Posts made by Roz

@Pyrephox said in X-Cards:

(i.e. this male player is clearly getting his jollies off trying to get his teenaged girl GM (me) to narrate the results of him raping an NPC)

This new Kesha song is a BIG MOOD. Holy shit.

@Pandora I did have to click on the little reply thing to see which post you were replying to. You might wanna use the Quote option instead of Reply when it's a post that's not the most recent or two. That's the rule of thumb I use for myself, anyways. Just so people know exactly what I'm replying to.

It's definitely true that there are much bigger benchmarks for gay relationships -- similar to a lot of diversity issues in this context -- wherein people want to have REASONS for them to exist/be included, because "Idk gay people exist in the world so sometimes people in stories are gay?" is not good enough.

I think that some issue people have taken with the Dumbledore/Grindelwald relationship not being explicit enough (not in terms of SEX, just in terms of it being made clearer text instead of subtext) is the desire to not have some people try to insist that the romance elements aren't there because, basically, that plausible deniability will always exist in subtext, and audiences often seem to require a lot more PROOF to accept that a queer relationship is canon vs a straight relationship. Subtext is accepted way more implicitly as fact for straight relationships in media in general. I understand the desire for audiences who really appreciate seeing queer romances included, even in backstory, to want to not have to see others refute their existence because ~subtext isn't text~ or whatever. (And again, this is nothing to do with actual sex scenes.)

I didn't like the explanation the movie came up with for Dumbledore's lack of involvement, but only because it felt like kind of a cheap magical reasoning where I was a lot more intrigued by the idea of him being unable to face his former love for purely human reasons of emotion. I just found that idea more interesting from a story and character perspective, not so much that I needed the romance to be core to the plot.

Mothra, Queen of the Monsters, is my new Goddess.

All hail!

@Arkandel said in Fandom and entitlement:

@Lotherio said in Fandom and entitlement:

It may have changed her understanding of why Dumbledore didn't contribute in going after Grindevald, but otherwise, I don't see it as a game changer to understanding the movie.

And that was a very important plot point. It wasn't like time travel where paradoxes can be expected - time after time Dumbledore explicitly said he couldn't go after the main antagonist but didn't explain why although we kept being told no one but him stood a chance to defeat him.

Obviously an explanation was needed, that wasn't a nitpick. But I can see why you might have needed to explain it.

It wasn't even necessary to get the subtext in order to understand why Dumbledore couldn't go after Gindelwald. They explained that away in the end without making it about their romantic relationship. So what the understanding of their past romantic relationship does is maybe add layers to the characterization to enjoy, but they actually refrained from hinging anything on any romantic feelings plot-wise.

There are no sex scenes, and the romantic nature of their close relationship is generally left as fairly obvious subtext. (It was obvious enough that my dad got it, at any rate.)

I vaguely recall us having a thread about this or a similar tabletop system maybe a year or two ago? I seem to remember it also being a decent conversation. I don't ever think it's a bad thing for people to discuss ways to enhance player comfort while also balancing matters with story integrity and the like. I'm generally great at digging up old threads, but I'm having trouble thinking of how to even start searching for that one.

I am pretty damn particular with my email/RL name because I am literally the only person with it. Both first and last name are very uncommon, so the combination is entirely unique. The idea of sharing that casually is totally unnerving to me just because of that.

Since people were just talking about Divinity the other day but how it's rarely on sale, I just noticed that Divinity 2 is 40% off on GOG.

I've never peeked into Horror MU* but I just want to say I always kind of delight in hearing about each of your new seasons. It's really cool to see something totally different from the typical styles continue to find fun and success. I HOPE EVERYONE KEEPS ENJOYING

@Lemon-Fox I was honestly only clarifying to Ghost because I figured he was not actually intending to suggest breaking any rules, he assumed it was a different situation than what it was, but perhaps I should have left matters to you to set the suggestion aside herself without having it explained why. I didn't think you were about to take him up on it. It wasn't actually my intention to brand anybody, and I wasn't seeking to remind you of anything, Lemon Fox. I don't think there's any issue with you hopefully finding your niche on a game.

@Ghost In this case, it would be evading a staff ban, not so much the other stuff you described.

@Arkandel said in Fandom and entitlement:

Which isn't to say everything should be explained because that, too, is stupid. Some of the complaints I read about Game of Thrones' ending (for example) were utterly idiotic; some people wanted an explanation of why seasons are so long. What? Or how Valyrian steel is made. Why would that be required for the show - or books - to be complete?

