|
JcDent posted:So gladiators were condemned slaves that were actually kind of sports stars who trained all the time... and buffer women who did it part time? Yes, and more. Rome was holding gladiatorial games for centuries.
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
Edit: *poof*
Reynold fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Jul 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
In the spartacus board game you have male gladiators and female slaves, but the slaves are allowed to fight as gladiators, they're just not as strong. But on the other hand gladiators cost you money for their training and upkeep, while slaves make you money. It is awkwardly gendered but its based loosely on history and more directly on the television show, which wasn't the most historically accurate or progressive show gender-wise but it was entertaining and the ladies did some some solid fighting here and there. Its a pretty great board game although the core fighting system sucks and is boring and long. Now I'm wondering if you could take the rest of the shell of the game (really cool gambling mechanics) and replace the combat with something out of Games Workshop. Replace the slaves with 40k minis and make it into a small-scale skirmish instead. Now you're gambling on who gets the ultramarines captain and who gets the ork paindoc. Could be fun? Wouldn't work well for 1-on-1 battles really but for small like 5 on 5 battles it could definitely be fun. Rounds might be too slow though...
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
FrostyPox posted:I'm pretty sure Campaign for North Africa IS, in fact, that game. It is. The average playtime on BGG is like 12000 hours or some nonsense
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Giving men and women different bonuses makes the game more interesting than pretending they're exactly the same.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
This is one of those times where I see a rarely-posted-in-thread get a comparative load of replies and thought something interesting had happened. Instead it's people arguing over gender modifiers, with different posters being unable to pick up on other's sarcasm. Or some people are taking it seriously. Either way it's poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
It's a misapplication of averages. Yes, plotted on bell curves, women have less average strength. Even women athletes compared to male athletes. But you don't play five hundred characters whose average strength, realistically, should align with those bell curves. You play one character, or a handful of them. And any given individual could come from anywhere on the bell curve, including the extremes. So you should be able to play a woman who has extreme strength. OK, maybe that means she's one in a million, compared to a man with the same strength being one in ten thousand. So what? It prevents you from essentially discriminating between game roles on a gender basis. Writing your rules such that characters of all genders have full access to all of the abilities in the game isn't "unrealistic," it's just an improvement in the attraction of the game to players of all genders. And, it does not have to ignore the biological realities of sexual dimorphism, given the above reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:It's a misapplication of averages. Yes, plotted on bell curves, women have less average strength. Even women athletes compared to male athletes. Yes but it does actually cover the realistic scale of the people who became gladiators. Gladiators not only cover a very specific subset of people, class as far as gladiators were concerned was heavily based on body type and aesthetics. Small men, no matter how strong, would never be Secutors or Murmillos (the heavily armored classes that used shields). We're not talking about a game like Pathfinder, where what you're saying makes perfect sense. Were talking about a scenario where they really did have rigid aesthetic rules for who got to do what and trained to do what. Women were primarily used as the "fast" classes, people armed with nets and knives, or people who hunted wild animals. JcDent posted:So gladiators were condemned slaves that were actually kind of sports stars who trained all the time... and buffer women who did it part time? For a reasonable chunk of Roman history free women could study martial arts and train with weapons but also were paradoxically prevented or banned from being mercenaries or fighting in wars. This meant that for a large slice of combat trained women fighting as a gladiatrix was the only real way to actually use those skills if they had them. Also, it's important to remember, that there were a large amount of aesthetic decisions made around gladiator matches, much like in pro wrestling. Often the battles followed story lines with different gladiators playing the roles of classical heroes, in which any legendary Amazons or whoever would need to be played by an actual woman who was good at combat. In a similar fashion they also often served as sort of "dream match" type setups in the vein of Deadliest Warrior, many forms of Gladiators were meant to represent the different fighting styles of modern, historical or legendary nations and to see how they would stack up against each other in a fair fight. That was another consideration, the classes were balanced against each other in specific ways so that matches were interesting. Guys with armor would fight guys who had specific ways of getting around armor, things like that. It was very mechanical and not quite staged, but with many elements that aren't usually portrayed in a lot of fiction. Many Gladiators were slaves, but they often lived lives that were nicer and more cushy than many free men. A good gladiator was an investment, you trained him with full time staffs of guys who were masters of different martial arts, they worked out and ate constantly (most of them, despite how they are often presented, would have been built more like Arn Anderson than The Rock) and did a lot of other things to make you (the investor) money (everything from sex work to being a rich dude's bodyguard).
