Lianodel @ Lianodel @ttrpg.network

Posts

1

Comments

359

Joined

2 yr. ago

Just to get it out of the way, I don't watch CR, so I don't know if this is a specific reference, and am just speaking about D&D in general. :)

Kind of inevitable with most D&D games. If you design adventures around having a series of more-or-less balanced encounters, almost always combat, where player characters are expected to be stressed but not generally killed the vast majority of the time... both the players and their characters are going to have the expectation that they can just do that.

So you need to manage those expectations. Make it clear up front, and either run the game so that death is a real threat more of the time, or find other ways to make it crystal clear when it is.

(Or just don't make things lethal and find other consequences for failure. Or whatever you'd like, my point is just to get folks on the same page.)

Yeah, that's true.

It's just that based on prior arguments I've had, they're just so agitated by thinking things through. even if you put aside the overt heinousness, they just wave away the collateral damage, dismissing them as trivial details as though the whole fucking point of policy is the effect those policies will have. It's partly that they're advocating for awful things, but also frustrating that they are too willfully ignorant to realize how bad their own arguments are.

That's what I found funny about it. It's something that could have been resolved in an instant of people said either "Yes, it's on page whatever whatever," or "We just read it, and no, it's not there." It took longer to resolve because of how few people have read it recently, or were willing to read it now.

If only the people who supported regressive, dumbass positions like JD Vance's could be swayed by thinking about things for even a few fucking seconds.

Totally understood, and I apologize for implying you might have. It was not my attention. I just meant that, even though it's something I avoid jumping to conclude, it does happen, and there's reason to believe it's the case with Rowling. She's got issues. It doesn't absolve her of anything, but there's a little pity in my condemnation.

Yeah. I know that calling bigots secretly closeted is problematic, but IIRC she has outright said that, if she were a young person today, she would question her gender identity.

It's really the crux of a lot of issues with D&D, from table problems to game problems to publisher problems.

JK Rowling did that not too long ago. (She didn't call it Jewish, but absolutely called it lies and propaganda that trans people and trans researchers were early targets for the Nazis and victims of the Holocaust.)

I don't say this to obsess over the Harry Potter author, but to point out that you don't have to go cherry picking to find this shit. She's a prominent person using her platform to spread bigotry and misinformation.

And as a player who wants to do that too, I keep in mind that the DM is also playing the game and wants to have a good time.

I know, right? But it's not. You can check it out here.

I forgot to mention. He thinks that there is no game, besides LARPing, that could possibly appeal to women (who he consistently refers to as "females"), so it is a waste of time for anyone to try.

I am perfectly happy with how I presented myself, actually. And I think you also revealed a lot about yourself, too. If you're happy with what that is, then that's all there is to it.

I do think it's worth pointing out that the thing that really seemed to set you off was asking you the same question you asked me. I answered it easily, and you took great offense while hurling insults and misrepresenting positions I've already put down in words. Why should I get into the facts when you don't really care about the facts, or what I have to say?

If the question of whether Israel killing civilians is bad (not even unjustified, not even criminal, just bad) bothers you... maybe that's a good thing. I certainly have no problem supporting Palestine while condemning Hamas, or supporting Jews while condemning Israel. It's possible you just didn't want to voice an unpopular position, but maybe it bothers you that you can't say "yes, it's bad." If that's the case, keep pulling on that thread. I think you could use some self-reflection, especially given this last post. I'm sorry, but this was a lot of the pot calling the kettle black.

I sincerely hope you have a better tomorrow. I know you're angry and frustrated, but I hope you can find peace and understanding.

Alright.

Firstly, I think a lot of how you're framing the pro-Palestine protests is either unfair or inaccurate. That's not to say that you are being unfair or inaccurate, but the sources where you get your information might be. (I will agree that antisemitism is on the rise, and demands a response. I just see more of it from the right, even from Zionists who either want to remove diasporic Jews or support a model of an ethnostate). So, if you don't draw a distinction between supporting Palestine and supporting Hamas, there's no conversation to be had, because we're not really dealing with what protestors do, say, or believe. While you compared this to MAGA, it's the exact same rhetoric used by MAGA to attack BLM, which itself mirrored the rhetoric used against the Civil Rights Movement.

