#to be fair I only know two characters like this

[thaethiira]

Ok, so, for context I have been playing pretend FOREVER, got into D&D when I was 14 but I straight up wasn't allowed by the other D&D players to play D&D for most of the time I was into D&D because I had boobs and well, D&D is still wildly misogynist irl in my experience, even now I can't really find a group that will let me play--but like... hasn't D&D always been a 'game' where the rules only kick in--the game part only kicks in--during combat? So people who are there to play a game have to wait until combat?

I currently run a game--the first game with more than two players I've ever been in!--and it's basically just me giving my characters a world and characters to interact with, because we don't really do combat. So the rules rarely kick in at all (which makes it a little bit boring and slow, but everyone else is having fun so I guess I'm doing a good job)--and like, from what I understand of Vampire The Masquerade, it's the same thing there--rules only kick in during combat.

Even in a game like Teenagers From Outer Space, the rules only kick in during 'I want to do this and another character--NPC or PC--will resist/contest it', because the rules are there to make things fair with a bit of randomness given by the dice, you don't need them to play pretend, otherwise.

I know there's a lot of new RPGs that aren't about playing pretend fairly, but D&D was always about playing pretend fairly, wasn't it? Genuine question here, because I know my experience of D&D and RPGs generally is strange because of the aforementioned 'wasn't allowed to play was only allowed to read the rulebooks' thing. I know I also never played TSR D&D bc I was 13-14 when 3rd edition was coming out and they were already WotC by then--but that 3e book stated 'the rules are here to solve the type of arguments that come up when playing pretend and to make it fair for everyone' and 'you can use as little or as many of the rules as you want; the rules should not keep you from having fun'

So there is a pretty clear shift in playstyle between TSR D&D and WotC D&D: for better and for worse, D&D 3e introduced the idea of encounter balance, de-emphasized mechanics that had previously encouraged the GM to think of the monsters as real living creatures (reaction rolls, morale, etc.), and it had the effect of making D&D a much more combat-focused game. D&D has always been a game that's opinionated about combat, it's basically the most expressive and detailed form of play regardless of edition, but combat in the TSR editions was not exactly zoomed in and tactical. The WotC editions purposefully made combat zoomed in, granular, and tactical.

And this has had an effect on playstyle: since combat is now the main form of player expression what players actually want is for their characters to get into combat. Because combat is the most fun part of the game. But the game has also changed from the largely amoral dungeon-crawling game into a game of fantasy heroics (even though a lot of the trappings of the amoral dungeon-crawling still remain, which contributes to the dissonance), so you can't just have the player characters going into combat for the sake of it. That would frame the player characters as kind of Fucked Up, and we can't have that in our supposedly heroic fantasy.

What you end up with is a variety of contrivances like "they're bandits," "they're cultists," or, my all-time favorite, "they attacked first" to make the action seem morally justifiable, even though gameplay is still motivated by a desire to fight. The monsters fight to the death and, importantly, can often not be reasoned and negotiated with, partly because combat is supposed to be the fun, engaging part everyone is here to do, but also because if they actually acted like reasonable people it could cause dissonance with the whole "the player characters are the goodest heroes."

As my friend @tenleaguesbeneath once called it: what is actually going on is that the player characters are hunting people and monsters who have been programmed to fight to the death and never negotiate for sport, while justifying it as self-defence.

It's a simple power fantasy, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Sometimes you want to play a morally uncomplicated game about killing guys with cool magic swords. But I think it's also fun to think about what the specific types of monsters players end up fighting reveals about Society the invisible, unexamined ideology lying under the surface that the designers of even modern D&D have failed to examine. And to me it often reads like a frontier justice fantasy. None of that is to detract from anyone's joy of the game, and for me it's just fun to think about and post about this stuff while Still Enjoying the Game, but if someone expressing that opinion makes you feel uncomfortable, why? That's pretty silly imo.

[melverie]

Last post on the entire date ticket thing and then I will forever shut up about it, but I feel like most people arguing in favor of the price tag are just….missing the point on why people are so angry about the date ticket being $30

I think the one thing we can all agree on right from the get go is that everyone in the staff deserve to and should be compensated fairly for their work. And that obviously includes certain features and items having to cost actual money considering the game itself is free

But the thing is, that $30 price tag doesn't just exist in a vacuum

First off, we can all agree that charging something like $3 would have made the ticket sell far better, right? Several people have already pointed out that they can buy a week's worth of groceries with $30 and depending on how much you earn, the date ticket isn't exactly something anyone can just buy on a whim. Again, $3 would have been far more affordable for most people, and I'm sure many more people (myself included) would have been far more willing to spend $3 just to see what the date ticket is like, and maybe also buy the tickets of multiple other characters. But $30 for a single date ticket is a luxury a lot of people just cannot afford, or would rather put into something else. Even if they lowered the price, they'd surely break even and make profit with how many players there are

