• Last Seen: MIA
  • Old Guild Username: Shon Harris... Go figure
  • Joined: 11 yrs ago
  • Posts: 277 (0.07 / day)
  • VMs: 0
  • Username history
    1. ApocalypticaGM 11 yrs ago

Status

User has no status, yet

Bio

User has no bio, yet

Most Recent Posts

A) Agreeing with Kestrel really. I think it's fine to have an individual need to do something, but that need should seem as if their idea or their only option. You should design the situation in such a way that of all the options, this one is clearly the one she would be attracted to -- you can do that by checking out the CS. If they do something a bit different, perhaps you can mold your plan a bit too. Anyway, forcing it on someone blatantly railroading them is not going to win fans.

B) I think giving people the broad jist of the short-term is important to let them know there's something building. It helps to keep interest and inspiration up, otherwise some just think it's a lot of run-up. That said, revealing all too much will destroy the surprise behind your plot. Even if they need information open in the OOC, you don't need to tell them the repercussions of using said information. The next step might be clear, but the second is best in a fog.

C) You could pull that off fine. Not sure if you watch Doctor Who, but I think they execute prophecy beautifully in that the story is only bettered by it (without the surprise curbed). A companion will blatantly be told they will die, or 'The Doctor will die after the 4th Knock'. Okay shit, spoiler alert, right? Well, not really, because now everyone expects this and will be looking for it in the most obvious, and less obvious ways. You're able to throw in near misses playing to either prophecy. You're even able to twist the meaning of the prophecy so that, yes, technically it happens, but perhaps your definition of 'death' and the story's are tad different. The fact is you can use this sort of thing to your advantage with enough foresight.
After Chaotic posts I'm going to have us move on. Alouette has not responded to my PMs and while she's welcomed to join up later, we're not going to leave this precise door open forever.

So, Chaotic, hop to!
@Brovo: Having read your responses I think your original post I quoted from may have suggested a less agreeable view. If I'm reading you correctly, you agree these are issues, however, believe change would be best on slowly implemented rather than quick and potentially chaotic. I can't say I'd argue with that as it's progressive, yet, for me I tend to lean for a more extreme push in this issue. Sexism in this form is unfortunately similar to racism, not in that the terms come with a ton of baggage, but because both are based on a characteristic usually very visible. If this were something a bit more subtle I would be happy to agree for a slow change. Slow in this case would mean those victimizing are left free a while longer until attitudes 'naturally' change. In my mind issues like this should be thought up broadly then given particular areas of focus. Focus areas that hit an important part of the problem, like little beacons exemplifying change, like the task force President Obama is supporting to engage with sexual assault in relation to students. If we were actively doing something like this starting with female media representation I believe we would change minds much quicker than, say, if we changed attitudes in education (which helps, but takes years to be felt). Anyway, that was indeed civil and I feel like I understand your points better now. I'm glad we agree this is a problem, even if there may be other areas to focus on before geek culture.

Genkidami said I cant really comment on the geek thing, but feminism in gaming, it really gets me, it doesnt sit well with me. Its a me-too, have our cake and eat it too attitude from a minority who want to impose their agendas on the majority. They never use or have facts, they dont take into account context like market shares, the fact the majority of people who play games with main characters are male, so male main characters are there so that players can relate to them. They use long debunked logic, like the fact sexism in games will cause sexism in real life. And you'll get people who will say "yep, thats true! Gotta stomp out these games!", but when it was fucking Jack Thompson several years ago putting practically that very same point forward, he was a crack pot with no evidence, in fact the evidence went against him.


You should check out media studies, I think you'd sincerely enjoy it. We're not talking neo-whatever bullshit studies, I mean actually looking at the history of television, film, and interactive media. See, because when you do you start to see something sort of interesting. Did you know back when television programming was still forming in America a majority of the shows in the day were geared toward women? Since they were stereotypically housewives the belief was that they were the prime audience and consumers as they'd also view more commercials each day. Funny too, the commercials were designed to bump up the audio as it was expected these viewers would be doing household chores or cooking and those doing the selling wanted their ads heard far and wide. In this time women were a primary media focus for most of the working day and those producing the media were almost entirely men (Caucasian, heterosexual, Christian, middle class, men, to note). Moving on.