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
El Estrago Bonito posted:sex work Probably not for bored Roman housewives? Well, now it just seems that a gladiator TV show a la Rome would be great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Probably not for bored Roman housewives? No pretty much exactly what you are imagining, only also they were having sex with the bored Roman husbands as well. The class of slaves that Prostitutes and Gladiators (and also, uh, some poets, musicians and actors) was extremely hosed up. The were paradoxically the worst and most poorly treated slaves (as in other slaves had laws protecting them) but also the most valuable and protected in many ways (because they made money). Many slaves in Rome had protections under the law. It was illegal to mistreat your slaves in certain ways, depending on the time and emperor it would be forbidden to, say, have sex with your non-sex worker slaves and if your slaves had been beaten, raped or otherwise abused it could make it very difficult for you to ever sell them and you could be financially or real rear end jail time punished for lying about it. Gladiators/sex workers/actors/musicians/etc level slaves however were seen a pure property and not even human, ala slavery as we think of it in America. People treated them well because they were valuable, but in the same way you'd treat, like, a really nice TV or something, not in the way you'd treat a real loving human being. Much like with some gladiators there were two distinct classes of prostitute: ones who were slaves and the property of someone who just wanted to use them to make money, and ones that were free people who willingly entered into the lowest class of Roman society, usually because they were in huge debt. Which one had it better off was sort of a terrible toss up, in one case as a slave sex worker you had no autonomy and were forced to have sex with people for money against your will, but on the other hand you lived in a really nice place usually and were often showered in gifts, clothing and foods that someone of your station would never hope to even be in the same room as let alone touch/wear/experience. As a free woman/man who was a sex worker you were allowed to, you know, make real money in a legal fashion and often had far more money than people of similar stature and training (for instance, guys who handled human waste, or people who cleaned bath houses) but on the other hand you lost rights that you might have had before being a sex worker, were often banned from many places (some bars and taverns, public bath houses, etc) and legally you were basically the same as a slave only you had no master to protect you from people treating you like poo poo. You basically sacrificed the Roman equivalent to Habeus Corpus and also humane punishment, if you did something wrong or even something that the right person disliked, you could be beaten in public for very little reason and punishment normally only given to slaves. The legal root for this was essentially that since you dedicated your life to the pursuit of punishing your body (being a sex worker or gladiator or yes, even sometimes a performer) you had given the rights of your body to the people/state and therefor they were allowed to treat it like a slave since you were basically a slave to the public. Rome was super interesting but also insanely hosed up in a lot of ways (even though it was very progressive for the time as far as European states go). If you ever want to read something interesting go read the translations of the Pompeii graffiti. Romans loved writing on walls and used it like we use Reddit or Craigslist, with about that much dignity, respect and trolling. Proving that the roots of internet culture lie thousands of years ago. some roman dude 1600 years ago and not a guy on Reddit right now posted:II.2.3 (Bar of Athictus; right of the door); 8442: I screwed the barmaid http://www.pompeiana.org/Resources/Ancient/Graffiti%20from%20Pompeii.htm
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
Read that one multiple times! I'd take Roman graffiti over taggers every day. In fact, my exam essay to enter MA in Translation course ended with "What would they find if Vilnius was covered in ash? A thousand "Solomons" [tags] and "don't scratch your arse, it will stink less". Same entram exam also featured an essay I started with "Feeding the homeless to the starving is something that's described as "cruel," "unrealstic" and "not something you should mention in an exam essay" How would a sex or creative slave would be treated in comparison to a prized sow? Could they ever have social mobility?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
Slaves were weird in that way. People got really attached to them because they were essentially major media properties you could own. So you have this strange area where people love and adore these gladiators and they're considered the pinnacle of whats cool and sexy, but it's also illegal for them to own possessions or have basic human rights. As guys got more storied or popular they could earn freedom in rare cases, and they were technically allowed to get married (although usually only to other slaves but it wasn't unheard of for a young free man to fall in love with a slave). A lot of times the lines got really blurred. Famous and rich people would hang out with slaves who were notable gladiators and they'd have their favorite prostitutes and performers, and so they'd eventually form friendships with these people, and sometimes buy them just so they could basically be in their entourage and do whatever they wanted to, because that's a privilege of having a class of idle rich. It's like if a rich guy really like Game of Thrones and could just buy Kit Harrington or something and just have him hang around. Also Romans