|
So, who's the pedophile who gave RPZip the Big Red Custom Title?
PixelScum fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Nov 1, 2013 |
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
Stallion Cabana posted:I don't think that's outlandish at all. They have always taken a lot of stuff off of the WW forums, especially, and those things are basically a massive loving blowjob echochamber Whenever the WW forums are critical, the writers threaten to leave (or they leave.) Same as how we stopped seeing hatewheel here after the Abyssals preview.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
Heart Attacks posted:Whenever the WW forums are critical, the writers threaten to leave (or they leave.) Same as how we stopped seeing hatewheel here after the Abyssals preview. I think there's a fine line between critical and insulting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
Stephenls posted:I think there's a fine line between critical and insulting. In the world of criticism and writing, there's very little difference. I could write you a 'clean criticism' and I could write you something that is clearly insulting but very few critiques are going to be completely free of insult, particularly when all people are to some extent sensitive to criticism. How they choose to respond to that sensitivity is their business; I don't think Holden or Hatewheel are under obligation to come here and get chewed out on a regular basis and I encourage them to exert that right. There is, after all, only so much energy you can pour into trying to play PR goalie and that isn't fun even when you get paid for it as a full time job. What bugs me is the notion that 'the community' of SA or any other forum is responsible for keeping certain elements around. We aren't a single entity, we can't police ourselves, and the notion that we could do so creates an environment that is actively hostile to criticism - as is the case on the WW boards, where people have been known to fear that criticism is going to turn the writers off. I don't think the writers are responsible for that either, mind you, it's just an unfortunate state of affairs when your most vocal posters either shun criticism or force the VIPs to shun the community.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
Stephenls posted:I think there's a fine line between critical and insulting. Whether you find it critical or insulting, every time one of the writers says, "Maybe we'll just leave!", the willingness that your fans have to tell you when you're doing stuff they disapprove of decreases, and their perception of the location of that line moves further. It's gotten to the point that on the official forums, any criticism of the game or design process seems to have a mod stepping in to threaten bans and a clan of regular posters come in to remind everyone that This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things. If you feel like maybe I'm targeting you over this: "You want to come around here and hurtle abuse at the team for our choices, maybe we'll come around less, eh?", maybe I am a little bit -- mostly because that guy wasn't being in the least bit abusive, but he was disagreeing with you, and you decided to shut the discussion down with "Keep it up and I'll leave altogether!" Am I maybe looking at the mod team, who immediately responded to the one guy disagreeing with the design process by telling him to stop posting as maybe part of the reason that people see the WW forums as a circle jerk? Yeah a little bit. Is this all exacerbated by the fact that people are treating him like he just opened fire in an orphanage when the worst thing he did was use the word 'bullshit'? Yep, definitely; because the WW forums will agree with the writers on everything because look at what happens if they don't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 07:46
|
|
|
I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to reply to that, Heart Attack, since you've cited a specific instance of a thing as evidence of a general trend but I am unclear whether referencing it directly to dispute your assertion will violate a rule against cross-forum drama, or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 08:00
|
|
|
Actually, I've figured out a nonspecific response that should be clear to people who know what Heart Attack is talking about, but which doesn't reference anyone by name and, as a bonus, is applicable in the general case. I love criticism as a rule -- I'd say "I prefer RPGnet to the White Wolf forums" as a way of expressing that, if it didn't sound so hollow on account of me and Holden being mods at RPGnet. What I and Holden and John respond badly to is mockery, especially mockery delivered as a punchline to criticism. I appreciate well-reasoned arguments for why a creative decision I made is bad (as well as arguments for why a creative decision I didn't make myself, but currently support, is bad -- some of the observations about the less-than-ideal elements of the Lover Clad voiced here were useful and are being put to use), but when that criticism is revealed as a credibility setup so the person making it can win cool points from observers via witty insults or snide sarcasm, I reach for the report button, because that's the point where it becomes apparent the critic isn't interested in dialogue. I and the other writers only threaten to leave when it becomes apparent that the people we're responding to are not interested in discussing things, but are trying to win points off us. I think calling the White Wolf forums a blowjob echo chamber is hyperbolic but I admit it's more accurate than I'd like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 08:22
