Posts made by The Sands

@Ghost said in Carnival Row:

People are more keen to roleplay oppressed characters so long as it's not left to the players to be the ones who are plying said racism/oppression.

So are you going to say that no one can play a human? Because those (in general) are the one's plying the racism/oppression. That seems like it would immediately cut out anyone wanting to be in the 'constable' faction (since I can't recall seeing any non-humans among their ranks). Are you saying that all humans PCs must be enlightened and view the non-humans as equal? What about playing non-humans like Mr. Agreus who seem to have some pretty strong issues with humans (even as he strives to be accepted into human society). Is it 'ok' for them to be racists since they are the minority? And exactly how will my Mr. Agreus expy be able to seem like he's got valid reasons for his view of humans when every human PC he meets is genuinely nice and understanding as required by the Terms of Service?

Yes, I do recognize that steps need to be taken to make sure that the IC and OOC lines don't get blurred (and because of the setting I think it is absolutely critical that everyone understand the rules being put in place to prevent that blurring) but I think saying that players can't engage in it at all is pretty much going to gut a lot of the setting.

I think before this conversation goes too much further some questions of definition need to be dealt with.

For instance, @Auspice's definition of "Theme" seems to incorporate some kind of common goal for all characters. On the other hand my definition of "Theme" is simply the general setting. There could be a common goal (such as in Battlestar Galactica) but that isn't necessarily the case.

The final definition we settle on doesn't actually matter. I'm happy to yield the position as long as the majority of other people prefer @Auspice's definition. The only things I would suggest is that A) someone doesn't just get to dictate what a term means (beyond perhaps writing something like 'in this case what I mean by X is <blah blah blah>' where X is not a term where we have already settled on a definition) and that B) if we settle on a term such as Theme and decide that it must include a common goal we then also settle on a term for when it lacks that common goal (perhaps referring to that as Setting rather than Theme).

If we can't manage that it makes the conversation super fragmented because when @Ganymede talks about Theme I have to dig through posts to figure out what @Ganymede's definition means. Even worse, when @Ganymede gets into an argument with @Auspice about Theme it will almost always turn into a complete mess because they aren't even talking about the same thing.

@Arkandel said in Carnival Row:

But as with other similar interesting settings the question when it comes to making a game out of them is what players would be doing.

@Runescryer already hit a lot of the highlights. You've also got people trying to build political power, people trying to build up a mercantile business, people trying to survive with the Wolf's Curse, and soldiers dealing with PTSD.

I don't need a game to tell me what my character should be doing. I mean, sure, that's fine when I'm playing on a tabletop and there's only one ref and he needs to keep the group moving in at least a somewhat unified direction, but for a MU* setting all I need is the opportunity to be able to do things, and Carnival Row seems to have that in spades.

@Runescryer Just because my OCD makes it really hard to let misstatements sit, this isn't an RPG. It is a supplement for an RPG. You will need a copy of the Cypher system to play it.

Unfortunately I'm not an enormous fan of the Cypher system. While I love a lot of the aspect of what MC has written (I think the setting for the Strange is incredible and would play the Hell out of a Strange MU*) the system feels a bit too stripped down for me.

@Sockmonkey Yes and no. When it is badly done it is certainly all appearance and no function, but this is largely true of any genre.

As an example you could argue that the situation fae is just 'all appearance' and they offer 'no function' that can't be accomplished by framing the story in the modern age with refugees from real countries. However, since that aspect of the story is done well what you are left with is more a feeling that they've used them as a way to sort of 'reframe' modern day issues to cause people to think rather than just slapping a layer of paint over them.

@Ghost The correct response is:

@tek The definitely are. I just wasn't picking up on the commentary about immigrant/refugees until you pointed it out (and it's a little embarrassing to me that I didn't get it until then).

I've finished the series and while I was able to spot the 'big bad' several episodes before the end there were still other good reveals that I hadn't seen coming.

@Wizz said in Good TV:

TBH it's arguably hardly steampunk at all. Aside from one flashback scene with zeppelins, I can't think of anything that's not just Industrial-era tech, and it's not like anyone's waltzing around with a ton of extraneous brass buckles and wearing goggles on their top hats or whatever.

There's a steam-powered monorail that runs through the center of the row. We even see people who appear to have jobs building/maintaining it. We get the zeppelins that you mention and rifles with some scopes that look rather odd.

Which is sort of my point. Half the time when it seems like it would be appropriate for steampunk (such as a scene where there are multiple carriages) we get nothing and it becomes easy to forget the other steampunk elements we've seen. Then other times we get these elements that remind us and we end up wondering where those elements were earlier.

Again, it isn't so much that I'm really pro-steampunk. It's more to do with it just feeling like it was just sort of half-assed and kept being forgotten by the set designers. I would have been completely happy with them leaving out all of the steampunk elements.

I will give one 'quibble' to Carnival Row, they introduce a sort of steampunk aesthetic early on and it runs through the series in the background but then never really seems to do anything beyond being window dressing.

To be clear, I am neither pro-steampunk (why couldn't the series have had more!) or anti-steampunk (why did they introduce this!). I would probably have been just as happy with the series if they had leaned in a bit more or if they had totally done away with it. It is just that this sort of half-way state feels more like something unnecessary that was tacked on and it's a little distracting.