had this weird concept of karmic morality around sex workers and gladiators that boiled down to "if you do things with your body that seek pleasure or pain the reverse is also going to happen to you a lot" so they really liked punishing hookers for no reason and making Gladiator's lives awesome because they had "paid" for it in some way. Which is an ultra hosed up way to approach a group of people who would have been rife with PTSD and mental issues from having their identity forcibly stripped from them so, uh, that's really not nice. The people who really got the shaft were the handmaiden slaves. They were basically required to do whatever a rich guy's wife wanted to do, whenever they wanted, and then that persons sons and husband probably also were raping her regularly for fun, and unlike actual prostitutes they weren't valuable in a "makes you income" kind of way so Romans often approached them with a "use until they're busted then get a new one" approach. Basically slavery has always been super hosed and the fact that it took us so long to get rid of it is extremely worrying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Well, now it just seems that a gladiator TV show a la Rome would be great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
Isn't Rome mire realistic?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Isn't Rome mire realistic? Not to any significant extent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
They're all tits and sandals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Well, now it just seems that a gladiator TV show a la Rome would be great. Dude I was JUST talking about spartacus on this very page  JcDent posted:Isn't Rome mire realistic? Ehhh. They both use the framework of historic realism but make poo poo up left and right where its interesting or convenient, and both mess with chronology pretty badly. Rome maybe feels more realistic since its based on Caesar and major historic events while Spartacus is more based on just slaves doing gladiator stuff until the rebellion, but overall they're both so-so for accuracy. They've both got some nice stuff in there that is appropriate, but wrong stuff too. Spartacus starts out dumb but gets better and better with each season and catches up to Rome by the end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
For me Spartacus is 300 the TV show. I'm fine with that and any sweeping dramatic license taken including that final show down that I would be very surprised to learn had any basis in reality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
Spartacus for me is cool because I feel it really gets the attitude of Rome right. Rome has been lionized for so long as the source of western culture and royalty that we tend to portray it with a stark regal tone when in actuality ancient Romans were basically Iron Age fuckboys. They actively hated on other cultures for using spices because they thought that eating simple foods was a sign of refinement and being a badass, this lead to them drowning everything in the ancient times equivalent of ketchup. If you want to imagine an average Roman, envision your dumbass cousin who drives a used 2004 Mustang, claims that he's "training to be a UFC fighter" and wont shut the gently caress up about how much he loves whiskey even though all he drinks is Fireball.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
Romans varied as much as people do today. You had your rednecks, you had your toffs, you had your people who fetishised Eastern cultures...
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
At least there were no actual Roman weebs drawing Ceasar as kawaii waifu.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
There were probably some drawing him as a Nubian prince, or a Germanic chieftain, or a Kushan Buddhist monk or gently caress knows what else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
BFG: Leviathan is now available in the Play store. I've gone through the first tutorial mission on my phone, and it seems pretty close to the tabletop game. The big thing is that I seem to be rolling very well, but that could be because 1) I roll terribly in real life; and 2) the dice might be weighted in the tutorial. I'll have to give it a shot on my tablet to check the fine detail. Playing the game reminds me that it's been a long, long time since I've played, since I only vaguely remember the rules.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
goatface posted:There were probably some drawing him as a Nubian prince, or a Germanic chieftain, or a Kushan Buddhist monk or gently caress knows what else. Egyptian pharaoh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Cross posting this here from the oath thread because even 6mm tall death robots need some love and attention:  These guys have been the epitome of the slow burning project. I put my first order in for the diminuitive little chaps in December 2014. There were delays in them being shipped but I finally got them a month or two later, I then set about filing bases down and assembling them, got them based up and......... promptly forgot about them for a month or two. Then I got them undercoated and.................... promptly forgot about them again. I've only just gotten round to dusting them off and getting them painted up. I'd forgotten how much I love painting 6mm figures and using the FoW bases gives you a bit more room to get creative with base decorations. I have a butt load more infantry to do a few more similar detachment to this, and I have a box load of second had scarabs waiting to be turned into the floaty hovering death robots that I've completely forgotten the name of.... destroyers? Project Necrons is back on the table, I have a way to go before I have anything even vaguely resembling a playable army but it's a start (finally).