|
|
|
Stephenls posted:I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to reply to that, Heart Attack, since you've cited a specific instance of a thing as evidence of a general trend but I am unclear whether referencing it directly to dispute your assertion will violate a rule against cross-forum drama, or something. I don't know either. I know there's a rule about cross-forum drama at the white wolf forums, but I don't think there's anything like that here. I guess if there is here and I broke it, that's my  .I'm not trying to give you a hard time though. My opinion is, you should post wherever you want, and if you don't want to, you shouldn't. I don't think that the whole "We might not come back!" thing is tasteful, but I mean, whatever, your prerogative. I appreciate it when you guys do stop by -- here or there -- to post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 08:23
|
|
|
Heart Attacks posted:I don't know either. I know there's a rule about cross-forum drama at the white wolf forums, but I don't think there's anything like that here. I guess if there is here and I broke it, that's my See my other response.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 08:26
|
|
|
You guys are free to talk about whatever, although understand that posting about posting posts on other forums is for most folks not terribly gripping but hell, it is not like there is a game for Exalted to talk about yet so go nuts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 13:00
|
|
|
Stephenls posted:See my other response. I'll maintain: Everyone on the internet learns what discussions are worth engaging and which aren't. I think the suggestions of leaving~ don't really help things as much as they foster a really undesirable community attitude (one that, while maybe less hostile to the writers, is maybe less conducive to a pluralistic community than a monolithic one.) Heart Attacks fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Nov 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 13:59
|
|
|
Stephenls posted:I think calling the White Wolf forums a blowjob echo chamber is hyperbolic but I admit it's more accurate than I'd like. I will totally admit it might have been. but I say that as someone who has been on the forums for a decent chunk of time, who is a friend of a mod, and stuff. When I go on the WW forums, I see an attitude similar to the one on, of all things, the Nexus Mod sites. If you are a well liked member of the community (Or a writer), you get given lavish, unending praise for how awesome you are and how everything you write is beautiful. If someone goes against that, they get yelled at and shouted at for rocking the boat, and the mods will generally take your side. Not because they necessarily agree with you, but because the way of the forums is to go after the nail that sticks out, and in an environment where critiquing something gets you yelled at, the person doing the critiquing is causing the poo poo storm of everyone else, and it's just easy to go after them. Everyone will generally get warned, but it usually ends up feeling like there's more pressure on the guy who complained. There's probably a better way to say this, but I'm not sure how to. And to be fair, there are some people who just complain. They don't critique, they just whine and bitch. If they do that, I think you're perfectly fine to ignore them. If they just say 'I hate this' without explaining why, they aren't actually offering anything major, usually, so I think it's fine for people like that to go 'I don't have to respond to you.' You can point this out with non-writers too. When Chai Tea did that look at stuff from the Earthscorpion Silver Infernals, a ton of posters basically called her(?) stupid and got mad at her. Eventually they turned around and started to agree with her (Because she's a writer, also Holden and Hateweel agreed), but that topic was super toxic for awhile because rather then being a discussion it was 'You don't like this? You're a fuckin retard!' That's what I mean by a 'blowjob Echo chamber'. It's this thing where saying anything bad gets you in trouble with the greater community, forcing the mods to come down on you to attempt to restore some semblance of order. At the same time, when the writers say something, the mods generally have to come down on the side of the writers instead, plus the writers can leverage their position of 'We make the goddamn book. We can just leave.', and eventually people just kind of pretend they always agreed with whatever the Writers said, even when they were arguing with them before. I might have been hyperbolic to call it a 'blowjob echo chamber', but I think we can both agree it is somewhat like this. Stallion Cabana fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Nov 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
I just wish Morke hadn't cut the gently caress out over creepy ghost rape. Doesn't make any sense. And I still am mad that Holden got banned here before I could bust his rear end up for calling the Inka "barbarians."
