My boyfriend was laid off from his IT job this week.. no warning or anything, the company just decided that this branch wasn't making them enough money because their local clients are mostly non-profit orgs like senior services and stuff like that. So they just closed down the whole office to focus on their other locations in bigger cities.
BF is rightfully pissed off but hasn't shown up at the office to sign the paperwork and help close it up. So the company called ME as his emergency contact person, 3 times! While he has no missed calls from them--why did they call me when it seems they didn't even attempt to get ahold of him? It feels like an overstepping of boundaries tbh!
THEN! Because I didn't answer the phone! They sent police to my door to do a fucking welfare check!! Even the police were confused, but they were like sorry we were asked to come out here so we gotta do our job.
I am so royally pissed off right now
Also freaking out about how we're gonna pay the bills, because that job was our lifeline
Fortunately I talked to the people at the nearby gas station and it looks pretty hopeful that I'll be able to work there, but with my health problems I'm gonna be struggling at 20hrs a week, plus the hourly pay is half what he was making. He's applied for unemployment and is looking for other jobs as well. So we'll probably be ok in the end. But it's the not knowing that's scary :x
3 notes
·
View notes
i feel like the boys’ representation in “it’s a terrible life” is a really accurate and insightful look into how they work on an Instinctual level.
at first it seems like just a funny bit for dean to be the one dismissing the ghost thing, but dean wesson actually fits perfectly into dean’s personality. i mean, think about it. hunter dean is OBSESSED with the job. he lives breathes and sleeps hunting. he’s proud of who he is and what he does, and he enjoys being a part of something. this episode shows how that’s part of dean’s intrinsic personality. he needs order. structure. discipline.
sam is mischaracterized as ‘the emotional one’, but i think dean’s a lot more of a romantic than him. he likes the idea of a stable life, whether that’s hunting or a cushy corporate job. he wakes up at 6am everyday, has a distinct routine and a circle of friends. he does herbal detoxes and drinks frothy rice milk lattes.
life is a package for him. dean likes fitting in. he doesn’t like breaking status quo. he instinctively looks to blend in, whether that’s in a corporate environment or with his father and other hunters. dean likes the idea of family. connection. he needs people, people who are familiar and trustworthy. he’s very community/family oriented. he’s not a lone wolf.
but sam on the other hand, he’s intrinsically in tune with weird frequencies. he’s strange and he picks up strange things. he cares about people and appreciates connection but he values himself and his gut instinct more. he loves sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong. he doesn’t give a fuck about blending in. he didn’t as a hunter so he sure as hell doesn’t in a goddamn tech support cubicle.
sam straight up tells dean that everything about this feels wrong. and you can TELL that dean feels it as well. sam tells him that he thinks he should be doing more, it’s in his blood, he hates everything about this fake life. but dean deflects. no matter how uncomfortable he seems he pushes it down in favour of predictably and routine. even if deep down, he knows its wrong, it takes him a lot more time than sam to admit it.
this shows that sam is more than ‘hunting bad’ and dean is more than ‘hunting good’. it was never about hunting. sam refuses to turn a blind eye. he WANTS to rebel. it’s his nature. he instinctively looks for things that don’t line up and he calls that out. he doesn’t care about the backlash. dean needs stability. he needs people. he needs to feel like he’s a part of something. it’s why he brushes off that feeling of wrongness so quickly at the beginning of the episode, because he’s willing to overlook some of the bad for the benefits.
it’s just like how hunter dean is willing to defend john, defend the grisly violence of hunting, and convince himself into thinking this is his only choice. sam refuses to do that. he instead latches onto that feeling of otherness and rebels even though it costs him family and familiarity.
987 notes
·
View notes
It's always funny to me when a big-name youtuber argues vociferously that souls-like games DO have a difficulty setting, it's Playing The Game Right (leveling, build, using summons, etc), and then later on in the same video will have a fifteen minute long section complaining about how certain boss fights completely invalidate certain builds or require you to drastically alter your style of play, and i'm like... I thought you were in FAVOR of this.
And of course they're not, they just don't understand what a difficulty setting IS anymore, and that's completely fair because I think that most DEVELOPERS don't either, but it means that the criticism they make is always couched in a fundamental misunderstanding of the thing they're trying to criticise (and also usually a complete misunderstanding of where the criticism comes from).