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
JcDent posted:At least there were no actual Roman weebs drawing Ceasar as kawaii waifu. Dude they had billboards with celebrity endorsements. I guarantee they had hosed up fanart of everything too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
GOG has the following on sale: 40K Final Liberation - $1.49 40K Chaos Gate - $2.49 40K Rites of War - $1.49 Warhammer Shadow of the Horned Rat - $1.49 (A lot of people complaining that it doesn't work right now.) Not really SG, but since Final Liberation is in there, I figured I'd make people aware.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Still no Dark Omen 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 10:32
|
|
|
berzerkmonkey posted:Not really SG, but since Final Liberation is in there, I figured I'd make people aware. Strangely enough, I have a lot of issues with Final Liberation as well, hope it works alright for you guys. Also, buy Chaos Gate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
The biggest issue is that I can't run it with videos enabled
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
berzerkmonkey posted:BFG: Leviathan is now available in the Play store. I've gone through the first tutorial mission on my phone, and it seems pretty close to the tabletop game. The big thing is that I seem to be rolling very well, but that could be because 1) I roll terribly in real life; and 2) the dice might be weighted in the tutorial. I'll have to give it a shot on my tablet to check the fine detail. Quoting this because I came here to post it. The game is pretty much BFG on iOS. I have only played a few games of the actual table top, but afaik, this is a true analog. The dice are probably weighed in your favour in the tutorial. And it has multiplayer!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Hey folks. I am writing a Warhammer Quest campaign to DM for my group while we take a break from serious games. I decided to do something different and write the campaign for a party of Greenskins. I need a final player type so that there's a choice of 6 for variety and in case we have lots of players. So far I have: - Black Orc: tanky and CC only; able to use a large variety of weapons - Orc Raider: Orc boy with choppa and crossbow; flexible and varied (but how?) - Night Goblin Shaman: wizard with shrooms - need I say more? - Night Goblin Squig Hopper: squig does most of the damage, can leap around like a mad thing - Troll: Very tough but stupid and clumsy (uses the Ogre's rule of increasing chance of unexpected events); levels up by eating enemies Anyone have an idea for a last guy to add? It would be fun to have a Boar Boy or something but that might be too much in a dungeon setting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
ineptmule posted:Hey folks. I am writing a Warhammer Quest campaign to DM for my group while we take a break from serious games. I decided to do something different and write the campaign for a party of Greenskins. I need a final player type so that there's a choice of 6 for variety and in case we have lots of players.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
Savage Orc but he is like a redneck cousin and no one takes him seriously.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
Good idea. I have a snazzy Savage Orc shaman all painted up that I can throw in. Another caster would be fun as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 10:46
|
|
|
Adepticon dates are up: March 23rd through March 26th, 2017 Bypass all those hip and modern games and play some crusty old Epic and Necromunda with us!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Warhammer Fantasy novel recommendations, go!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Warhammer Fantasy novel recommendations, go! I enjoyed the Matthias Thulmann: Witch Hunter series. The Gotrek and Felix books are alright, if repetitive and pulpy. The Zavant book was good (WFRP Sherlock Holmes, essentially.) The first Blood Bowl book was decent, if you're into BB - however, I do not recommend the sequels to anyone. Fell Cargo by Dan Abnett was pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Warhammer Fantasy novel recommendations, go! Palace of the Plague Lord for a bunch of northerm marauders going on a rad quest in the chaos wastes. It's been a few years since I read it, but I remember it well and need to look it up again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
ro5s posted:Palace of the Plague Lord for a bunch of northerm marauders going on a rad quest in the chaos wastes. It's been a few years since I read it, but I remember it well and need to look it up again. Yeah, that was a good one. Also, you might want to ask for book recommendations in the BL thread as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 21:12
|
|