And judging by its contents, I think it's fair to say that the date itself is not worth $30. And I feel like Solmare themselves know this because why else would they have bundled it with 300 DP? The only reason is to justify this price tag because "look at how much DP we're getting with it tho!!" when that's not the point. It doesn't matter whether the DP are included, because there is a lack of choice here. We have other options to earn and buy DP, but we don't have a choice when it comes to the date ticket itself. Either you pay $30, or you miss out on a feature that many of us have wanted for a while now. And since it's the DP raising the price tag,what you are essentially paying for is 300 DP with a date ticket as your purchase bonus, even though it should be the other way round

And honestly? Considering the price, the only two times it would make sense to buy this bundle is if you were already considering buying DP anyway, or if you are financially well enough off that the current price doesn't matter to you. You won't convince most casual spenders, and you most definitely will not convince a f2p player to pay for this feature

The other thing is that we had no idea what the date ticket actually entailed because we weren't given any information on it. Thanks to people in the community buying and reviewing this feature for others we now know that the date consists of one phone call, a ~10 minute long, partially voiced date story-line and a Majolish background. Except, those are things that Solmare themselves should have told us right as they announced this feature, ESPECIALLY considering the price point. If you don't, you can't complain if people are accusing your company of trying to rip its player base off and of being greedier than the Avatar of Greed himself. But also, that's the thing!

We shouldn't have people in the fandom be the ones to go out of their way to give us basic info on new features, or to even explain certain business decisions in the first place. That's the company's job. Yes, certain explanations should be a given (such as microtransactions existing so that the staff can be paid the money they obviously deserve), but there are other things that should have been explained by Solmare themselves

Open communication with the player base is the key phrase here, and imo Solmare has been doing worse and worse on that front as of late, resulting in several unexplained choices that just seem questionable at best and scummy at worst, as well as a player base that grows more and more disgruntled by the day. And that frustration within the player base shows in the amount of people dropping the game, as well as in the amount of money it's making

People are willing to put their time and money into something they deem a good, quality product with a justified price considering the content. If your player base isn't putting in the money you are expecting, then maybe you should listen to their feedback and re-examine your product instead of overcharging a feature because "look at this thing you're getting extra that no one asked to be included in the bundle in the first place"

Literally part of the reason LaDS has grown to be so successful in such a short amount of time is because they keep making adjustments based on player feedback, even on some minor things. I mean they literally pushed out an update to correct the color of one of the character's tongue in the newest card because people were complaining, like hello!! Imagine Solmare listening to complains as minor as this

Anyway, whether intentional or not, this entire thing just feels scummy, and that's the problem. The choice we have is either "pay 30 bucks per character or miss out on this feature entirely", the price is artificially inflated with the inclusion of DP that we have other ways of getting, romance is slowly fazed out of the story only to now be put behind a heft paywall, we weren't told what we are even paying for exactly in the first place, and there has been a severe lack of proper communication from Solmare that have soured the relationship to the game's fanbase and, most importantly in this context, their customers

No, companies aren't our friends. Yes, they need to make money. Yes, they should pay their employees fairly. And no, we as consumers shouldn't expect nor are we entitled to everything about the game being free because again, the people working on this game deserve to get paid fairly for all the work they put into it

However, people are still allowed to be critical of a company and its decisions, especially when they feel like they are getting ripped off. The 300 DP might soften the blow, but that doesn't stop everything that has happened before from being a slap in the face. That's why people are pissed right now, and honestly it's been a long time coming

[ooooo-mcyt]

There seems to be a running theme with honor and “honorable” kills. Gem and Pearl, scar/jimmy and Grian, even Cleo and bigb with the betrayal. I’m interested to see how the alliances are torn/made with this

Also gempearl divorce

I think the focus on "honorable" kills in many ways comes down to the characters' desire for basic agency.

There aren't many choices anyone can make in this game. They have to play, they have to die. They don't get any choice over being here, over the game mechanics, over their inevitable fates. Any mark of agency characters get is in little things. How they choose to react to things, managing to scrape up some semblance of a 'win' for themselves, or being able to die on their own terms.

Most things in the series can be read through this lens of agency, but the "honorable kills" theme is one of the biggest ones.

Gem knows she has to die, it's part of the game, but there was something traumatic about the end of Secret Life from her perspective. Her team was strong, and then it wasn't, sustaining an injury they couldn't recover along, but continuing to drag themselves along as every single option and choice they thought they had was gone, and Gem died alone, two against one. This season she refuses to have that agency taken away from her, and she resents Pearl for trying, for refusing to give her an honorable fight.

