Laughing at something doesn't necessarily imply actual agreement with what has been said though. Me and my friends use and laugh at self-deprecating humour all the time about our interests and professions, both the 'geeky' and the 'non-geeky' ones. When I laugh at Penny saying no one has played D&D with girls before I'm laughing because that's just how me and my friends would make gentle fun of each other. It comes across that she's making fun of them, not that she actually believes that.
The show pokes fun at the main characters, sure. But pretty well all sitcoms poke fun at the characters involved, much of humour is seeing our foibles and flaws reflected in someone else and laughing at them. Certainly to my mind the guys are written to be likeable to the audience, ultimately showing that they're actually good (if flawed) people as well as being geeky. That's a pretty good message I think.
Andrew R wrote:
It is when they are making that the sole defining characteristic. We do not have an iconic character that happens to be gay we have a GAY iconic that happens to be anything else. The iconics religions are nothing compared to the racial and sexuality that are being used to define them. for that matter it is starting to feel more like a party of token X, to say hey look we got x in our game look see.
This is patently untrue. As far as I know the only iconic which is confirmed as gay so far is Kyra. Far from her sexuality defining her it's one of the last things we've found out about her background. You can hardly claim her sexuality to be the thing that defines her.
Really though, this is just the same kind of pointless attempts at deflection that I've seen in other threads. What's your actual argument here? You shouldn't include somebody from one minority group if you don't include people from every other 'minority' group at the same time? Or that once you've include one minority character you should refuse to include any others because your 'quota' has been reached?
Do either of those positions make any kind of sense?
If you want to request more left-handed or obese iconics be included then please do so! But wanting those things included isn't in itself an argument against other forms of diversity (racial, sexual, whatever) being included.
To agree with most everyone else, just build your characters from the Core Rulebook to start with and you'll be fine. Even the 'overpowered' classes are only that way if built in specific ways (and even then there are a lot of debates over how overpowered various things are). If you run into anything that you don't understand or that seems too powerful deal with that as it comes up or by all means check with the boards if anyone can help. But the vast majority of things work fine right out of the book and are balanced fine against each other.
I have no problem with the delays to the project itself. With Kickstarter you're investing in the product much earlier in the process than you are in a typical pre-order. In turn this means that you're exposed to a whole lot of different variables that can cause delays in the process. In exchange for this you generally either get a discount to reflect the assistance you've given, or get to help make sure something you want gets made that otherwise would never have existed.
That said I think that Reaper's otherwise great communication went downhill a little over the last month and people were probably left in the dark a little longer than was necessary. Things look to have picked up again now though communication-wise, so that's good to see.
I was tempted to mention Amber as an exception, but being completely diceless makes for quite a different beast. When we've played it it's almost more enjoyable in the same way that Once Upon a Time is enjoyable as a collaborative storytelling session. I think it's enjoyable, but it's more comparable to non-RPGs in terms of the experience it offers to me.
But even if I classed it with RPGs I think the only reason groups I was in saw any more roleplaying in the game was because a lack of dice-rolling made the game move faster. Though as a consequence everybody ended up getting bored more quickly than in a typical roleplaying session of ours too. I imagine it would have gone better if we were bigger fans of Amber though.
On a complete tangent my Amber book is one of the gems of my collection though. Picked it up nearly 20 years ago at a second hand bookshop.
Systems certainly have a different amount of mechanics, but I've never found that the system we were playing had much of an impact on how much roleplaying a particular group did. I've played a lot of different systems in quite a few configurations of players. In every case I can recall it's the desires of the people are the table which determines the amount of roleplay, not the system.
Yeah, I intentionally hadn't wanted to be 100% certain he was Khan or not until I saw the movie. Granted, it was pretty apparent that he was at the very least 'inspired by' Khan. But it was also apparent that wasn't meant to be obvious within the confines of the story, so I'd prefer I hadn't known. Or at least got the choice whether to see the spoiler or not.
I still think the title should be changed to 'Benedict's identity is revealed' or something like that so anyone else can choose if they want confirmation or not.
Matthew Morris wrote:
I think that you seem to be missing thejeff's point, at least as I understand it. It isn't so much about standing out as it is recognising that our default assumptions may give people a different picture of the world than we have.