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
If you're going to discuss a specific post made elsewhere on the internet could you at least link it because no one here wants to wade through the cesspit over on the WW forums just to find it. I'm not going to argue about this but I will say that the attitude of "Be nice to me or I'm taking my ball and going home" just fosters a great big echo chamber and that's really not going to help make the book better, even if you guys enjoy the ego stroke.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
Heart Attacks posted:I'll maintain: Everyone on the internet learns what discussions are worth engaging and which aren't. I think the suggestions of leaving~ don't really help things as much as they foster a really undesirable community attitude (one that, while maybe less hostile to the writers, is maybe less conducive to a pluralistic community than a monolithic one.) Well, yes, but from my perspective it goes like this: When I consistently begin to encounter responses that make me want to leave, I can leave or I can attempt to discourage them. Or I suppose I could "man the gently caress up" or something but that assumes I have a duty to engage in activity I dislike. As a writer, the most effective method I can use to discourage them is simply make it clear that I will leave unless it stops -- this has the benefit of being low-effort on my part as well as essentially honest and more likely to succeed than any other method of persuasion I could attempt. Since I would rather stay than leave, why would I dismiss that option and try to discourage them with methods that are higher-effort, less essentially honest, and less likely to succeed? This may be abuse of privilege of some sort, depending on how you look at it. Also I'll admit there's a sort of tragedy of the commons effect that happens when all the writers start doing that, but there is also a tragedy of the commons effect when you just let everyone on a semi-anonymous Internet forum say whatever they want without attempt at censuring the people who are consistently provocatively negative. The tragedy of the commons is really hard to escape. I'll say again, my favorite Internet community is RPGnet, and that's been the case since long before I was modded up over there. This place is pretty good too, though. (I think corporate-sponsored one-topic community forums for very popular properties might just be inherently more difficult to manage well. Exalted forum may be suboptimal but I'll take it over, say, the WoW Blizzard forums, based on their rep.) Mexcillent posted:I just wish Morke hadn't cut the gently caress out over creepy ghost rape. It does when you consider that he was already starting to experience the pain in his ear that would eventually turn into the current we-don't-know-what-it-is nightmare he's going through right now. Mexcillent posted:And I still am mad that Holden got banned here before I could bust his rear end up for calling the Inka "barbarians." Do you mean the culture with the name more commonly spelled "Inca," or am I missing something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
I imagine he means Tawantinsuyu, the hegemonic empire formed by that culture, actually. There was some Explanation Of Barbarism As It Pertains To Lunars post at some point, and maybe Holden said some dumb poo poo. I can't rightly recall. The idea of Tawantinsuyu being 'barbaric' by any stretch of the term would be incredibly laughable, so I hope he didn't say anything along those lines. I have some problems with periphery states being labeled as barbaric in any case, but Tawantinsuyu being referred to like that would be bugnuts insane.
BryanChavez fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Nov 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Stephenls posted:Well, yes, but from my perspective it goes like this: When I consistently begin to encounter responses that make me want to leave, I can leave or I can attempt to discourage them. Or I suppose I could "man the gently caress up" or something but that assumes I have a duty to engage in activity I dislike. As a writer, the most effective method I can use to discourage them is simply make it clear that I will leave unless it stops -- this has the benefit of being low-effort on my part as well as essentially honest and more likely to succeed than any other method of persuasion I could attempt. Since I would rather stay than leave, why would I dismiss that option and try to discourage them with methods that are higher-effort, less essentially honest, and less likely to succeed? I completely agree with this psychological imperative, honestly. It's your work, your time, and your stress, so you can choose where and what to engage. The problem really is the warning. Rarely is it more than a handful of posters who are doing the antagonizing; if you threaten to 'leave', you're making your presence - which most people want - the responsibility of a couple of people. Or, as is the case over at WW, the whole community (or at least the heavy hitters) begin to see it as their responsibility to keep the place 'safe' and that's just no fun for anyone. In some ways I'd rather see you ignore people you don't like or just stop engaging for a few days rather than post your warning because that's the part that turns people off. But I'm really just glad you're here posting at all, so thank you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