The reason killing Impulse got to Ren so much is because Ren prides himself on his honor. Ren's never truly had much choice in his own life, but one thing he can always choose is to have principals, is to stick to his sense of honor. We see Ren do something he deems dishonorable and immediately make excuses, craft a narrative in which he was led to it, in which it wasn't his fault, in which he never would have done it on his own. Ren creates a boogeyman so he doesn't have to face the thought that his honor can fail. So he doesn't have to face the fact that the desperation of this game can take away one of his only ways of control in his own life.

Grian, when victim to 'cheap' kills, feels like it's a violation of his personal agency as well. He has a chance in a fair fight, or against a well laid trap, and when the kill is silly, well, usually he lets those happen for the bit. But a cheap kill isn't something that can easily be avoided, and it makes him feel helpless. What does it mean if someone can just kill him and he doesn't even have a chance to stop it? Furthermore, Grian practically offered to let Scar in specific kill him, and if Scar took him up on it, that would have been Grian's choice. But instead Scar turned him down and then went for the 'cheap' kill anyways, as if Scar was trying to make him as powerless as possible (scar wasn't, of course, but it must have felt like it)

People locked in an endless looping death game want to be able to feel like they have a choice, like they have agency, and they don't feel right when the little ways they can keep that agency are taken from them.

[jaydude1992]

I'm only referring to the story told by George Lucas (i.e. not Legends or the Disney stuff he was uninvolved with), because I wasn't sure what you were referring to, and because it's gradually becoming the only one I really care for these days. Legends has been decanonized for years now, and while I'll acknowledge that the Disney stuff is official canon, I'm not obligated to ignore how parts of it (i.e. stuff written by Filoni and Headland) are wildly inconsistent with Lucas's story in regards to the Jedi (this goes for the inconsistent parts of Legends too).

If you want to do otherwise, that's fine. If you think those inconsistencies make for a better story, well, fair enough. But again, I'm under no obligation to ignore something being inconsistent with its source material. Especially when the inconsistencies in question relate to parts of the source material I actually like.

In answer to your question, in my mind, what prevents the abuses - at least in Lucas's works and those written by people who actually understand how he wrote the Jedi - is simply that Lucas never wrote the Jedi as characters who would willingly commit their like. In terms of morality, they're on a similar level to Superman; the worst they do is get a little overconfident in their ability to detect and defeat the Sith by the time of the Prequels, and prove willing to compromise on their morals a little for the sake of protecting the Republic's people and soldiers when the Clone Wars begin.

(By "prove willing to compromise on their morals", I refer to the Jedi joining the war effort in the first place, Obi-Wan and the Jedi Council faking the former's death right in front of an ignorant Anakin, and the council tasking Anakin with spying on his close friend and confident in Palpatine. All these things came from a place with good intentions; you could argue that's just another way of saying "the greater good", but I personally think they're a world apart from forcing parents to give up their children in terms of morals).

(I suppose there's also how the council handled things with Ahsoka during the Wrong Jedi arc. I'm not sure precisely what the consequences would've been if they refused to hand her over to be tried as a Republic citizen, but if nothing else, Ahsoka didn't exactly look 100% innocent, and the Jedi had already had two of their number turn out to be Sith supporters (Dooku and Krell)).

Also, this might just be me making assumptions regarding your likely reaction to the above, but I'm also going to state that Yoda and Obi-Wan never told Luke to let his friends die on Bespin, nor did they plan to have him unknowingly kill his father. Yoda and Obi-Wan had no way of knowing what would happen to Luke's friends, but they did believe - not without reason - that Luke wouldn't be able to do much to help them with his miniscule amount of Jedi training if he just flew off to Cloud City. As for killing Vader, it's a plot point that Luke risks falling to the dark side if he does so out of anger and/or a desire for revenge, under which I'd argue "avenging his father" could quite easily fall. My guess is that Yoda and Obi-Wan planned to explain the truth to him when he was wise enough to handle it, but of course Luke's recklessness and Vader himself put the kibosh on that plan.

tl;dr: Writing the Jedi as the kind of people who'd forcibly take children against their parents' will was likely never the intention of Lucas.

When a Jedi takes in a child, it's kidnapping. But when a Mandalorian does it, it's a foundling.