In terms of sexuality I'd always say that homosexuality is considered normal and not persecuted in the game world. That's the underlying assumption of the world and how people will react if one of the party turns out to be gay ever (though we pretty rarely touch on anything romantic or sexuality-based). But also when I think about the last time I ran anything any couple that were actually referred to were heterosexual ones. Without having GMed much lately I can't actually recall the last time I intentionally placed a homosexual couple in the game.
The upshot of that is, for somebody who doesn't already know that, there isn't actually any evidence of the world being open towards sexuality other than straight to a player who doesn't already know that. Sexuality isn't a focus in my games, but including heterosexual couples means it's certainly there. I'm not sure what I'll actually do with such a realisation, but it's interesting to see that my world wouldn't be coming across quite as I would like because of such subconscious decisions.
In terms of handedness though? I genuinely have no position on it in my game, if people ever asked some would turn out to be left-handed and some right. If my description for every character began along the lines of "This is Rufus the town crier and he's right-handed" then I'd agree that I'm saying something about handedness. I'm calling attention to right-handed people while not mentioning left. But that simply isn't the case, the reality is that the question of handedness isn't something that's a feature of my games.
Maybe it's different in your experience. But certainly in mine it's much more common to know the sexuality of a character within the narrative of the game than whether they are right or left handed.
Some people really seem to want to make someone the 'bad guy' in these situations for some reason. As far as I can tell this is broadly what happened here in brief. Feel free to let me know if this is wrong from the info we've been given.
Guy new to tabletop gaming joins group, plays for a while using an existing character until that character dies.
New guy is told that he needs to make his new character a cleric. (Personally I think this is rather harsh, I can understand telling him to play the same role since he's still new and it will maintain the party dynamics, but forcing him to be a cleric if he doesn't want to be seems unnecessary. Not a really big deal though.)
GM tells new guy that his new character must be a cleric, must worship a deity and may use any Paizo source.
New guy makes his character under those guidelines.
GM decides that the new character is overly min-maxed and asks the new guy to dial it down.
New guy does so, but is a little disappointed at the apparent mismatch of perceptions between he and the GM even though he's generally getting on well with the group.
From the above it doesn't sound to me as if either party has behaved too badly. The GM has failed a little in his communication and needs to be a bit more clear, but that's easy to do when the new guy isn't going to understand the unsaid rules your group may have. I think they need to have a chat and calibrate expectations, but I don't really see why it won't work out.
There's no reason for straight white male to be more likely than straight white female...
But regardless, I was referencing using 10 dice rolls to build a population, matching the idea of building a population in a game world. If you're guessing what 10 numbers will come up from rolling the dice 10 times you won't be right very often if you keep guessing 10 7's. You don't get anything like a realistic population by building one by just using 7. But that's what some of us more or less do when making the population of a game world. Or maybe we use 6, 7, & 8, but as your own rolls indicate that doesn't capture anything like a true population distribution.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Even 6, 7, 8 together still represents less than half of the possibilities, you won't get a great view of the population if you ignore the other possible outcomes. And we're not talking about 90% of the populace. As far as I can see from a quick google search about 72% of Americans are white. Assuming 1 in 10 of the population aren't straight then we get the figure I quoted where guessing an American is straight and white is going to be wrong a little more than 1 in 3 times.
Now if you put a gun to my head and ask me to predict the orientation and race of a random American then I agree, I'd guess at straight and white. But building on my example to Rynjin what happens if I need more people than that? What if (as an analogue to world building) I want to populate a village with 100 random Americans? Do you think I'll get a reasonable picture by picking the default for each of those 100 people?
Ultimately if I come up with a village of 100 people who are all straight and white is that actually going to end up being very much like America? What happened to the 30-40 people who are either not-straight or not-white that I'd expect to see in such a sample?
Edit: I managed to miss this off originally, but the point is that if you're going to try and select a sample population using some idea of the 'default' you're not going to end up with something very representative of your wider population. The world I live in may be mostly populated by straight and white people. But if I make a game world which only has straight and white people it isn't actually very like the world I live in any more.
