Stan
Legendary Pubber
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2018
- Messages
- 2,416
- Reaction score
- 5,901
Oh. I thought you were more of an attractive chaotic stranger.I think 'Strange chaotic attractor' is not a bad metaphor for my love life.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Oh. I thought you were more of an attractive chaotic stranger.I think 'Strange chaotic attractor' is not a bad metaphor for my love life.
Well that's an innocent attempt. I know a researcher who got funded to run a mathematical study of relationships and the end result was codifying the relationships as abstract spaces (manifolds). His pithy conclusion was that relationships with 12-dimensional spaces work best long term. When I asked if this makes any sense he said my thinking was too orthodox
He's since moved on to modelling long term intimacy as photon-electron baths.
EDIT: Looks like it's actually a field now! https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960077906001652#!
Its a game where you roleplay teenagers having sex.I think you mis-read my post. The term I used was Prurient, which means 'having an excessive or inappropriate sexual interest.' Much of the discussion of the topic seemed to come from a point of view that assumed that the primary reasons for being interested in the material were prurient in nature. The original author of Monsterhearts has done several interviews where she described the relationship between the material and her experiences of adolescence and nobody involved in the debate seemed to be aware of this, or at least there was no acknowledgement of it until I pointed it out.
I think you mis-read my post. The term I used was Prurient, which means 'having an excessive or inappropriate sexual interest.'
Oh, wow, I did misread that, LMAO!
Well, I'm not sure I'd even consider that a legitimate criticism of anything. Having an excessive interest in something to the point Normies call it "unhealthy" is practically the definition of a geek. I'd draw the line of good taste when it came to kids or animals, but other than that, anything goes. God bless the perverts of the world, because they ain't the ones out there starting wars.
No, I think my impression, or at least a general truism I've found in life - is that people seek out entertainment that contains experiences they aren't getting in life. So I'd be more inclined to believe the people attracted to a game like Monsterhearts aren't getting any IRL, than I would assume they are sex fiends.
And? Rogues get an precision/anatomical strike misnamed as Sneak Attack. Just cuz a couple of cute little powers say what people want to think does not make the entire class that. Focusing on a single point and ignoring the rest doesn't work.
All his moves are Sex Moves.You guys are all crazy, the greatest RPG character of all time is McSweeny Jimbo, The Kender Bard
All his moves are Sex Moves.
No, Mighty Gygoose is the Pub’s signature Sex Move.Mighty Gygoose... another pub drink
It could be both.No, Mighty Gygoose is the Pub’s signature Sex Move.
I would guess the queer stuff in AW is a combination of: 1. Vincent edginess (for good or bad), 2. his wife Maguey Baker input in the design, and 3. Story-games penchant for fringe themes.All this talk of Math reminds me what makes the Sex Moves in AW so ridiculous. Monsterhearts is someone working through their own sexual identity troubles, what the hell is AW about?
There is no setting at all before the Players create it, so it's like being dropped In Media Res, in this weird, surrealistic alien world, where things are Not Earth, but still Human. Where do these Post-Apocalyptic archetypes even come from? The Sex Moves are a Playbook specific ability, all Angels have the same, all Hardholders have the same. It's ridiculous. AW takes one of the most complex interactions known to humanity, interpersonal intimate/sexual relationships, and makes it a card you play.
It's like someone having a function they run, the whole concept is just bizarre.
Except the AW tells you explicitly that there be no "other Angels". That's like saying "All The Neos".All this talk of Math reminds me what makes the Sex Moves in AW so ridiculous. Monsterhearts is someone working through their own sexual identity troubles, what the hell is AW about?
There is no setting at all before the Players create it, so it's like being dropped In Media Res, in this weird, surrealistic alien world, where things are Not Earth, but still Human. Where do these Post-Apocalyptic archetypes even come from? The Sex Moves are a Playbook specific ability, all Angels have the same, all Hardholders have the same. It's ridiculous. AW takes one of the most complex interactions known to humanity, interpersonal intimate/sexual relationships, and makes it a card you play.
It's like someone having a function they run, the whole concept is just bizarre.