Not really related to this topic, but I'm interested in Goonpinions. My players have recently ended up resulting in the creation of an Exalted of Arilak- their actions, mostly, not them-, so she can have a presence outside of her Sanctum. How strong do you guys think such an Exalt would be? I was imagining somewhere around a DB, but do you think they'd be a bit stronger? I realize the whole 'removing tiers' and stuff is happening for 3E, but a solid idea of 'vaguely this' would be nice. I'm imagining that, similar to Arilak, who can take the forms of some of her pets, he has charms that are essentially 'clusters' of charms based on her pets. I'm imagining basically when he Exalted he got one charm from a handful of them, and can learn new ones, but learning other charms from the same cluster involves using the ones he has, to represent growing closer to that being. For example, if he had a cluster of Charms base on Tyrant Lizards, he could take something like 'Tyrant Lizard's Hide' at Exaltation, or learn it later, but if he did he couldn't learn 'Tyrant Lizard Biting' or whatever until he used the first charm a few times. But I wasn't sure how strong to make him, relative to current Exalts. I'm not imagining a Solar or even a Lunar or whatever, but maybe around an Alchemical.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
BryanChavez posted:I imagine he means Tawantinsuyu, the hegemonic empire formed by that culture, actually. There was some Explanation Of Barbarism As It Pertains To Lunars post at some point, and maybe Holden said some dumb poo poo. I can't rightly recall. The idea of Tawantinsuyu being 'barbaric' by any stretch of the term would be incredibly laughable, so I hope he didn't say anything along those lines. I have some problems with periphery states being labeled as barbaric in any case, but Tawantinsuyu being referred to like that would be bugnuts insane. Holden's post about barbarism and Lunars is here. (Note to self: Have Rand archive that on Chancel Aleph so it doesn't go away when the existing CCP-owned forums shut down as part of the migration to the new Onyx Path forums.) General consensus on the White Wolf forums and RPGnet was that it was an insightful, promising essay. General consensus here was that it was laughably terrible and evidence of ignorance and cultural bigotry on the part of the Exalted designers. I am not sure why, because it's evident to me that Holden was talking about barbarians-as-considered-barbarians-by-fantasy-fans (i.e. mostly white male nerds). The Inca count as "barbarians" in that context because they use a subset of the aesthetics that the majority of our audience associate with barbarians -- and, keep in mind, this is a group of people who argue that the barbarian class in D&D should be called the barbarian class, because that's more awesome than berserker. That's not the same as saying the Inca were culturally unsophisticated. It's a loaded term, but to some extent that's inescapeable -- I still haven't found a word for dwarves and elves as distinct from humans that works better than race. Stephenls fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Nov 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
While I don't see anything ridiculously objectionable in there (no Mayan metallurgy? I mean, come on), it'd be hard to call it insightful, either. And it's given me a twitch in one eye, having to read 'barbarism' so many goddamn times.Stephenls posted:General consensus on the White Wolf forums and RPGnet was that it was an insightful, promising essay. General consensus here was that it was laughably terrible and evidence of ignorance and cultural bigotry on the part of the Exalted designers. I am not sure why, because it's evident to me that Holden was talking about barbarians-as-considered-barbarians-by-fantasy-fans (i.e. mostly white male nerds). It's because White Wolf has spent years publishing Ignorance and Cultural Bigotry: The Apocalypse, and have just reprinted it incredibly recently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
BryanChavez posted:I imagine he means Tawantinsuyu, the hegemonic empire formed by that culture, actually. There was some Explanation Of Barbarism As It Pertains To Lunars post at some point, and maybe Holden said some dumb poo poo. I can't rightly recall. The idea of Tawantinsuyu being 'barbaric' by any stretch of the term would be incredibly laughable, so I hope he didn't say anything along those lines. I have some problems with periphery states being labeled as barbaric in any case, but Tawantinsuyu being referred to like that would be bugnuts insane. "Sapa Inka" is the current romanization of the Quechuan/runa simi title for the ruler of the Tawantinsuyu. It's sort of like how only historians and Mongolian anthropologists call Temujin "Chinggis Khan" these days, despite it being the official Mongolian romanization of his title. It's a bit puzzling that Holden would go out of his way to use the less common spelling "Inka" but then completely mischaracterize them as "barbaric." That whole "barbarism and Lunars" essay Holden did was uncomfortable to read through, and I'm a white dude who's not even a social studies major or anthropologist, just someone who's taken a few classes on related subjects. Stallion Cabana posted:Not really related to this topic, but I'm interested in Goonpinions. How powerful do you think it should be for whatever plot you have in mind to work? I'm not an expert at Exalted, but I know that their power level scales with Essence as they grow more experienced. If it's a new exalt, they're probably going to be relatively weak no matter what. What's this new exalt's personality like? Did the players know them previously? Those are the questions I'm more interested in, and if you have a good idea about how this new exalt would act, you can flavor the charms he or she would favor to match whatever style this Arilak entity has.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Spiderfist Island posted:"Sapa Inka" is the current romanization of the Quechuan/runa simi title for the ruler of the Tawantinsuyu. It's sort of like how only historians and Mongolian anthropologists call Temujin "Chinggis Khan" these days, despite it being the official Mongolian romanization of his title. It's a bit puzzling that Holden would go out of his way to use the less common spelling "Inka" but then completely mischaracterize them as "barbaric." That whole "barbarism and Lunars" essay Holden did was uncomfortable to read through, and I'm a white dude who's not even a social studies major or anthropologist, just someone who's taken a few classes on related subjects. Oh, I'm a huge pain in the rear end about this poo poo, man, you don't even know. I call myself Mexica, too, instead of Latino or Hispanic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
