Molly

@DnvnQuinn There are a few varieties of SPECIAL as the games have evolved, and I am guessing it might currently be a little too complicated for tabletop or MU* use because it's a lot less bothersome for computers to do calculations behind the scenes. So I'm not sure using the actual, full system is completely doable, or that much fun. But I mostly like Fallout for the setting. Perks are fun, though, so I can see wanting to have those in some way. FATE could do it, but it really depends on what your focus would be in terms of play.

As far as the theme goes, South America sounds like fun, and there's rooms for all sorts of crazy mutant plants and animals. And there's even room to play with the retro-futuristic Americana because of US influence in South America (the 50s last forever, after all).

I sometimes wonder why fantasy/science-fiction settings have to copy our familiar forms of bigotry and discrimination for the sake of 'realism'. Especially when they're game settings, and create a hostile environment for a lot of possible character concepts and for players who'd rather not have to deal with it in their games too. Besides, there are whole untapped realms of speculative bigotry.

With historical games, fuzziness and alternate political history are fine, but deliberately whitewashing the setting sits poorly with me. I kind of feel like it trivializes the issues to pretend you can have the fun stuff without the horribleness that was historically attached and, besides, it starts to feel incoherent. Can you have imperialism and colonialism without the racism, for example? But I'm a history grad student, so this could just be me!

However, I don't think historical accuracy should be policed, particularly when it comes to the nastiness of the period! More importantly, it really should be fine for characters to be exceptional, to have modern sensibilities, to be able to get away with things that others might not. Are they active abolitionists, socialists or women's rights pioneers? Are they scandalous figures that get away with deviating from the norms by being amazing? If so, how do they feel about it? There are all sorts of ways one can engage with the problematic nature of a historical setting without being ground down by it for the sake of supposed realism, anyway. For me, that's actually part of the draw. It's not just about the tragic, angsty, historical oppression porn. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

You might end up with a grid full of exceptions, and there might be some friction if two players with different approaches to how they handle the setting cross paths. Not to mention that some people really, really like to use historical accuracy as an excuse to be assholes, and that's exhausting to deal with. So I can understand not wanting to deal with that.

@Seraphim73

@Seraphim73 said in Core Memories Instead of BG?:

@Arkandel said in Core Memories Instead of BG?:

I agree. One of the mistakes people make is generate characters who've already done all the cool things in their lives before they ever step foot on the grid

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. If I see another BG filled to the brim with awesome events of awesomeness that the player just wants to brag about... I'm going to scream (I'm going to be screaming a lot). Get your accomplishments ON SCREEN, so that others know about them, you get to actually experience them, and others are involved in them, so -they- have reasons to bring them up.

If someone wants to play the farm boy that becomes the hero, that's fine! And the rate of XP growth in many games supports this, as in one year your character has had all these adventures and also learned five languages and three styles of martial arts.

But a person with a past can be a fun character type. You might not want to play the 18 year old hero's journey, you might want to play the grizzled veteran hero in retirement who gets involved to help the kids, or the lunch lady who used to be a princess of an unnamed generic Eastern European principality.

This could be my experience in games that use 1-to-1 time, or close. If time is handled differently, that would be more reasonable but, as is, if you want to play a character with an eventful past of a certain type, you pretty much have to start them out that way.

@Arkandel said:

@peasoupling said:

Many Muslims choose to renounce the religion entirely too, without reprisal. Of course, these usually live outside theocracies or extremist communities. Theocracies are awful, and fundamentalism is awful, and Islam has very serious and troubling issues with those.

Yes, and it's theocracies (or any other type of extreme regime which focuses on its own values to suppress individual expression) which are the problem, not the religion in question. There have been points in time when not being a Christian - or, hell, just a different flavor of one - could absolutely get you killed and/or tortured.

Religion has been used as a vehicle to power before and its exact contents are preeeetty much irrelevant. Christianity claims awful lot of "love your neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" mandates yet large scale atrocities have been committed in its name. To those who just want to blow shit up and burn shit down any ol' holy book will do as a banner.