Sure, but try to use your 'default of 7' to build up a population of dice results. If you say a group of 10 dice rolls (in any order) is going to give '7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7' and I say it's going to give '6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9, 5, 3, 4' then my guess is going to give a more accurate view of the population most of the time.
As an aside there is 1 way to get 2, 2 ways to get 3, 3 ways to get 4, 4 ways to get 5, 5 ways to get 6, 6 ways to get 7 and so on. So no, it isn't 'by far' the most likely option.
Yeah, that was an amazing last few days. They've put some sculpts up in the latest update too and they really look great. Makes me happy that I caved and backed this. :)
This really isn't a game-breaking character. In fact it's weak enough that it seems as if he could do with some advice on rebuilding unless for some reason he's only intending a dip into cleric before switching to something else. It seems like the real problem is the fact that he really isn't engaged in the game and is still wishing the group chose 4E instead. That's a problem that needs to be worked through with the player, not his character.
As for the high AC I think it's just the case that at low levels in Pathfinder characters really shouldn't be getting hit all that often. At low level you don't have many hit points to play with, your best defence is having some decent armour and preventing getting hit in the first place. By high level the game switches around so that you're getting hit far more often, but by then you have a lot more hit points and a lot of alternate defences available to cope with that. Low level front line characters who are easy to hit don't generally survive to become high level ones...
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
7 is indeed the most common single outcome on 2d6, but you won't get terribly good results if you decide that's your default. You'll be wrong more than 80% of the time.
Similarly for America I think most people would view the country as more diverse than that. The most visible American in the world isn't straight and white after all. If however you used straight and white for your idea of Americans then you would do better at guessing than picking 7 for your dice result, but you'll still be wrong more than 1 out of every 3 times. I don't think that a default assumption which is going to be wrong 1 out of every 3 times is worth all that much. (In hypothesis testing, for example, you generally want at least a 95% level of confidence before someone is prepared to 'believe in' a result for making predictions.)
I'm waffling a bit, but long story short if somebody asked me to picture someone from America I'd need some more information before imagining what race, orientation or even gender that person had.
Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
I disagree. As I've mentioned, homosexuals are not part of my "default to" set of elements. Therefore, if I were to put homosexuals in the game, I would have to consciously and purposefully add them.
But that's the point isn't it, the default kind of view of the world each of us take?
Look, most of the people who I interact with on a regular basis are straight white males. Therefore there's a definite tendency for a new character I make to also default to being a straight white male. I don't feel as if anyone is saying I'm a bad person for doing that, it's pretty understandable really. But what this thread and comments in it do is make me think about what I view as 'normal' and how that gets portrayed.
If I were to say that I'm running a game that doesn't really touch on romance and sexuality then that's one thing. But as thejeff says if any couples I mention in the game world are heterosexual then it's not true for me to say I'm not addressing sexuality in the game. It's not having a go at me to point that out, it's simply true.
I think the fact that quite a lot of us would only include homosexuality if we thought to intentionally do so is the 'problem' here (and I largely include myself in this group on reflection). Being accepting of other genders, races and orientations is great in and of itself. But I think this suggests that there's a step beyond accepting that you're happy for these groups to be existing, to actually considering them as a part of the world we're all in (or that we're in within our imaginations for roleplaying!).
Isn't thinking that elves should be bisexual wrong? I mean why?
I wouldn't say 'should', but in my worlds elves are usually extremely long lived beings where the population is low because they're only very seldom fertile. In that situation most relationships are pretty separate from the purpose of having children, having children is only something that can happen for a very small portion of an elves lifespan. In that situation (and given a primarily pure-hearted and 'enlightened' race) I feel as if the gender of a partner really wouldn't matter all that much to an elf.
Personally the games in my group, regardless of GM, tend to have extremely little in the way of romance. The few times it comes up I think pretty much all characters have been as per the preferences of the player, which has mostly been straight and mostly been male.
That being said I think we're pretty much all of the opinion that homosexuality wouldn't be generally frowned upon when it turns up, and would be especially expected in elves and maybe some other races. It seems to me that when your human daughter could come home with all sorts of other intelligent members of other races as a partner that the average person would find it a relief when she partnered up with a nice neighbourhood girl of the same race!