And I want to be clear, I've beaten basically every single Dark Souls game, I beat bloodborne, I played shitloads of elden ring and the reason I didn't beat it was because I got bored, and I've done speedruns and soul level 1 runs of dark souls 3. I'm pretty much the dark souls power player that everyone expects would argue AGAINST having difficulty options.
But.
I've been playing thousands of hours of battletech, and the battletech difficulty screen has been the singlehandedly biggest argument I've had change my mind.
In the game, Battletech modifies difficulty per mission by changing the total health of enemies, changing their skills and experience levels, the usual fare of difficulty curves (although damage is never affected, thank god). But having all these granular options can dramatically change the way the game is played without simply affecting health values or hit percentages.
Toggling mech destruction and lethality means that losing a mech in a mission or having a pilot be knocked unconscious removes them permanently. They're killed, destroyed, you need to go get a new one. That's a HUGE change from the base difficulty where having a mech be completely destroyed in combat just removes the weapon components and costs a ton to repair. Likewise, changing the number of parts required to buy or salvage in order to complete a mech DRAMATICALLY changes the game - the maximum amount of parts you can get from a single mech is 3, and usually you only get 1. Needing 3 parts means that if you're lucky, you could see a brand new mech in a mission, blow its head off, and get one for free. Moving that scale up both means that rare or expensive mechs take much much longer to earn, but also that replacing mechs takes much longer (meaning that losses are even more painful).
Like, every single one of these options can dramatically affect how you play the game or change the feel of it to something much more interesting to you as a player - do you want to play a rogue-like game where you have to save and scrounge to get new mechs, and each mech and pilot is a precious resource you have to protect? or do you want to powerscale fast and constantly get new mechs and rare weapons?
And like, having extremely granular options for gameplay isn't for everyone, but then again, there are the owlcat pathfinder CRPGs that do this same thing, but have a base 'easy-normal-hard' sort of slider that automatically selects certain options, and you can adjust them if you want. If you're not interested in going through each slider you can just say 'I'd like normal please' and the game automatically makes all the selections, but you can also stop and say 'hey actually let me turn on permadeath too' and you can do that.
And I think that when people think about difficulty, they think about the most basic 'health and damage adjustments' sliders, and not ANYTHING else that actually have much more of an impact. I will hit this point to my grave that dark souls would massively benefit from difficulty options like turning off instakill effects (like curse or petrification) or removing the harsh penalty of dying when you can't get back to your bloodstain because a) that's often what drive new players off the most, and b) it doesn't fuckin' matter anyway, all you're losing is souls, the only thing it does is make you have to go grind more to make up for it.
And of course, there are always EXTRA challenge runs people come up with - nuzlocke runs of pokemon, soul level 1 runs of dark souls, hell, when I do Battletech I often add additional challenges like 'no intentional destruction of civilian buildings' or 'each mech must be assigned to a pilot and if one of them is sidelined, so is the other'
But challenge runs aren't difficulty settings, and more importantly there's no way to unchallenge run a game. You can decide to make the game harder for yourself, but you can't make the game EASIER. And when people say that you can, they're lying to you. Like yeah, there builds that are very strong in dark souls, and leveling optimally will make the game easier, but if you don't know what optimal leveling looks like, it's pointless. If you have a deep and thorough understanding of the game, and you check the messageboards, and delve through the wiki, and use a couple of exploits, the game will be easy! And if it's still too hard for you after that? Well, go fuck yourself, you just spent hours of your life doing research only to give up on the game anyway.
And the truth is, most people who argue that dark souls shouldn't have a difficulty slider are doing it out of bad faith, because they have a certain amount of ego riding on 'being good at hard game' as a character trait, and making these games more accessible frightens them because what if being good at dark souls isn't actually getting them into heaven
but also because they're somehow afraid that having extra difficulty options in the game will tempt them into choosing them? And then they won't get the 'true experience'?
Gamers are some of the most fragile people in existence that the mere option of reducing difficulty sends them into hysterics.
