Best posts made by Tinuviel

@Enoch said in Is this hobby on it's last legs?:

You only need to go to the Hog Pit to see Arx is the only real representative of the hobby, at least for now

Only if you equate "what we're talking about" and "what exists."

I have a peeve that will be exceptionally relatable.

"Sleeping funny" shouldn't mean half my body is now in pain. I'm not that old!

There is an extraordinarily large gap between "harming" and "offending." Exposing someone to a situation, scenario, or other stimuli that prompt the recall of a traumatic experience is different from making people feel confronted by their biases.

The former absolutely requires clear communication and feedback like @carma's post. The latter is an indication the story the table is trying to tell might not be for you.

@Derp said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@Tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@Derp said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@Tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@Derp said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

ETA: Thirty copies of practically the same report? I thought that was a journal?

That and teaching. Which is what I and @JinShei do.

I would wince for you, but I'm still too relieved that marking doesn't refer to something related to furries.

You think a Skype call is bad, try doing it with a class of inattentive fifteen-year-olds.
Now you may wince.

You just haaaad to go and ruin it, huh?

Well, yes. That's what academics do when they aren't flirting with politicians and businesses for funding.

@arkandel said in Sensitivity in gaming:

I do admit it's surprising to see it spark 'is Arkandel evil?' tangents but here we are.

... you know which website you're on, right? Here people are either entirely good, or entirely evil. We don't do nuance and context here.

@Sunny said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

Sorry folks, apparently my tongue was not quite firmly enough in my cheek for my commentary.

A coder, an editor, and a linguist walk into a bar...

@derp Leading to weird story moments of "Okay, so you're opposed to those guys. Who were doing nothing, really. And you slaughtered them, killed innumerable innocent civilians, decimated the local infrastructure, and are costing us millions in repair bills... And you're saying they are the bad guys?

@Ominous said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@Sunny

I thought it was pretty obvious that you were joking.

Unfortunately, styles, guides, and grammar prescriptivism are very, very, very heated topics in certain circles.

It's important to note that there is a difference between PCs who are antagonistic, and groups that are designed to be antagonistic.

My Ventrue and your Toreador are PCs who have antagonism between them. My Camarilla and your Sabbat are in groups that are designed to be antagonistic. The latter is harder to deal with and would probably require policy, the former is... basically expected in many kinds of games. So OOC communication is an absolute must, and that's basically it.

@Sunny said in MU* Gripes and Peeves:

Nurses are the best.

This is the golden truth in 99.999999% of circumstances.

@derp said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

Going into it with 'well the good guys are clearly going to win, duh' as the starting point is more the problem here, I think.

Perhaps a step before that, going into it with the idea that there are definitely good and bad guys is a problem, too. Sure, some genres basically require it, but it's not absolutely necessary much of the time.

I'm fairly certain we have a politics section for a reason.

I used to really loathe the Super Friends thing. But then I realised that that isn't what I loathe, really. It's when Super Friends is the only thing going, and the internal 'sphere' plot is either non-existent or solely in support of the Super Friends.

@ganymede said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@derp

Honestly, the styles I am referring to are “persuasive,” “analytical,” and “readable.”

In academic writing, I think this is one of those 'pick two' diagrams.

@arkandel said in The Desired Experience:

But for the most part we get out of it what we put into it.

And we can only put into it as much as it can take.

1. Don't advertise, suggest, or recommend a character type that won't see much of the main action. e.g. A punk rock singer that never leaves Earth isn't going to feature much on an episode of Star Trek, no matter how cool they are.

2. If the main driving plot of the game, if there is one, isn't for you then perhaps the game isn't for you. You could certainly enjoy yourself playing whatever in the background, but don't expect that to be the case, and don't whine if you don't get the fun you wanted.

3. Everyone is responsible for everyone else's fun, to a point. If a player mentions that they're not having much fun, then do your best to accommodate them in your play - but if they're tiresome or playing a concept that doesn't really jive well with what you're doing, that's okay. You've made the effort.

Any other points need covering?

I'm sick of having to have an opinion on things. I don't need to have an opinion on fuckedupcountry#12119 or have my human card revoked. I have the emotional capacity to care for about a hundred people, anything more and it's abstract.

Yes, fuckedupsituation is very bad and something must be done. I'm a broke history teacher ten thousand miles away, the fuck am I going to do about it?

Why do I need to constantly talk about a thing, or have an opinion on a thing, or dedicate time out of my life to care about a thing I can't change?

@icanbeyourmuse said in GMs and Players:

I'll totally support it as 'canon'

I definitely misspoke when I made my canon comments, so allow me to correct myself: You can have whatever story you want among players - within reason as we've already agreed. I'm just not going to support it, encourage it, or reward it if you take it to discord or elsewhere. ETA: Because I don't want to encourage it be seen to officially approve of it.

@krmbm said in GMs and Players:

Do you need/want to keep them at arm's reach for some reason?

Yes. When you have to enforce rules, you're not their friend. You need to keep that boundary. Secondly, they're people on the internet, not my friends. You're all not my friends, you're people on the internet. We've spent hundreds of hours together, but I don't know any of you.

The easiest way to solve unemployment is pay everyone a UBI, everyone works two or three days a week. Everyone would work three days, if they're able. Productivity stays the same, wages stay the same (though they should be higher in general anyway) and everyone has time to be creative, see their family, engage in hobbies.

Done.

@sunny said in GMs and Players:

Yeah, it was a highly specific question, because the answer actually matters to me. I was curious how he'd approach that situation, and I got my answer.

I definitely understand and respect that. However, I also understand how a sudden and jarring very specific and targeted question in a conversation mostly focusing on general examples of player behaviour, could feel somewhat like an attack or an emotionally driven thing. Especially when done publicly.

@kestrel