But it's also not worth getting into the weeds unless we can find some common ground, so I'd like to ask you the same question again: Is it bad when Israel kills civilians?

So Hamas killing civilians is a bad thing too?

Yes, obviously. Why do you ask? Since you asked, I may as well ask, is Israel killing civilians a bad thing?

Gonna start calling out people showing support for Hamas at protests?

Sure, if you see them, kick them to the curb. Do you agree that there's a difference between supporting Palestine and supporting Hamas?

It's extremely frustrating to hold the apparently controversial opinion that killing civilians is, consistently, a bad thing.

Well alright.

Up front, I want to put out that I try not to overuse "tankie" when there are more specific criticisms to make, so I'm more likely to call out campists, or accelerationists, or terminally online do-nothing poseur-revolutionaries. I don't think not voting makes someone a tankie, but it's a position that seems, subjectively, to be popular in these overlapping circles.

With that out of the way, my problem with tankies is that they tend to dismiss any criticism over the use of force. They'll quote Engels, but rather than view violence as a necessary evil in certain circumstances, it's something to be simply dismissed without a second thought, or even celebrated so long as they support the cause—and if that person is a campist, they aren't necessarily supporting a good cause.

The US has absolutely, indisputably backed uprisings across the globe, especially in the global south, but it's also just an easy accusation to throw behind any movement to justify cracking down.

On top of that, you mention that it's a fight against the ruling class, which is true... but vanguard parties are also, by definition, a ruling class. The idea is that it's a necessary evil to eventually achieve a communist future, but nonetheless, they're a ruling class, and ruling classes have vested interests in maintaining their own power. I can see the argument for it, and can't deny the success of MLM organizing tactics as used by groups like the Black Panthers. However, great revolutionaries may or may not be great leaders, or maintain the ideals of the revolution.

Speaking of US-backed uprisings, and financial oppression via the IMF and World Bank, the economic ideology underpinning a lot of this comes from the Chicago School, especially chief ghoul of the capitalist death cult, Milton Friedman. You know who invited Friedman to consult on their economy? China. They liberalized their economy, and created a class of billionaires. Are they not the ruling class, and deserve our opposition for betraying a socialist revolution? You might have an argument to make against this, but as someone who opposes "tankies," you must understand, that the way it looks is that authoritarians are simply celebrating authoritarianism, and giving up entirely on the communism side.

If you don't support violent oppression from the state without reservation, you might not be who people are talking about when they talk about tankies, it may not actually describe your position, and you may not want to throw in with the kinds of people who aren't bothered by any brutal regime so long as they have the right aesthetic.

What, in your view, makes you a tankie? And what do you think people mean when they use the term critically?

For those wondering if Gygax grew beyond this kind of thinking, no, he didn't. There's an infamous forum post of his from 2005 where he calls himself a "biological determinist," and says that "females" are generally incapable of enjoying RPGs as much as men "because of a difference in brain function." Could it be that, for some reason, the women he played with just didn't enjoy the games he ran? No! It must be that RPGs are simply beyond their female brains!

Also, anyone have links to a copy of the issue of Europa cited in the article? I'd love a primary document to cite in the future.

As someone who got burnt out on D&D, all these updates just seem like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

"I want actual DM support, a commitment to better supplements, a working CR system, faster combat with more interesting choices, a clear creative direction..."

"How about balance tweaks to the player classes?"

Ugh. Pass. I'll just try out Pathfinder 2e next time I'm in the mood for running this style of game.

And remember how they made a big deal about Bernie's age in 2020? They asked for medical records, and even after getting letters from two or three doctors, that wasn't enough. It was like the birthers all over again: when they got what they asked for, they moved the goal posts and wanted the long-form documents.

Meanwhile, not a peep about Biden, who is Bernie's junior by fourteen fucking months, as if that made all the difference.

And then, four years later, it wasn't an issue anymore. Just run the guy again.

On top of that, the DNC would condescend to anyone left of center about electability.