I've certainly purchased books or watched shows because of a game I was interested in (the 100 comes to mind, though I ended up sticking with the show but not that game). I have to be interested in the subject matter in the first place, though. If the book isn't appealing on it's own (or as a thing I'd play outside that one particular game) I generally don't play at all (which, of course, also means not reading).
Also, if you've fucked up, a thing that will NOPE me out with someone real fast is 'Yes this happened but really I was in the right and behaving virtuously for reasons XYZ but I guess I'm sorry you were offended.'
Just do not do that ever.
@caryatid said in Forgiveness in Mushing:
It isn’t that I don’t forgive. I just don’t forget, and if I see the behaviour that made me red flag them in the first place continue then you can bet I’ll avoid the hell out of them. I can politely interact with people who’ve pissed me off. But if they keep on? I’m sure as hell not going to indulge or enable them, even through something as simple as proximity.
It's the forgetting people seem to want a lot of the time, which I'll admit does bother me. I like to think I give second chances pretty regularly, but I'm not going to induce amnesia about f'd up stuff someone has done and, if they do it again, not going to have time for that. Like others have said, I believe people can change, but change is hard and takes a lot of internal work.
Ugh, this is awful. For those of us who knew him better, echoing the 'keep us posted on memorials/stuff we can do to donate, if anything' sentiment.
@arkandel
My understanding is that, because Daredevil's face is masked, he's a LOT easier to stunt double for. Between that and the rushed production schedule for Iron Fist, I don't exactly forgive Finn Jones all his performance sins, but I can see how he was put in a situation where he couldn't really do great work.
@kanye-qwest said in RL Anger:
@thenomain some people think the word bitch should bother me, but it doesn't. IDK, I just can't get mad about it.
Same. I've tried to stop using it but "work, bitch" and "Imma cut a bitch" will always make me smile a lil.
Forewarned is forearmed, as they say.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but none of this surprises me. It certainly explains a lot of seemingly out-of-nowhere hostility, which I'm glad is resolved. I've always seen the perp in question as seeking a lot of validation from this hobby, which is never a good sign, and that's certainly coming to a middle. Maybe we'll all be more critical now, where we should have always been critical.
@apos
I don't personally think the idea of games as permanent and unending is positive for a lot of stories. I feel like the average game has a shelf life of about two or three years best case and staff at least should be realistic about that and structure accordingly. I would welcome staff being upfront but idk if what I want out of a game is what other players want (I hate a solid 50% of my fellow players on a given day so).
@tiredewok
I'm doing a giant replay of the trilogy to psyche myself up for another go at Andromeda (which I was luke-warm on after launch, but do want to return to). Finishing up ME3 right now. The ME games have their flaws, but for FEELINGS I have found no better for me.
I just go back to, I have played on historical games where a certain amount of period-appropriate discrimination was allowed and it wasn't a huge shit-fest. There were female soldiers in TGG campaigns where it was even vaguely historically appropriate (the Spanish Civil War and Stalingrad were the main ones) and it was fine. Largely because that really happened, we just leaned into it and played it up. There were female surgeons in WW1 (another environment where it really happened in a handful of make-shift cases) and part of the emphasis on the healing/medical code was to give female PC nurses something meaningful to do. There were a handful of PoC soldiers in the various campaigns (I played a Sikh dude as one of my bits) and it was OOCly fine. Discrimination tended not to be a thing that was frequently emphasized in terms of gameplay, though tensions between nationalities (which included English/Irish etc) made for interesting RP from time to time (particularly in WW1 where there was a mixing of units in the trenches for variety of characters). The more irritating players there tended to be ones who were focused on the MUD-like aspects of killing NPCs and hitting +shoot rather than doing character-based RP, and they didn't tend to create the sorts of problems being discussed in this thread.