Stephenls posted:It's a loaded term, but to some extent that's inescapeable -- I still haven't found a word for dwarves and elves as distinct from humans that works better than race. Species? I'm sure this argument has been done to death before a hundred times, let's talk about Lunars and Incans instead. After a bit of looking here's the part where the mesoamerican cultures are brought up in specific. Will whoever runs Nishkriya have it scoop up Onyx Path forum stuff now that the forums are moving? That would be wonderful. Here's the strange part: Holden posted:Political barbarism is "real" barbarism (as your average fantasy-fiction-consuming American would understand the term) -- i.e. it's the daily realities of "barbarian" type peoples. In the real world, this is an incredibly diverse grouping that you really don't want to generalize about because it runs the gamut from the historical Mongols (who almost conquered the world) to the plains nations of North America to the Mayans and Olmecs, who had incredibly complex and sophisticated societies and empires, despite that they never really did much of anything with metallurgy or the wheel. I cannot make a claim to a history degree like my ST, but even I know the Incans don't match Holden's self-stated qualifications, which have nothing to do with barbarians-as-guys-who-wear-feather-headdresses (or "stylistic barbarianism", as Holden labelled it). If someone did a deeper critique, I'd love to read it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
BryanChavez posted:While I don't see anything ridiculously objectionable in there (no Mayan metallurgy? I mean, come on), it'd be hard to call it insightful, either. And it's given me a twitch in one eye, having to read 'barbarism' so many goddamn times. Well, the Mayan's certainly aren't known for metallurgy, although this is mostly because they're known very badly by a populace that only has a slightly more sophisticated view of other cultures than the British Empire did. I think paragraphs 11 and 12 are illustrative of why Holden doesn't have his head completely up his rear end here -- in 11, he pretty much acknowledges that "barbarian" is a wildly abused term to refer to anything the current empire is extracting slaves from (or anyone who normally wear clothes that kinda look like the clothes worn by anything the current empire is extracting slaves from), and then in 12 he says if you want to use it to have any meaning at all you need to find a subset of that larger category with some common traits, which in this case is nomadic or border cultures, i.e. not the Inca because they were neither. Those two paragraphs taken together in the context of the Inca basically go "The Inca are a group that has historically been associated with barbarism by the sort of folks who like to throw the word around, but that's kinda dumb and they really aren't even if we assume barbarians are a thing." BryanChavez posted:It's because White Wolf has spent years publishing Ignorance and Cultural Bigotry: The Apocalypse, and have just reprinted it incredibly recently. gently caress This Wolf or the Earth Will Die was my first White Wolf game. I remember being very impressed with it when I found it. Good times, good times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
Calde posted:
Working on it this weekend, if not finished this weekend surely within the next week or so. Will post about it when work is finished.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Calde posted:I cannot make a claim to a history degree like my ST, but even I know the Incans don't match Holden's self-stated qualifications, which have nothing to do with barbarians-as-guys-who-wear-feather-headdresses (or "stylistic barbarianism", as Holden labelled it). If someone did a deeper critique, I'd love to read it. Whoa, okay, yeah. That's some stupid poo poo. The idea of any of the South American empires having 'stone age technology' is laughable. It requires a ridiculously literal interpretation of the term 'stone age', and there's no way that you can say something like that without strongly implying a backwards level of technology compared to the 'gunpowder age' Europeans. Read 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus to understand exactly how technologically advanced the indigenous people of the Americas were. It's not a matter of different levels of technology, but that Europeans and indigenous Americans developed so differently that if you come into it with a eurocentric perspective, you won't see the sophistication of indigenous American technology at all. Admittedly, Holden does get it half-right, which is half-righter than most people do. But read that book. It's really good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