I generally agree. I'm not completely sure that religion has no influence, or that some religious texts and traditions might not be more prone, for historical reasons, to terrible interpretations and justifications. Some forms of Islam are awful, in and of themselves, as religions. For example, the garbage woman-hating death cult version that asshole wealthy Saudi fundamentalists like to fund around the world.

But I also think that there isn't an Islam or a Christianity, there are Islams and Christianities, and the general name just refers to a lot of different, vaguely related sets of beliefs that claim descent from the same revelation. There are also awful forms of Christianity, it's just that they aren't as popular these days, or they don't have as much power. You do have things like American Evangelicals funding murderous homophobia in Africa, but it's on a different scale.

But then I don't see a lot of people condemning Buddhism as a whole because of Buddhist violence in Southeast Asia, either.

@Sundown said:

@peasoupling said:

@Sundown

I'm sorry, this is a very long post, and I don't really feel like I can address all the points in it one by one. If I were you I'd reread the bit you wrote about feeling distant from snotty-nosed barefoot kids while complimenting the family with a castle and a piano. That does say something, but I don't think it's about the kids or the Arab world.

If that's what you took from that paragraph, you've completely missed the point. I tried to present many angles of my experiences to show that I don't see their world from only one perspective or prejudice. Instead you make it about me looking down on poverty. Wow. That's low.

That's why it was a long post, to show those many perspectives. I see that the effort was wasted.

This just shows how badly incapable you are at looking outside of the bubble of your preconceived notions. You would rather misinterpret someone's good intentions and honesty to the point of insult, than face an unpleasant reality. I lived there, you didn't. Go, live there. Tell me if you change your mind.

I am sorry. We're all a bit classist and ethnocentric and, while snarkier than it could have been, it's not really meant as an insult. Much like saying someone is racist isn't really an insult, 90+% of the time it'll be a statement of fact. Look at how you actually chose to narrate your experiences. You did contrast the poor barefoot kids you could not relate to, with the beauty of a castle with a piano. That is how you chose to frame your experience. I think that's telling, in the context of the rest of your post.

I could be wrong. But that's why I try not to turn my limited personal experience into generalizations about entire cultures and their fundamental incompatibility with my own. Also, I know too many expats to take "I lived there, you didn't." without an enormous grain of salt. It can be an interesting point of view, but it's one point of view, and often a very insular one.

I will say that comparing Nazism and Islam the way you do in the latter paragraphs doesn't really seem to make much sense. Nazism is a pretty specific political ideology. Islam is a very diverse religion and, in fact, plenty of Muslims do denounce the kinds of Islam that support and justify terror attacks. It is possible to renounce radical and extremist varieties of Islam without renouncing other forms of Islam, or Islam as a whole, and many Muslims do so. It's kind of sucky to ignore the ones who have been persecuted and killed by extremists for being moderates and secular activists, while still considering themselves Muslims.

It's also possible to renounce radical forms of Christianity, or ignore the bad aspects of the religion, while still considering yourself Christian. Yet many people choose to renounce the religion entirely, and are able to without reprisal.

Many Muslims choose to renounce the religion entirely too, without reprisal. Of course, these usually live outside theocracies or extremist communities. Theocracies are awful, and fundamentalism is awful, and Islam has very serious and troubling issues with those.

But look at your original post. You brought that up to contrast the response of Germans to Nazism (resistance during Nazism, and outright condemnation afterwards) with the response of Muslims to acts of terror by other Muslims. It's in that context that your comparison makes no sense. I brought up European totalitarianism simply because the West tends to ignore its own recent checkered past, and its own role in the world, when making pronouncements about other cultures and their supposed character.

It's like when people calling themselves realists shrug and say, super seriously: "You have to understand that whole region has always been at war, something something tribal culture something something." which I guess is different from Europe's millennia of peace and brotherhood.

@Sundown

I'm sorry, this is a very long post, and I don't really feel like I can address all the points in it one by one. If I were you I'd reread the bit you wrote about feeling distant from snotty-nosed barefoot kids while complimenting the family with a castle and a piano. That does say something, but I don't think it's about the kids or the Arab world.