(edit: Actually, a second even more minor quibble is I don't like the wings for the pixies. One minute they are stiff dragonfly-like wings and the next moment they are flopping around. Then suddenly they have some ability to curve and curl them. Yes, I know that there's magic in this world as well as science so I suppose that their anatomy doesn't have to actually 'work', but again, this sort of 'we are going to take the easy way by just doing whatever we want with them' is distracting to me and shows a certain carelessness in writing)

@tek said in Good TV:

Carnival Row is my everything. It's a steampunk fantasy sort of Syrian refugee allegory with a bisexual protagonist and the costumes and the aaaaaaaaa

I've never had my tastes pandered to so hard with media before. Is this what it's like to be a straight white man? If so, daaaaamn.

It really is good. I thought they were aiming more for a 'black in America' vibe (N.B.: I am a cis white male so this isn't any kind of transference to make it apply to me) but I thought they did a really good job with it.

I'm on the last episode and just realized that as the series progresses Domby's face keeps getting more and more messed up. Now I want to rewatch it as sort of a 'Domby's Greatest Hits (To His Face)'. I think with a little practice you can easily identify where in the series any scene with Domby is by looking at his injuries.

@Wretched It's a very uneven article.

From what I've read in the past it has its core facts correct (Arneson created D&D on top of the rules for Chainmail by Gygax and Perren, they had a falling out after about a year, Gygax was difficult to work with) but there are secondary facts that seem wrong (which makes me believe that the majority of the 'research' for the article was interviewing Kuntz). Some of his conclusions seem badly supported and even biased (for a lot of the article he seems to be trying to say that Gygax shouldn't be given any credit whatsoever for D&D, yet he basically writes that it took Gygax to make "a publishable game system" with the emphasis from the author).

The author might have given some thought about his source as his source claims to be "the first 'dungeon master' " even though Arneson ran the first games.

For all the 'knocking' of the article I might be doing I think it does do a good job with the core facts at a basic level. It's just that, like I said, I think there's a big problem with bias (possibly from Kuntz skewing the author's view) so take some of its conclusions with a grain of salt.

And if you find the article interesting you might want to look for Of Dice and Men: The Story of Dungeons & Dragons and The People Who Play It. I read it a couple of years ago.

@Ganymede said in Good or New Movies Review:

Come on, people, Asian people are wise; that's why they let Disney essentially borrow their IP for a bit. Meanwhile, white people are dumb; that's why Fox gave up their IP without letting Disney attach their cash-cow to it first.

Actually, I think part of the reason Sony may be biting back is because they realized that Marvel/Disney has put them in a bad (but not unfixable position). Marvel/Disney set things up so they can easily move on with without Spider-Man while leaving Spider-Man in a position that is really hard to move forward (depending on how contracts were written Sony might not even be able to utter the names 'Nicholas Fury', 'Tony Stark' or 'Shield' in the next movie. Considering how instrumental they were in the previous two movies that could make writing a script really freaking hard).

In the case of Fox it wasn't them being 'dumb'. They decided they were done with movies and wanted to get out clean. Considering what we are seeing right now between Sony and Disney/Marvel that's not looking like a dumb choice.

@Coin said in Good or New Movies Review:

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but while Sony Pictures is only part of Sony, it's like, the largest part, when it comes to net worth, by far.

I'm honestly not sure but I suspect it is not the largest part. The amount of electronics that Sony sells across the world is pretty staggering.

The truth of the matter, though, is that it doesn't matter how big Sony Pictures is in relation to the rest of Sony. It could be a small fraction. The point is that Sony itself is a good deal bigger than Disney (by about 30%).

Ask yourself this, if someone who earned significantly less than you do tried to buy one of your children's toys how likely do you think that they would be able to make you an offer so great you couldn't pass it up?

Remember, we aren't talking about some rich person offering you a million dollars for your child's toy. We aren't even talking about someone who earns close to what you earn. This is someone who earns about 75% of what you do per year.

@Coin said in Good or New Movies Review:

Eventually, Disney will get tired of this shit and just buy Sony, like they did 21st Century Fox. This strikes me as two very large companies calling each other's bluff; except one company is only large in comparison to any company except the one they're facing. Sony wants to believe it has weight and can move at the same financial level as Disney, but it can't.

Total revenue for Disney last year was about $59.4 Billion.

Total revenue for Sony last year was about $78.1 Billion (remember, Sony Pictures is only one part of Sony).

Disney isn't going to force Sony to do anything they don't want to do (and that includes selling the IP that Sony owns).

This reminds me of when people thought VRML was going to catch on and they kept referring to it as 'vermel'.

My response was that I didn't think it was going to overtake 'hutumel'.

@Wretched said in Dead Celebrities 2019:

When that many people can all get together and agree on something....

it's probably wrong.

@Wretched said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:

@Auspice

@Derp said in RL Anger:

@Ghost said in RL Anger:

...when the person in front of you in line at the coffee house orders 9 different drinks during morning rush.

That person is almost assuredly an intern or a secretary.

Which means they are possibly already in Hell.