[sototallynormaliswear]

I really don't care for the "true alpha" thing, and there are plenty of other people's posts about why, but I can't stop thinking about what it does to Scott and his character.

like, seasons one and two he's constantly fighting for NO ONE to be murdered, because he believes that you can't justify it and it's wrong. fair enough. this insistence places him at odds with people he might otherwise get along with, solidifying him as an underdog. even his alliance with Derek is tenuous, as Derek sees murder as necessary to keep people safe and Scott doesn't. but BECAUSE he's an underdog he has to work with the people around him and convince them why they shouldn't kill, he isn't powerful enough to stand on his own.

but in the later seasons.... he doesn't have that??

as the true alpha, his power hinges on him not killing people. while it would be unreasonable to say that his former stance is completely GONE, pessimistic fans (like me, hello hi how's your day) can make the case that he doesn't kill because he would be less powerful if he did, at least in part. it COMPLETELY cuts the teeth off his moral argument, which sucks because the show still has at least twelve more moral arguments left.

hes also completely LOST the underdog angle. he and Derek are finally chill, thankfully, but he's suddenly the most powerful cool guy in the area, the first of his kind in years, with super special powers just for him. about a season before he lost a fight with a guy who had been a werewolf for all of two seconds. and you know how before he had to convince other people to join his side and work with his plan? yeah no now he can just yell at them and they'll do whatever he says, magic rules.

No matter how you feel about season one and two Scott, it's undeniable that he is fighting an uphill battle that just kind of plateaus as of Season Three. and I love season three, but I feel like, if it did happen, it should have been closer to the end of the show

(And for all the talk about the McCall pack being weird and unconventional, they still fall in that same power structure that EVERY PACK EVER falls into. I think it would be more interesting if they didn't and their pack is even MORE of a mess to werewolves. take, for instance, the underlying subplot of seasons 1-3 that Beacon Hills doesn't have an alpha (at least a good one sorry Derek) and is there for ripe for the taking. a big reason that Derek wanted Scott in his pack was that he didn't want to be seen as weak or targeted by hunters, even other werewolves. they don't get along but they HAVE TO or else they straight up DIE. But then in 3A they suddenly have an alpha (at least a good one sorry AGAIN Derek) and that plotline is dropped. they're still being hunted, but that anxiety about being a good enough pack is gone. which is weird, right? wouldn't you want to increase that tension?

imagine if they didn't actually HAVE an alpha. They still consider each other pack, but that's not good enough for anyone but them. especially at the start of season four? no alpha, their former alpha has gone MISSING, they haven't told anyone, they have to go get him but every second any of them is away the more their town is in danger, and oh FUCK our former alpha is a TEENAGER NOW?? AND NOW HES BASICALLY NOT WVEN A WEREWOLF??? not only having to deal with the mercenaries and Kate but also other werewolves trying to nudge into their territory?)

[nalooksthrough]

Legion's first three personalities; Cyndi, Jack Wayne and Jemail Karami. Wild to think that David used to only have three of these guys running around inside his head.

[martyrbat]

habeas corpus – detective comics #1086

(ID in alt!)

[blue-eli]

Realised it’s @khoc-week so even though I don’t have the energy to do it daily have this I did a while ago but never posted.

Arxeht my beloved. They came to me in a dream where I was a replica (of multiple people but looked most like Vidar) made by apprentice Nort/Xemnas, who was the fifteenth member of the organisation and also had my knowledge of hit video games Kingdom Hearts and kept getting randomly thrown through space and time.

[the-casbah-way]

"being scottish isn't a personality trait why do you bring it up so much" have you considered that a) where you are born and raised can have a very big impact on who you are and how you speak and what you enjoy b) you are american and it's painfully obvious to everyone around you the second you open your mouth but you just don't see it that way because you assume yourself to be the standard default with no accent or culture. your americanness is just as pronounced as my scottishness and that's fine

[animentality]

I wanted to write NagiReo fanfiction, but the Nagi fans have spoken: I am incapable of writing Nagi Seishiro. So I guess I'm writing anything but NagiReo from now on.

I still ship it, and all, but I'mma let Kaneshiro provide the NagiReo for y'all. I shan't be involved.

But I'm rooting for the girlies.

[kravchikfreak]

i bet you know how these two pairs are the same one ship

and i FUCKING HATE them both for that

shit's gross, i'm actually anwell

i'll rant on my stupid tags but this is important

[sysig]

My ship now (Patreon)

[stupidhany]

Currently obsessed with the second vers Ashley's song from super smash bros and the more I listen to it I gotta agree

The instrumental really reminds me of Pinky and the Brain like the little March melody? A course singing about the main characters and what they wanna do? The little silly musical sounds in between the song? Little like Patb

which also is kinda fitting for Ashley and red in a way?

They have that grumpy character and happy go lucky character trope going on which I love they're so silly

:]

[tea-cat-arts]

How many Kevin enthusiasts actually are there on this website? Cuz there's like 5 of yall I consistently see in my notes on Kevin posts, but I'm kinda curious what the actual head count is

[badgirlcoven-official]

Shoutout to me and the one other person who actually adores Willow's breakdown in ftf but isn't a huntlow fan

[lyricalambrosia]

I love writing normal well adjusted men (aka another snippet of the final chapter of Can You Feel The Sun?, the first two chapters of which you can read here!)