I will say that comparing Nazism and Islam the way you do in the latter paragraphs doesn't really seem to make much sense. Nazism is a pretty specific political ideology. Islam is a very diverse religion and, in fact, plenty of Muslims do denounce the kinds of Islam that support and justify terror attacks. It is possible to renounce radical and extremist varieties of Islam without renouncing other forms of Islam, or Islam as a whole, and many Muslims do so. It's kind of sucky to ignore the ones who have been persecuted and killed by extremists for being moderates and secular activists, while still considering themselves Muslims.

@BigDaddyAmin said:

As someone who has been to Arab countries, lived amongst Arabs, speaking their language, eating their food, and observed their culture, I have come to realize it is an ademocratic culture. They respect authority. They honor strength. They are tribal. Individual rights generally aren't respected. This is why Bashar al-Assad is, despite what Western media portrays, is overwhelmingly popular in Syria. This is why his dad's face painted on the side of vehicles and his portrait is framed in living rooms. Hafez drug Syria into the 20th Century kicking and screaming, and whoever was in his way got fucked up.

This isn't a bad thing. It makes them different. It is kind of like expecting Klingons to be feminist Green Party anarcho collectivists. It isn't going to happen.

World War II ended 70 years ago. There are people alive today who actually remember a time when Europe was composing odes to the virtues of strong, genocidal, warmongering leaders. That tiny bit of historical perspective always makes me wary of radical pronouncements about the essential traits of particular cultures.

Is it possible for a Tortuga-like place to exist? Or the Barbary pirates? It could be a place where pirates and privateers are protected by the local powers-that-be (or are, themselves, in control of the local powers-that-be) and serve as a wretched hive of scum and villainy / RP hub.

Given this setup, you can still have crews that often work together on a particular ship (for those who are after that sort of RP) but you can also have a pool of people getting drunk around town. Then you can have an enterprising captain with a ship, who recruits a crew of unemployed seadogs to go on a specific mission. They go out, raid this and plunder that, and once that's over, they divvy up the booty and waste it on drinking and whoring around. So you can have your ongoing tavern soap opera broken up by plots of variable length, or vice-versa.

Fallout, or something Fallout-ish.

It's definitely that, but I think the time scale conditions how XP feels.

XP is, generally, awarded over time. This is both IC time and OOC time.

I don't think it's unreasonable for players to want to see some form of growth over an OOCly doable period of time. I don't want to wait several years (OOC) for my character to learn Spanish, or to learn a martial art. But that means that characters are ICly developing very fast, too. This is highly subjective, of course. And it isn't so much of a problem when starting stats feel like the character can be competent at a couple of fields you choose to excel in, preferably without demanding hyper-specialization. Then the OOC growth can be slower, and trickle down to very little.

I just don't know about capping, because I don't particularly want to go with "This 23 year old is now the best she'll ever be and it's all downhill from here!" unless you're playing a game about child prodigies, or Replicants who have to accomplish as much as possible within a limited lifespan.

I think part of the problem has to do with the bizarre time scale of MU* events, which seem to go like:

"I am a brand new, fresh-faced 21-year-old, ready to face a world full of scary things! Yay!"

...soap opera plots and some adventures later...

"I am now a tremendously powerful 22-year-old, yielding powers beyond the comprehension of puny, mortals. I have seen it all, and there is nothing new under the sky."

And then your character is 22 years old (or 100 years old but, regardless, fresh out of a period of absurdly fast personal growth) and they have peaked. Now, capping XP can be mitigated by allowing easy respecs. You have taken up Spanish and began neglecting your Kung Fu practice, so you lose your Kung Fu 5 and receive the XP for it, which you can then spend on educational trips to Tijuana. Or maybe you've spent all your money on educational trips to Tijuana, so you lower your Resources instead, and possibly your Morality rating.

I made a mortal on The Reach towards the latter part of its run, and there was just nothing I could do with all that XP that I kept drowning in. I was going to make an older and more experienced character, and just spend the first few weeks accumulating XP so I could put their sheet together the way it was supposed to be (it's hard to be a former SEAL PhD ballerina, and yet they exist), but then I lost interest. It would, at least, have avoided the mandatory accelerated hero's journey. If I'd started my character as a spry 70-year-old witch, I'd probably be fine with a cap, but even then, I'd still prefer XP slowed down to a tiny trickle for at least the illusion of possible growth.