80 notes
·
View notes
At this point you've written at least four different roleswap AUs, so I was wondering if you had any thoughts or takes about how a roleswap AU should be? - someone who's planning on making a roleswap AU
Please don't remind me. I'm embarrassed about this. I know I need to write other things. I don't know why the AU concept is so incredibly fun to write. I can't explain it. Roleswaps are very easy to write and a lot of fun and involve being a freak about everything. Who wouldn't write 10 of those bitches.
But yes, as someone whose roleswap AUs are like 9 out of her 51 fics, I feel qualified to talk about this. These are just my own opinions and takes, and other people might do it differently - if you write roleswaps too, feel free to add in your two cents!!
Before sitting down to write literally anything I always figure out the rules of the story. Writing is little more than a nonstop series of decisions, and if you abide by the rules of your story or characters then your decisions will be coherent and cohesive. By rules I don't mean worldbuilding - I mean the internal logic of the story and the characters. "X character will never explicitly say how he's feeling" or "the leads have to both win and lose every encounter".
I find establishing writing rules for roleswaps especially important - it's figuring out exactly how the roleswap works. Here are the ones that I find important, and kind of the process:
Decide what is swapped. Is it more of a universal swap, personality swap, backstory swap, chronology swap, or alignment swap? No matter which one you choose, all of these things are probably going to change anyway, but there has to be one central point for each character that guides your decisions. Are you actually swapping the narrative role in the story, or are you just changing it? You have to be really precise and have a very good idea of what exactly is swapped, and it has to be consistent throughout the story. It can't just (just) work on what you'd like to see, it has to be exactly the same between characters.
Decide the point of divergence. Sometimes that point is pretty abstract (She's a teenager in the 90s instead of the 20s). Sometimes it's much more specific, just one moment (He developed his superpowers at this moment instead of that). The point doesn't have to be immediately obvious, but you should know it - I did a backstory swap ages ago, and it seemed like a complete change, but like 150k in I dropped that a character dropped out of the police academy instead of completing it and that her entire life changed from there. If the swap is more abstract, then maybe it's just a series of smaller decisions - character A has these seminal points in his story, and I'm swapping him with character B, so here's what character B did during these seminal points instead, and how it changed him and his narrative.
Decide who the character is. This might be more personal, but for me, I think of the character as...there is a central tenet of them, of who they are as a person, that does not change no matter what. That's three or four traits of who they are, that you will not change, and that's what makes their swapped life their own instead of the OG dude's. But there's a lot of traits and behaviors around that core personality that's the result of their environment, backstory, and experiences. That's what should change. It's about figuring out how these essential traits + what is swapped + the point of divergence = an entirely different character and story. The roleswap you'll end up with will be a combination of all of these things: how the essential aspects of a character mix with what's swapped to create an entirely new environment and set of behaviors, which cause a chain reaction to create something new. As a writer, you sit down and say, "I'm keeping these parts of the character, I'm swapping out those parts, this new mix changes these points in their backstory, this results in this new person".
This is more of a guideline, but it's the most important to me: your characters have to be recognizable as the character. The reader shouldn't go, "this OC is making some weird choices". The reader should go, "I don't know how, because he's the exact opposite of his canon self in every possible way, but somehow he still feels like my favorite character". This is why you isolate those basic traits before changing the rest - so long as your character is still who they are deep inside, then they still feel like that character. And that's the fun of the story. You're selling something insane, and the reader is buying it.
It's a lot of really heavy character work. You have to really understand the characters you're writing - the less I get the original character, the more issues I'm perpetually having. I tend to fly fast and loose with characterizations, but when writing roleswaps I have to refer back to canon and the source material a lot ("In canon he did X thing, with his newly different backstory how would that decision change?"). The more you're rooted in canon, then the funkier and more divergent you can get.
Personally, I like to play a fun little game I call: how exactly opposite can I make this character until he stops feeling like this character? I Sometimes my goal in writing is "how deeply can I ruin this story". This is not a good game and people should not play it. I find that the lazier I get about getting in touch with the canon character, about keeping track of the canon decisions, and about following these guidelines, then the more difficult a story is to write. If you structure a story well then it's easy to write, and roleswaps are pretty easy. Thanks for the question!
76 notes
·
View notes