I'm not sure how it'd play today, honestly. That was a good 10 years ago at this point (we are old) and the environment online has changed in a lot of ways. I think it would still work OK on a small game with very focused character types forced to work together in a stressful situation - which was what TGG was - but agree it's a matter of scope. If you're aiming for something bigger, I do think you'd get trolls or people who just wanted to be edgelords in ways that were 'realistic' but unpleasant. I don't think I'd ever blanket-bad IC ignorance, personally, but I also probably wouldn't run a pure historical game at this point in my life.
@wildbaboons
Do 'people here' hate FATE or are there just some vocal posters who do? I have pretty limited familiarity with the system but I know of it and wouldn't NOT play a game that used it.
I hate a lot of things but my hatred is not a reason for anyone who loves them and is willing to do the work of showing players the ropes about them to not make games.
@mietze said in Historical settings:
I would totally support in spirit anyone who'd want to take it on, and I'm sure somewhere there's been a success (TGG?).
I mean, TGG was essentially War Movie Game. It is what I think of as straight historical on the sense that there were no fantasy elements and it followed the arc of real historical events. But war movies and WW2 thrillers are still a genre and that's the level of fidelity it was going for. I feel like it maintained a fairly low stress ooc environment while still achieving a feel of vague historical fidelity, but it was also always a fairly small game (which made it enjoyable). Same with ChicagoMUSH. It was a Gangsters and G-Men game even though it did not have other genre elements, and the feel of those types of movies/stories was paramount over what belt buckles were accurate in 1925 or whatever.
I had positive experiences on these games and would play their like again, but they wouldn't be The Giant Game of the Moment. Idk why the Giant Game of the Moment is even desirable.
It is indeed pretty great once you get used to it. The ares web portal is presently the most functional way I've ever played on mobile.
I mean if someone is routinely taking 15 or 20 minutes to pose without explanation will ask them why, because that is not how I like to play and I probably want to exit that scene if it's not a temporary thing.
@coin
One of my favorite authors (who's done devastatingly lyrical non-fiction along with his fiction work) is Luis Alberto Urrea. He mixes stark description with almost-poetry in ways which I will never match, but which def make me better.
@coin
I also love Hemingway and that style of writing which - along with all of my professional training being in journalism rather than fiction - makes me staccato and kinda boiled down by nature. I sometimes try for more lyrical flourishes but it just feels weird and I dun like it. I do think finding a unique voice through word choice/sentence construction is really fun, though, and reading good and varied authors takes me up a notch. I need to break deeper into my bookshelf.
@lisse24
I find the style of what I'm reading at any given time really creeps into my RP. Which can dry it out when I'm on a big straight non-fiction kick (which I have been lately for whatever reason).
I make a conscious effort to vary the WAY I pose (mixing straight : with ;'s and @emits) but it's easy to fall into ruts. Cool thread idea.
@wretched
Black cats best cats.
I mean, all cats are best cats, but I have a black cat, so I'm partial.
I mean the first Season of Buffy I think is legit bad TV in places. There are reasons for this. Whedon had never run a show before and as I understand it wasn't doing the level of writing that became the norm later, the budgetary limitations weren't managed as well (not that they ever got GREAT but I think they learned to work better within the limitations), it was a shortened season, etc. I think it's an example of a show figuring itself out in interesting ways but those first eps are pretty rough.
ETA: also yeah I just kind of CANNOT EVEN with Xander on rewatch, though 'The Zeppo' all by itself justifies his existence.
I think we kind of forget how much financial risk mitigation was going on in Game of Thrones' first season. Even on HBO money, the talky scenes and offscreen battles kept costs contained in case it didn't work out. It very well could've been something like Rome or Deadwood which, while not failures, became prohibitively expensive relative to their success level at a certain point. I think HBO thought it was a good bet for a number of reasons, but doing fantasy at its scale and quality level was a not-insubstantial creative risk.
It's funny that it's the thing everybody's chasing now (probably with the expectation that it'll be an out-of-the-box blockbuster hit, whereas GoT took awhile to build). I'm morbidly curious which of these series in development will be the biggest boondoggle. Not that I want them to fail but it seems inevitable.