Jump about fifty to sixty years up and what's changed? Well women are more accepted in television in the US, though in a limited capacity. Many women actually go for directing jobs in film with stories to tell like any other, however, most of these people are declined. The term boys club you use is actually one they use in media studies, see, look you're already ahead of the game. Of course they don't use it in quotes. They use it because those working in the film industry know this is an issue. Because they knew that many films restrict access to women and the way they're portrayed suffers as a result. Women are socialized to think of themselves as lesser than just like men, but give a woman a leadership position to tell a story that treats men and women the same and that narrative can change. Again, let's skip forward.

The film industry makes investments to produce their work in a way I'd suggest is similar to interactive media. So if these two areas are similar, both hiring directors, concept designers, story writers, and many a marketing and communications figure, then maybe they similar issues. Well first let's just point out a fact. Both film and games are media. Many Americans consume media in large quantities, larger than ever before in our history in fact! Let's agree that shooting a car in a game or film won't make you shoot a car in reality. Let's also qualify that psychologists have tested our dichotic listening, in that we hear two things simultaneously, so that it's proven that even if an individual is hearing a series of words and numbers, is asked to repeat and focus on the numbers solely, they use the words heard only in the background far more than prior to the test (TLDR: If you hear something in the background without realizing it, you're likely to still use those words more often). Okay great, those were facts! Now hold on though, if our media is showing casts that assign strength and priority based on gender, won't we grow to expect this over time in reality? Because we're human and we can learn through conditional programming, yet we don't have to be conditioned personally, we can just witness and learn. Monkey see monkey do. That said, if this fine young gent destroys the fascist and frees the dystopian city, overshadowing, oversexualizing, and downright forcing himself onto female companions, would this example of action-reward not begin to stick after dozens, upon dozens of viewings? Would this effect perhaps not be more felt as we play in the role of the character in a game designed to be immersive?

See, the point is that some of the biggest in games and film have already spoken about the lack of female representation. Those who've spoken, and we're talking about lovable actresses/actors, directors, and writers here, they don't scoff at the idea of a lack of strong, meaningful females as meaningless or pure market-share. There are constantly artists in these fields speaking about this as a problem. Constantly standing up because media representation has an honest effect on how our children view themselves, how they learn their roles in society, and how they should interact in relation to others. I talk about this issue as a young male who plays games, watches films, and has a young daughter because it effects me too. Not long before I was born a guy of my skin colour wouldn't be shown on television with a dark skinned father as it was believed to intimidate the average white household (this was an honest reason given in a fight regarding black sitcoms rising in the mid 80s). People of my colour or darker had to play the buffoon character type when our family members got pulled over simply for being coloured in the wrong place, you know, instead of speaking out about these issues. So not that long ago did media representation blatantly sideline a group I belong to, and while that issue is still live today, it's shrunk with time where as representation of women still has a long way to go. So I won't ask you to agree with me or to go take classes in media studies, though really I think you'd dig it, but I will say this is a problem beyond the dollar. This is a problem that changes us and molds how we think with a subtlety and yet an impact. It deserves our attention and it's ironic that actors and writers in the industries have noticed the problem while you, the consumer, still deny it.
Brovo said Or... Bare with me... It's because of a victim complex that makes it convenient to view the world in black and white and give blatant and obvious targets that are otherwise incorporeal and non-existent for the purposes of making life and all its problems simpler. Why can't I get a job? Patriarchy! Why do I feel depressed? Patriarchy! Why can't I get everything I want in life? Patriarchy!!!

The reality of the situation is this: The entire world is a series of greys. Nobody is perfectly good, nobody is perfectly evil. Even Hitler had moral standards for fucks sake: He refused to use mustard gas despite its effectiveness in the trenches of WW I because he found it immoral after it had been used on him when he was a soldier in the German army. No, there isn't an all-powerful world-wide patriarchy that for some reason ignores the plights of men while being ruled by men for the benefit of men. The world is simply a painful place full of unfortunate shit.

Now, we... -Could- keep blaming it on something that, statistically speaking, doesn't exist... Or we could address each issue one by one and repair them over time. Identify definite problems, and fix the ones we can fix. The rest we have to live with and tolerate as simply being part of life. There will always be bigots and sexists and racists and so on. There will always be people who think I should be dead because I'm an atheist or because I have depression and that makes me weak, or because I'm white and that makes me evil, or because I'm male and that makes me an oppressor. I don't let these things bother me. They're empty words from pitiable people.

It's when rights are threatened through laws, through the very protections in society, that we should feel threatened.

I'm not saying to ignore problems. I'm saying to identify shit we can fix, fix it, and simply deal with the rest as the unfortunate consequence of life, instead of blaming an all powerful, all convenient entity that, well, scientifically speaking... Doesn't exist.