3. Using piles and piles of stock photos/art that I've seen used elsewhere (I know, I know, it is convenient and the art can be of great quality... but when your book is ONLY stock imagery I get annoyed at the price point)
On the point of "gamifying intimacy/sex", I think the Persona series do it fairly well through it's confidante system. You can even date some partners (though I don't think it ever reaches sex?).
True. I love old engravings, for example, but “generic fantasy character art that has no direct context or relevance to the surrounding text” gets on my nerves!Some products find appropriate old art. But many just stick something on random pages. Those cases don't deserve to be called illustrations as they are not illustrating anything from the words of the page.
I generally loved the art too, but there were several pieces in the sidebars that were awful CGI poser characters. I was disappointed. Ill try to post some examples.Also, I'd be curious which art from Numenera you disliked. I quite liked the art from that game.
Ok, so what about every other Playbook? Even if you only allow one of everything, it still means that archetype (which isn't an archetype) always has the same sex move.Except the AW tells you explicitly that there be no "other Angels". That's like saying "All The Neos".
Sure, Battle Medics might exist. Some of them might be called angels by the grateful ones. But they're not using the mechanics of The Angel, sex moves included - they're just NPCs, always to be seen through crosshairs.
Heh, LotR has 5 half-planar Godlings in it.Call me old-school but when I play fantasy RPGs I like to keep it low-fantasy at best. Dwarves, Elves, Halflings are the other standard races. Non of this half-planar godlings stuff. Just doesn't do it for me.
I guess being reared on Tolkien is to blame for this, as that is typically my baseline to build off of.
Which is ironic, because Gandalf is at least half-planar Godling.Call me old-school but when I play fantasy RPGs I like to keep it low-fantasy at best. Dwarves, Elves, Halflings are the other standard races. Non of this half-planar godlings stuff. Just doesn't do it for me.
I guess being reared on Tolkien is to blame for this, as that is typically my baseline to build off of.
Heh, LotR has 5 half-planar Godlings in it.
Which is ironic, because Gandalf is at least half-planar Godling.
Given that a lot of RPGs have secret Godlings in the setting, I will have to agree, it is irrational.shh
My point is more that when the godlings are here, there and everywhere, they aren't special anymore. There is little weight in revealing that your BBEG is a godling when half of the party are tieflings etc and already have that in their backstory.
If LotR was an RPG, Gandalf is definitely a GMPC!
Nah, hating on parties of half-planar freaks in WotC‘s Realms is the most rational positions one can take.Given that a lot of RPGs have secret Godlings in the setting, I will have to agree, it is irrational.
2. Obviously copying Mike Mignola's art style (or other famous artist with super unique technique) (there's a particular Dungeon World game designer who does this and I hate it)
I dunno, I used to feel this way but I was charmed by the approach of the Hill Cantons, where old pagan gods are very incarnate and especially unimpressive. I like the idea of gods of the heath that you can actually meet and, on a good day, beat at arm wrestling. What I don't like is the old Deities and Demigods approach where gods are statted out as the ultimate challenge against classic high-level PCs.My point is more that when the godlings are here, there and everywhere, they aren't special anymore.
I'm not seeing your point. Every Warlock will have Eldritch Blast too, and every Street Samurai will have reflex enhancers. It's a trait of the archetype created by the author.Ok, so what about every other Playbook? Even if you only allow one of everything, it still means that archetype (which isn't an archetype) always has the same sex move.
It's like a morality play from a culture/religion that doesn't exist.
Every Warlock will have Eldritch Blast too, and every Street Samurai will have reflex enhancers.
There is a new religion in the game, actually, and an according playbook.Ok, so what about every other Playbook? Even if you only allow one of everything, it still means that archetype (which isn't an archetype) always has the same sex move.
It's like a morality play from a culture/religion that doesn't exist.
I'm not seeing your point. Every Warlock will have Eldritch Blast too, and every Street Samurai will have reflex enhancers. It's a trait of the archetype created by the author.
30+ years as player and DM, never had a bard or been in a group with a bard.
They make great Npc’s though!