Lianodel @ Lianodel @ttrpg.network

Posts

1

Comments

365

Joined

2 yr. ago

Somewhat off-topic:

I really enjoyed the NeoScum podcast, which is a Shadowrun actual play, but they also had a one-off side-quest in the digital world of Neopets. So I've kind of seen a Neopets RPG in practice, before this bespoke system. :P

It's definitely something that's a part of newer D&D, though it's debatable when it started. It was inarguably a part of 4th edition, I think it was here by 3rd edition, and there's even a case to be made that 2e was headed in that direction with some of the supplements.

Anyway, your dad was right. :P During 2e, that was still a big part of the game. It's part of the differentiation between "old school" and "new school" D&D. Whatever I think of any particular edition, I think both approaches are rad for different reasons. :)

It's just the mismatch of expectations that would be a problem. It sucks to die because you were expecting another epic set piece battle, and it also sucks to try to come up with a clever solution to avoid an encounter just to end up not doing much or getting railroaded.

My favorite part was that Vance, supposedly, wrote about it in Hillbilly Elegy. Reading the book would easily solve the issue once and for all, but no one wanted to.

It's also why the AP article was retracted. They could obviously prove that it's not in the book, but like you said, it would be impossible to prove that he never, at any point in his life, when no one was around, fucked a couch.

...but also, the AP article didn't even involve reading the book. They just used Ctrl+F on key terms because, again, no one wants to actually read that book.

Yeah, we had a near-TPK with our group recently. The rogue picked a lock and opened a door, which triggered a comical amount of explosives. We dealt with the consequences, but it was frustrating because it just kind of came out of nowhere. It didn't seem to be that kind of campaign, y'know? Nothing remotely like it happened in months of play up to that point.

...so I was kind of reading my own experiences into this. :P

Alright, gotcha. Just taking it as a launch point for discussing the game.

Plus apparently situations like this happened in CR recently, so I thought it was about these kinds of situations in general.

For sure, and it is absolutely true.

I just like "weird" because it only works one way. For people who value individuality and diversity, it doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation. For people who value conformity, it's a devastating insult. Apparently Ben Shapiro went on Megyn Kelly's show to cry about it, which is great.

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.