So before I go into this I just want to make a couple things clear: 1) I do not intend to enter one of our notoriously long argument things. I'm going to throw in my two cents and will respond as necessary, but really am seeking to supplement an otherwise agreeable post, and 2) I'll define my terms as needed and am happy to do so upon request if I miss something, as I know many may come to this from different places and our terms may be a big part of that. Oh, and 3) I have solid respect for Brovo and the OP. That said...

There are absolutely those who've adopted victim complexes in today's world, but I think we should talk about that statement further. Some who blame others for their challenges may do so to cope with personal, buried issues, but others may well be responding to very real experiences of oppression. Women have historically been shelved and blatantly labelled as unworthy of citizenship, national service, voting rights, and today, control of their body and equal pay. Many of these issues have only been combated in the last century, and many of these examples of inequality have been seen by us and our parents. This is an example of systematic oppression. When you are restricted to set jobs and roles professionally and individually due to a characteristic of birth that should affect neither, that is prejudice. When this judgement is reinforced with intention in our media and laws in order to place less value on that party and to push more value onto another, that is systematic oppression. You create power from nothing. So I agree with you Brovo that the entity does not exist scientifically, but I add that it does in exist socially. This is a problem accepted as an issue in the federal government and I think we could agree on at least that.

My point is that while some may be suffering a victim complex, others may well be responding to very real societal pressures. I agree with you that we should identify and combat these instead of merely complaining, but a big part of fixing a problem is first making others aware of the issue.

Brovo said A patriarchal society is one in which men are dominant over women. If this was true, why would we spend more on breast cancer research than prostate cancer research? Why would women take preference over men where it concerns blindly having to choose in saving lives? (ex: If you have to choose between saving a woman or saving a man, you save the woman. The man is always left to die, he's a disposable cog in the murder machine.) Ever heard the phrase "women and children to the life rafts"?

Women can vote. Women can freely voice their opinions, gain funding, and run for political office. Women can be judges and juries. Women can set laws, and work any jobs they so choose.

Women are equal to men in nearly every capacity. What's left over is tweaks to the system that need to be done over time to keep the system healthy, and move forward towards further equality.

Also I think you meant role*. Although gender rolls sound delicious.


Brovo, you already know about the damsel in distress trope. Women are generally seen as weaker, inferior, and needing protection. It's something we use all too often in narrative and often incorrectly assume in reality -- that women are less capable, powerful, or able to be autonomous. Beyond physical build and all that, which is mostly a non-issue in the modern America, we still keep these assumptions. The idea of saving women and children first carried over too. It's not a difference in valuing so much as it's an old world holdover that places the man as protector and provider. You say it's valuing their lives more, but isn't also disarming women and placing them in a position where they're assumed unable?

Women can theoretically be most anything. However, only very recently were they allowed in US Special Forces. In some cases they're allowed in Combat Zones (makes Infantry hard, doesn't it?), as my ex discovered after enlisting. Statistically it is extremely difficult to become successful as a female director in film and most are forced into working in less prestigious roles, or mostly in television. Women are still less likely to be hired in leadership roles and in political positions, though thankfully this is slowly changing. Women are still, on average, paid much less for the same job with the same level of experience and qualification. Women can run for a political office or interviewed, but are extremely likely to be asked questions regarding their clothing, children, make-up and have historically been commented on about their looks -- and judged by them when given media representation.

Speaking to cancer now. Men can develop breast cancer, and though it's more common in women, I know from familial experience that is by no means as unlikely as it is for a woman to suffer prostate cancer. That is to say, it is more likely for a man to develop breast cancer than it is for a woman prostate cancer (or so we were told when my great uncle died was diagnosed and died from it). So if breast cancer is more a threat to all humanity, well of course it should receive more funding. Oh, and maybe it's worth noting that there are simply more women (at least in the US), and therefore more citizens apt to suffer the ailment.

I think it's a very small request for us to just consider this may actually be a problem, to look into ourselves and how we think, and to make sure we're not perpetuating any of these negative stereotypes. That's all. Make sure we're not being a bunch of assholes -- not much of a request. It's not a big thing to consider we may not see the world as completely as we think and that we may well be a part of a problem.
Labels help others to identify, place, and categorize. And yet people so often defy all this. It's comfort to the chaos of what it means to be human and alive in this world, and a comfort some choose. You don't need to determine life by these labels unless you elect to do so. What matters are your feelings, your experiences, and what you wish for your life. How you walk your path is yours and screw anyone who needs to place you, as they do it for their sake and not yours.