I think some of the comments are worth thinking about though. The fact that a group doesn't see anything wrong with homosexuality is one thing, but that's not the same as necessarily thinking about it as normal. I think that I'm personally guilty of that at times. I support same sex couples as much as I can (and was delighted when they recently earned the right to marry here). But I don't actually have any close gay friends and that probably serves to keep it from feeling quite 'normal' to me. I certainly don't feel it's wrong in any way, but I'm aware I don't think of it as being as normal as I could which I think is a further step that would be good to take.
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Anything with a sigma makes me cry...
It's all greek to me! *drum roll*
And stats is fun! Apart from the parts with the greek since I don't especially enjoy the theory... And I'm not a fan of all the computer coding that ends up being necessary for it... And sometimes explaining results to people can be a bit dicey... But actually using stats to find stuff out can be fun!
I mostly get APs to read both for enjoyment and to mine for ideas rather than with the intention of running (though I plan to run Rise of the Runelords soon!). That being said I actually found Second Darkness to be the most enjoyable of all the APs to read. I totally get that there are quite a few areas which would require substantial revision when played through, but the overall concept is great.
And purely looking at them as adventures rather than reading I think the first two modules make for an extremely strong start to the AP. Children of the Void in particular is one of my favourite adventures ever.
Congrats Chris! Nice to see a fellow Kiwi becoming a PFS officer. I don't actually play as much Pathfinder as I'd like (despite owning a whole bunch of it we've ended up on other systems for a bit), but I'm a big Paizo fan and located in Auckland.
I'm much more interested in setting material from Paizo than I am in new rules options. Unless some subsystem comes out that looks extremely exciting I don't really see myself buying any more of the setting-neutral hardcover rulebooks (though I certainly may pick them up in pdf form). That being said, I certainly don't feel as if I've been left wanting for material on the world of Golarion. I've got over a dozen 64 page books on the setting, a hardcover world guide (and the older version of it) along with near 50 AP instalments that add a lot of detailed world information and the only reason I don't have more is that I haven't had time to read all of that in detail.
I'd quite like some books that covered a more detailed 'life in Golarion' sort of thing, but I really don't feel the setting is being neglected.
I guess the simplest answer is that Paizo do indeed already make books set in the Pathfinder universe. There's even a bunch of web fiction on this site. There's also the Pathfinder Chronicler which has fan fiction written about Golarion and is a good resource if you want to get started at all. They even have regular story contests that might help you get on the radar if you ever wanted to write fiction for Paizo professionally..
The OP didn't seem to feel that it was relevant whether the problem player was dating somebody else or not, so I don't really see why a number of posters here want to make it so. I've read a lot of posts on these forums about male gamers who were problematic in a group, I can't recall ever seeing it assumed that the problem player must be dating somebody in the group when such a thing was never stated in the original post.
If you were a female gamer in a dispute with another member of your group would you think it fair if a third party heard one side of the story and then just decided that clearly you must be the girlfriend of the other gamer and that's the only reason you've been kept around?
As for the actual problem that started the thread don't try to solve your real life problems with the player by trying to treat her harshly through roleplaying, whatever that is intended to entail. If you all agree that she needs to leave the group and she won't listen to reasonable requests to try and work better with the rest of you then you should ask her to leave. You shouldn't passive aggressively try to make the game unpleasant in the hope that she chooses to leave.
I never really enjoyed playing Champions very much to be honest. Character creation was great fun, but it all went downhill from there for me.
Silver Age Sentinels was a lot of fun and also uses the D20 system, so it's pretty easy to pick up if you know that. I actually enjoyed Heroes Unlimited for superhero play as well. The Palladium system seemed to lend itself well to that kind if thing, Rifts is already filled with enough ludicrously overpowered stuff on its own after all! :)
Also, I've never had a chance to actually use it for superhero play, but Savage Worlds looks like it would be fun for that. I have the Necessary Evil sourcebook, just never got around to playing it.
I'm not really sure what we're meant to draw from the first post. I'll agree that some females objectify females. Does that mean it's therefore okay for this to happen? Or that it's okay when men objectify females because some females do it to other females too? That women aren't allowed to complain about being objectified by men until magazines like Cosmo no longer exist?