BryanChavez posted:Whoa, okay, yeah. That's some stupid poo poo. The idea of any of the South American empires having 'stone age technology' is laughable. It requires a ridiculously literal interpretation of the term 'stone age', and there's no way that you can say something like that without strongly implying a backwards level of technology compared to the 'gunpowder age' Europeans. Read 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus to understand exactly how technologically advanced the indigenous people of the Americas were. It's not a matter of different levels of technology, but that Europeans and indigenous Americans developed so differently that if you come into it with a eurocentric perspective, you won't see the sophistication of indigenous American technology at all. Jesus Christ, $16.54 US for the kindle edition? *sigh, click* It's going to have to wait for me to finish Liar's Poker, Salt: A World History, AK-47: The Weapon that Changed the Face of War, and John Norwich's A History of Venice, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Hidingo Kojimba posted:Eh, the radio silence on mechanics has been going on longer than that. I recall something similar happened with Solar social charm previews, though those involved manipulation of cultural stereotypes rather than badly implemented Victorian porn-homages so people weren't exactly freaked out. Those social Charm previews were badly conceived (links here and here): - No preview of the core system was released. No one knows what these things can actually do because we lack the context for it. - Many system parts have the same name but work differently, like Intimacies, and this wasn't communicated ahead of the Charm preview. No one knows what's staying the same and what's changing. - Formatting is identical to that of Ex2. This creates the impression that the system hasn't changed that much (which would be disastrous) and also that the new material is comparable to the old. - The Charms represent a different direction for social mechanics, but no one explained ahead of time what that direction would be. I can't tell what kind of feedback the developers expected from this. It's impossible to tell whether their mechanics are balanced or not, the discussion was going to be polluted by people applying the wrong context to the text and coming to stupid conclusions, and any discussion on the direction of social mechanics was going to be inhibited because maybe (generously) half a percent of forum posters would be capable of reading between the lines, extrapolating author intent, and then coming up with constructive feedback on system design. Customer feedback is already 90% garbage and 10% gold; this kind of preview is going to generate closer to 99% garbage. You should not design your previews to mislead nine out of the ten insightful people in your community of one hundred. I'm not surprised that the Charm previews stopped but I am concerned that we haven't seen any core mechanics. Any Exalted splat gets hundreds of Charms, and substantive changes to core mechanics after that material has been written is really, really painful. That's what sunk Ex2 in the end: fixing the problems required rewriting half the drat game in the first place, so you might as well make a new edition out of the deal. The moment to playtest your core mechanics is before you spend months developing add-ons not just for Solars but for every drat splat you're planning. And while Holden and Morke are not dumb folks, the odds of their mechanics having systemic problems that are hard to spot but can gently caress the game up (you know, like Ex2's) are decent to good given the amount of complexity they're dealing with. I'm concerned that by when people get to see the thing and can point out how and where it breaks it's going to be too drat late to make a difference. Lymond fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Nov 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Stephenls posted:It's a loaded term, but to some extent that's inescapeable -- I still haven't found a word for dwarves and elves as distinct from humans that works better than race. In another thread on this forum, Malcolm Sheppard mentioned that nowadays he just uses "people" or "peoples", as in, "the elven people", which I think is pretty slick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
Stallion Cabana posted:Not really related to this topic, but I'm interested in Goonpinions. I've been beaten to the punch, but the answer is "as strong as he needs to be" Do you plan on having your party fight him? Best make him tough enough to be a challenge. Do you think they will be working alongside him? Make him useful but not so much so that he overshadows the party. Do you think they will not interact with him mechanically? Then there is no reason for him to have stats. Stop thinking in terms of power tiers, It's bad thinking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
The "Sapa Inca" thing's in the Hunter's Hunter book, isn't it? At least that's where I recall reading about it. It struck me as hilarious because they were described as a Colombian cartel and I just went "But... Colombians don't even identify the Inca as being part of the country. They are thinking of Peru if anything." I think I posted about it in the comments section for that particular KS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
It really would be good to start getting some very basic, low level mechanics previews out there. Stuff with no space for the sort of arguments that have happened over other previews, because they would be purely mechanics. How do attributes work now? What's the list of abilities? How does initiative work? What is momentum in a combat sense? Putting out this sort of crunch would help calm things and would, more importantly, give real feedback when it's still early enough to make sweeping changes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