Oh yeah, agreed. The sense of "EVERY single question must be answered or it's TERRIBLE" is not really feasible. Or the makings of interesting story.

I have many and varied Thoughts about this, and was actually just discussing it with some friends.

Moore is certainly right about many things. Art is not a democracy. It is dumb and stupid to expect anyone to remake the last season of Game of Thrones just because you hated it. Artists are there to serve the story and the characters. It is impossible to make something that will please all the fans, and that shouldn't be the goal.

THAT SAID. I do think that shows set themselves up and establish expectations. They tell the viewers what kind of show they are. Battlestar Galactica and LOST are two pretty infamous examples of shows that built their popularity in large part on the idea of intricate mystery. This was baked into their DNA. It was set up purposefully by the writers to get people invested in what was going to happen. For the people who hated their finale episodes, part of the reason for the reaction was the feeling that they had been asked to invest in the show based on a certain premise, and then that premise seemed to be largely set aside for the ending. The writers decided, in the end, that most of these mysteries didn't matter. They weren't the important core of the show. Which is, obviously, their right! But I don't care for the sense of "it was silly of you to invest so much into the answers of these mysteries that we built as the centerpiece of the series." If you want to leave your plot pieces open for flexibility, which I understand, it is probably better to not do that in a show that is built on mystery and mystique. Like, if that is your style of writing, it is just...probably a bad fit for those particular pieces.

But if you're unhappy with a piece of art, you can write out your feelings on the internet, you can write fanfiction (which I think is a hugely awesome thing as a part of transformative fandom and can be an incredibly healthy and creative way for fans to show appreciation), and you can -- you know, say you hated it. You can even take it apart for a think piece! No, you can't reasonably demand anyone to remake it. You definitely can't send anything that even smells of being abusive to the creators. You react to the art, and then you move on.

I am not super impressed with some of the sentiment I get from Moore. But I think the overall answer is somewhere in the middle.

@bored said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

I know a few staffers are ruffled because you consider yourselves More Ethical than Average (tm) and yet also evidently fuck around on your NPCs a whole lot while handing out magic swords and babies, which some people consider shady as fuck by default.

I mean, you're now making a fair amount of assumptions regarding who is doing what and how often they're doing it.

@Derp said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

@Roz said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

"you're too emotional" is a common derailing tactic in debate used against women who express any sort of investment in what they're arguing about.

Which would be more valid if he implied it was because she was a woman, and not just a person getting emotional.

Telling someone you believe they are getting to emotional is perfectly fine. I think that people are reading some kind of sexism into the statement that Thenomain didn't put in there.

People, regardless of sex, can in fact be getting too emotional.

He wanted to know why people were reacting the way they were, and I was just explaining, since he asked for further explanation.

@Ghost said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

Devil's Advocate Question.

While I'm sure many of you have TSed with people things that you felt were entirely hot, if it's 100% about the story, then why are people so careful about who they TS with? Why aren't people just TSing with random people for the better of the story?

Because some people are weird or skeevy or will actually become manipulative or even abusive. Sometimes players, especially if they've ever experienced this, like to be slightly more selective about who they engage in this kind of RP with to try and reduce the possibilities of this.

But I've totally posted my TS on games where posting logs was the norm.

@Thenomain tl;dr "you're too emotional" is a common derailing tactic in debate used against women who express any sort of investment in what they're arguing about. a lot of women who have experienced it or witnessed it a fair amount don't appreciate seeing it because its most common usage is to try and shut them up.

The problem with equating TSing with someone as having an OOC sexual relationship with them is that it's pretty much the foundation for a lot of OOC abuse and manipulation wherein actual problems occur from people assuming their IC relationship with someone extends to OOC and then you've got people behaving with aggressive entitlement, jealousy, etc. in a super inappropriate way. Or literally using the presumed relationship as a tool to be an actual predator. Like, the idea that TS = an OOC relationship of some sort is the cause of huge problems. Thus, when you use the justifications some players use to abuse or misbehave and spread it as an inherent fact of any IC sexytimes -- well. I am honestly surprised at the people who don't understand why several people are super skeeved out right now. Because it seems like such a dangerous statement to make that literally supports the viewpoints of people who want to use TS as a means to control and manipulate others.