I pretty much agree with the OP. Frankly a lot of the 'hard mode rules' crowd often come across as pretty patronising when talking about so-called 'easy mode' as no challenge or childish or whatever other diminishing term.
I've been gaming over 20 years now and played in at least a couple of dozen different systems. Despite playing a wide variety of different styles through that my preferred option is still playing some kind of D&D-like system in a fairly easy mode kind of way. My favourite thing in a game is the interaction with friends and the developing story of the game with my character's part in it. I've had characters die to random types of things before and while I'm not going to throw a tantrum over such a thing it's not a game style that I enjoy either. I'm perfectly happy in a game where I know the odds of character death are mostly slim.
Even if I go into a campaign knowing that we're almost certainly going to win in the end I find the fun in finding out how we're going to do that as a party. I don't play roleplaying games out of any particular desire to be 'challenged' by them. At least not in the sense that the challenge is to try and roll high all the time. My main enjoyment is a social interaction with my friends as we explore strange new worlds and boldly go where no-one has gone before together. :p
I wouldn't have any objection to third-party publishers getting to include a single image in advertising forum threads, but I don't really feel as if it's all that necessary or worth the time it would take to set up.
If I take the two links in the original post as an example I much prefer the Paizo link for selling me on the product. I don't think the pictures and video in the post add anything and to me it's a bit jarring to find in a message board post. I read the Paizo post but would have probably skipped over the rpggeek one. Rather than being another advertising spot I think forum posts should be somewhere to actually discuss the product more and just get attention about the game and let people know where to find out more.
You need to play some point and click adventure games. Yeah, they are pretty much dead as a genre now, though there have been attempts to revive them. If you haven't tried them, try Grim Fandango, Full Throttle and a bunch of others. A Vampyre Story is a more modern offering, which I have not played. Keepsake is good. Psychonauts was fun. There are a number of more experimental games in the indie scene: Machinarium is a good example among many. Planescape: Torment has combat aplenty, of course, but it has plenty more to offer if you can stand the somewhat tedious battles.
There are actually quite a few Lucasarts-style adventure games coming out of Germany these days. I've played Deponia and The Book of Unwritten Tales and recommend them both to adventure game fans. To the Moon is a rather more indie in feel, but a very good game as well. The various games by Telltale are pretty good too (like Sam & Max, and Wallace & Gromit).
As for the original point I tend to agree that there are far too many action games focused on violence around these days. Having said that though I actually think that things have gotten a bit better in the last few years. Things like Steam & GoG have helped get more of an audience for the types of games that 'AAA' companies just won't make anymore, and Kickstarter offers a lot of possibilities too.
As an aside just how big is this backlash against holding a door open? I'm 33 years old, lived most of my life in New Zealand, also a few years in London and travelled a fair bit. I pretty much always stop and hold the door open for other people, regardless of gender, if they're close to the door as well. I can't recall a single time where anybody gave me so much as a dirty look for that, let alone actually complained. My experiences aren't going to be universal of course, but I don't think any of my friends have even mentioned such complaints directly happening to them so it certainly doesn't seem common,
I suppose if somebody runs in front of someone else just to open the door that would be a bit weird. Or if the door was held open for somebody 20m down the hall without any good reason. But otherwise? The reaction gets talked about as a common thing sometimes, but just seems highly odd.
I think the people making the jump to c are just looking to get offended. Saying that a game I play has sexist elements doesn't imply that I myself am sexist any more than saying playing games with violent elements must mean that I approve of violence.
There's a difference between macro and micro elements here again. There is no problem at all when individual games are like Mario and Zelda with male heroes and females to rescue. The problem comes in when a large chunk of the games industry ends up treating female characters as something to rescue or something to motivate the protagonist rather than a character in their own right. Individual games are perfectly free to portray characters in all sorts of ways, but the point people are making is that when you look at the wider games industry as a whole female characters seem to be put in a subservient position far more often than men.
The desired goal would be that women should have as much choice in gaming role models as men do. Now you may feel that's already the case, or that the nature if the industry should mean it shouldn't be aiming for equality between the sexes. If so there's nothing wrong with forming an argument along those lines. But feeling offended because somebody has pointed out that one of the games you enjoy perpetuates the gender stereotypes? I think that's missing the point and taking offense that isn't there.