I'm glad you have support and people to help you as you dive deeper into yourself. I've seen too many friends find themselves to be very different from the image they had for themselves before, and then confused, denied themselves. No one deserves to live a life where they cannot love themselves. So wherever you go, I hope you have loved ones to support you and that you're able to find that truest self-image. Thank you for trusting RPG with something so personal.
Oh Aweena, :*(

I didn't know if Simon would care for Winn beyond a confusion between physical and romantic intimacy, but he's changed quite a bit. Before Guild Fall I was growing bored of him. The slavery arc was meant to pull something out of him or potentially even lead to his death. I'm not averse to him dying if chance pushes it, but his being manipulated and taken to life's edge has revealed more than I expected. I'm glad he inspires this sympathy because I see him as a standard for what Apocalyptica creates. I also recognize that like any standard he'll likely not receive some great reward for his struggles. It'd be interesting to see how honesty, guilt, and life may lead Winn, Simon, and really the rest of our group as they become emotionally tied or dispersed. Winn is this strange apparition of potential for Simon in that if he feels love, it's that hopeful love for a life he's been denied and may well never live. I know Winn has other connections, and Simon does too, but his are up north in Olympia and could well be dead. Winn is something he knows and will likely only cling to all the more desperately as new challenges arise. It's a complex thing I don't know if I've investigated as deeply before -- and I'm loving it.

Not discouraging at all. I enjoy reflexive moments and it's a testament to what we've all created/are creating.
Aweena said
Sometimes I think Firecracker needs to drop out of school so we can see more of him. 'Cause, like, are you like, with us, or, like...?And can I just ask a little favor from all of my beautiful friends (so, FF, you don't need to keep reading)? When we're done with a post, could we remove it from the Main Doc so it's not all that long? Also, I just had a thought: should we create a third doc where we can store all of the old posts in the event the website crashes again? Or is that too much unnecessary work?


I expect every one to save their own, like Prom, but think you and I should start backing it up regularly. I only saved so much of the last one and obviously no one individual had all their own. Between you and I we could be the ultimate backup system. Screw Carbonite :).
Just wanted to add that there are numerous styles as well. Some GMs micromanage (for better or worse) while others are more laissez-faire and allow people a ton of freedom so long as progress is made. The point is that their job is to help that story continue and grow. Some have a specific idea of what should happen and others have a mind to adapt with every minute action. Just because you enter a RP and there's a GM does not mean they'll be the sole power or the absolute leader. Some people just get it rolling and leave leadership to the will of their community.

This could sound all lofty like a position to ascend to, but it's not. You're free to open up a roleplay as you please. That freedom allows for a variety of RPs in a single community. So take advantage of it, bring your fresh ideas. I guarantee you your perspective is not one we already have, so don't deny us your creativity. Anyway, if you have questions feel free to ask. We often have GMs interviewed in the RPGNews too and they tend to give some solid advice. Check it out!
As a player I usually focus on one Main Character, and a second I could sub if my main needed a break, died, or was taken out of action a while. I do this mostly because my mind tends to follow possibilities quickly with this sort of thing. Setting out to make one character is a fool's errand for me, as I already know one or two more will sprout up. Anything more is just thrown into the NPC list and I am happy to see others use them for their plots.

When GMing I try to form a balance. In the beginning, a GM is a bit like an author in that they must put enough down for others to get the jist of the world and it's possibilities. I make a few NPCs or suggest their existence, then allow my players to take over, build those personalities, and ideally build up the world. In my eyes if I'm the only one creating the population then I may as well go write a book. So here I focus on one player and urge everyone into creating NPCs to liven the world.
Dinh AaronMk said
I like to think there'll be a divine war over my guy's soul.Made only worse when one considers the fact he's gone and helped Daedra, then turned around and butchered their entire cult before laying their corpses on their altars in their skivvies..And yes, this is a thing I do.


Wouldn't that be a game? Forgo the theories being realized in front of us in otherworldly plains, instead, all the chaos caused after the Dragonkin's death projects war onto Mundus. A legend's passing made worse by unexpected ramifications. I wouldn't mind seeing a new hero who rejects the gods entirely, perhaps waging war against them in a way deeper and more difficult than hunting down local cults and what not. Being able to choose to fight for some form of balance (doubtfully successful) or perhaps to become divine yourself -- grappling for the power the Dragonkin is freely given and more.
© 2007-2024
BBCode Cheatsheet