Holden's essay came across as well-meant but ill-informed. Honestly, the bolded part in this:Stephenls posted:Well, the Mayan's certainly aren't known for metallurgy, although this is mostly because they're known very badly by a populace that only has a slightly more sophisticated view of other cultures than the British Empire did. I think paragraphs 11 and 12 are illustrative of why Holden doesn't have his head completely up his rear end here -- in 11, he pretty much acknowledges that "barbarian" is a wildly abused term to refer to anything the current empire is extracting slaves from (or anyone who normally wear clothes that kinda look like the clothes worn by anything the current empire is extracting slaves from), and then in 12 he says if you want to use it to have any meaning at all you need to find a subset of that larger category with some common traits, which in this case is nomadic or border cultures, i.e. not the Inca because they were neither. Those two paragraphs taken together in the context of the Inca basically go "The Inca are a group that has historically been associated with barbarism by the sort of folks who like to throw the word around, but that's kinda dumb and they really aren't even if we assume barbarians are a thing." kinda makes me wonder if 'barbarism' should be a thing, outside of in-universe screeds and slurs meant to explain why it's totally okay for you to kill or enslave your neighbors and take their stuff but morally wrong when they do it to you. I mean, it feels like the defined cultural sources are rich enough that an 'Other' category isn't really needed, or even helpful. If the goal is to tell the stories of marginalized peoples, then tell the stories of marginalized peoples, not the stories of some romanticized caricatures. Exalted is actually normally pretty good about this...except, for some reason, when Lunars get involved. For all that Conan-esque savage fantasy got talked up as a reason for this decision, the fact remains that a lot of material by Howard and his contemporaries was racist as poo poo. Even disregarding that, vast chunks of Creation are supposed to fall under the heading of savage fantasy, enough that making it the bailiwick of a single splat seems redundant. Casting off the yoke of imperialism and leading your people to glory comes up so often in Solar stories that I wonder how Lunars are supposed to pull it off without it turning into yet another instance of "why are you trying to do this thing that a Solar would do much better?" Oh, and as for the official forums, they could really benefit from getting moderated early and often, instead of threads being allowed to derail that far in the first place before getting locked. It'd also help to partition it into more specific subforums, which if nothing else will let you quarantine the assholes and white noise low-effort posts. It's why we have GBS! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
I feel one of the major things that Exalted could play up, and what that essay doesn't really comment on, is that imperialism causes 'barbarism'. There were a great deal of complex, advanced societies in the Americas, which became 'barbarous' when imperialist conquerors annihilated those civilizations. The same thing happened in Africa, in the Middle East, and wherever imperialism spreads. Why are Lunars 'barbarians', and why do the Lunars, as a rule, intensely hate the Realm? Nine times out of ten, it's probably because the Realm was responsible not for persecuting their Barbarian Tribe, but for destroying their civilization in the first place. The people who are most nostalgic for the old and noble Uncivilized Ways are generally the very civilized - Emerson, Tacitus, Howard. For the most part, the actual 'barbarians' are the ones who long for their glorious old society to return. Holden does touch on that, at least. But yeah. In short, imperialists don't conquer 'barbarians', they create 'barbarians'. And given that Exalted is a celebration of pulp while also being extremely revisionist about its themes, I feel that's something they could really grab hold of and hammer home.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Thesaurasaurus posted:Holden's essay came across as well-meant but ill-informed. Honestly, the bolded part in this: This is the only definition of "barbarian" that makes half a drat lick of sense. "Barbarian" is "anyone other than us, the filthy savages" and everybody thinks that about everyone else. This is how Reign handled it actually, though Stolze never really used the term "barbarian" as I recall, but every nation in the game's core setting basically held the opinion that they were the Best Nation and that everyone else was a bunch of stupid stump-loving rear end in a top hat idiots, and this includes the nation that was literally a bunch of nomadic hunter-gatherers with magic woad and werewolf-priests. Trying to define "barbarism" by applying tropes to it until you have the Magic Barbarian is about as worthwhile as trying to define anything by way of tropes, i.e. not very. The whole "Lunars are BARBARIANS! RARR!" schtick has been an anchor around the entire splat since their first book was published with a rambling essay about how indoor plumbing makes you weak and the writers would be better served dropping that angle entirely and finding something else to focus on because seriously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
BryanChavez posted:I feel one of the major things that Exalted could play up, and what that essay doesn't really comment on, is that imperialism causes 'barbarism'. There were a great deal of complex, advanced societies in the Americas, which became 'barbarous' when imperialist conquerors annihilated those civilizations. The same thing happened in Africa, in the Middle East, and wherever imperialism spreads. Why are Lunars 'barbarians', and why do the Lunars, as a rule, intensely hate the Realm? Nine times out of ten, it's probably because the Realm was responsible not for persecuting their Barbarian Tribe, but for destroying their civilization in the first place. The people who are most nostalgic for the old and noble Uncivilized Ways are generally the very civilized - Emerson, Tacitus, Howard. For the most part, the actual 'barbarians' are the ones who long for their glorious old society to return. Holden does touch on that, at least. I feel like this also provides a valuable niche the Lunars could grab on to that's significantly better than most of their existing ones. Their collective memory is possibly the most prodigious of anything in Creation, which lends itself nicely to being on a mission to restore Pre-Realm, Pre-Shogunate, and Pre-Usurpation civilizations. You could have all the good points of the Thousand Streams River, except instead of an ending where they ride off into the sunset, they begin Normandy on the Blessed Isle now that the Empress is absent. Finish it off with the March Into Heaven as the penultimate scene, and you've got probably the best Lunar campaign idea I've ever heard. Kai Tave posted:Trying to define "barbarism" by applying tropes to it until you have the Magic Barbarian is about as worthwhile as trying to define anything by way of tropes, i.e. not very. The whole "Lunars are BARBARIANS! RARR!" schtick has been an anchor around the entire splat since their first book was published with a rambling essay about how indoor plumbing makes you weak and the writers would be better served dropping that angle entirely and finding something else to focus on because seriously. I agree. "Lunars are BARBARIANS! RARR!" should probably be adopted as something that's just Immaculate propaganda and what Sidereals yell about when drunk. It seems clear to me that the Lunars are the best antagonists in the setting for Realm-aligned Terrestrials and probably Sidereals as well. Unlike Yozi or Deathlord stuff, you no longer have a thing where the returning Solars are likely to lay down arms and fight the real enemy, and you now have an enemy who has a real affinity for your other biggest worry. Most importantly to me, Realm Dragonblooded and Non-Ronin Sidereal campaigns should absolutely have some issues about the morality of rulership and the burden of authority, and when your antagonists are no longer card-carrying villains or literally Death Incarnate, that's a great first step in producing very interesting moral quandaries. There's an empire big enough to play a huge role in defining the setting, and the Lunars have been its most compelling enemy at the gates for the vast majority of time since its formation. Their abilities can even serve as justification for many of the totalitarian policies of the Satrapy. If you travel without a documented pass and just come home out of the blue one day, suddenly that could be a Lunar who proceeds to kill and eat half of your village. You can't come to the Blessed Isle and petition your Satrap about your grievance because we don't know that you're really just some ordinary citizen, and the individuals who can check your aura are rare indeed, and don't you know Lunars are now making 3D-printed aura disguises in your own backyard these days? Part of maintaining a society that steamrolls anything resembling civil rights is making the individual members more afraid of outside and inside threats to their security, and I think having the Lunars be the Realm's single most important military, political, and religious nightmare gives valuable characterization to both. As for the Lunars in their own splat, I thought their old factions were mostly fairly boring or poorly executed, but with some good ideas on how to differentiate them buried in there. The two biggest political questions I can see there are "How do we go about opposing the Realm?" and "How responsible are we for dealing with other threats to the fabric of Creation?" On the one end, you have the assassins and the bomb-makers and the No Moon sorcerers who justify the propaganda, and as an example of the other end, you might have a Changing Moon who disguises himself as a mouse and moves from town to town, pointing out contradictions and flaws in Immaculate Philosophy. Less interested in the Realm, you might have a group of Lunars who have an oral tradition that dates back to the Primordial War itself who are concerned with stopping incursions from outside Creation and run up against Abyssals, Infernals, Raksha, and possibly even weirder things in that duty. MiltonSlavemasta fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Nov 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Stephen is a dick, Holden is a dick, and Exalted fans who liked that essay are full of poo poo/racist. Aesthetic barbarians and "stone age" cultures in the America. What a bunch of bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
MiltonSlavemasta posted:I feel like this also provides a valuable niche the Lunars could grab on to that's significantly better than most of their existing ones. Their collective memory is possibly the most prodigious of anything in Creation, which lends itself nicely to being on a mission to restore Pre-Realm, Pre-Shogunate, and Pre-Usurpation civilizations. You could have all the good points of the Thousand Streams River, except instead of an ending where they ride off into the sunset, they begin Normandy on the Blessed Isle now that the Empress is absent. Finish it off with the March Into Heaven as the penultimate scene, and you've got probably the best Lunar campaign idea I've ever heard. I mean the thing is that this absolutely is a real thing in Exalted as it is. The "barbarian" cultures all hate the Realm and the Imperials BECAUSE they create economic, physical, and hegemonic dependencies upon them. The fact that they haven't been portrayed as such (outside of some parts of 1e) is the overwhelming crap that Stephen is defending on the part of Holden here. The idea that there are objective barbarians and that the "trope" of barbarians is something worthwhile defending without actual understanding of why groups of people have committed to countering imperialism. In short: Exalted Ganga Zumba or nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganga_Zumba
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Mexcillent posted:Stephen is a dick
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
Stephenls posted:Not intentionally, I promise. But yet, the end result is the same poo poo. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 00:33
|
|