Unless somebody actually says 'Mario is evil and everyone who plays his games is evil!' then you probably shouldn't assume they mean that.
As far as I remember that's partly because boys are more fragile when they're babies and hence the girls catch up again. Then all the way through life men have higher mortality (I think due to riskier occupations along with weaker immune systems) until women not only catch up but overtake the male population as they age.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
It's a 'holy crusade' to suggest that bad behaviour should be addressed when it's encountered? Who has actually been making claims that gaming is necessarily any more of a hotspot for gender inequality and prejudice than anything else is?
Acknowledging that gaming has areas to work on shouldn't be seen as offensive to gaming at all. To my mind pen & paper gaming in particular has cleaned up remarkably well the last few years, not perfect but doing much better. Would that have happened without people becoming more aware of these issues and paying more heed to them?
Criticism of something anyone likes shouldn't be automatically taken as an attack. It's good to shine a light on yourself and your own community at times to see where change for the better is possible. That doesn't mean that you and your community are bad, merely an acknowledgement that we can all be better.
I agree with you generally, but even in a shining example of equality the people exposed to those tiny specks should be concerned about clearing even those specks up. And certainly those enjoying the equality shouldn't tell those few people with genuine complaints that they can't complain about their own ill-treatment. Nothing gets to become a shining beacon of equality by shutting down valid complaints.
To my mind if we're not perfect we should always be striving to be better, and nothing is perfect. :)
Edit: Which culture is the most sexist may be a reasonable question for some government task force to ask questions about in order to ascertain where to best direct funding. But as individual people we should just question sexism where we see it. And we're going to be more likely to see it in the places that we frequent most often.
If my back yard is messy then I should be concerned about clearing it up. I shouldn't first be peeking my head over the fences and deciding that I don't need to do anything because some other hypothetical yard elsewhere is messier than mine is.
Analogies aside I don't get the point in debating whether gaming culture, music culture or sports culture is the least friendly to women. When we see behaviour that is inappropriate we should say so, regardless of the source. Personally I spend plenty of time on gaming forums (mainly this one), a little time on sports forums and no time on music forums. Therefore I see more incidents of sexism in gaming than those other cultures. It doesn't mean that we're worse than other groups, but we shouldn't ignore problems we do have either.
Edit: darn typo
My impression is that she's talking about video games in America, rather than necessarily american made video games. Are you honestly suggesting that it's inappropriate to discuss Nintendo when talking about video games in the USA from the 80s? Wherever the games came from those were the games which everybody in America was playing. Those are the games which people were exposed to most often. Which games are you suggesting should have been the focus of such an article?
The comparison with comics and animation would only be apt if manga and anime were the most popular forms of comics and animation with american audiences as well.
Sure, but they still chose to release the same game. And more tellingly the game was still wildly popular (far more so than the peripheral merchandise such as the cartoon), so most American audiences saw Zelda and Peach treated as damsels in distress. Whatever their origin those games were wildly popular with Americans. That doesn't make Nintendo (of America or otherwise) bad people necessarily. But the issues that she talked about were issues with the portrayal of the characters in some of the most popular video games in America of all time.
I'm a New Zealander. If something is shown that I found offensive here I wouldn't say 'gosh, this is offensive but I won't discuss it with anybody since it was made in America and they have different cultural values from me'. I'd talk about the media which I had 'consumed', whatever the origins of it may be. I might not tell America how they should make their television shows, but I can comment on which television shows from that country are shown in my country. Just as Americans can comment on video games made in Japan but which are wildly popular in America. Yourself and the author have already acknowledged this by mentioning Nintendo of America censored various items before showing them in America. Was that cultural imperialism?
And again, this merely serves to try and distract from the actual issues. Neither yourself here nor the author of the article are actually talking about whether she is right or not. Instead preferring to suggest that we apparently shouldn't discuss Nintendo games at all in this context since they were made in Japan. Even though the Mario games gave a massive kickstart to the American video games market.
I don't know, to me that article just reads like an attempt to shut down discussion rather than provide an actual rebuttal. They aren't addressing any points she made, rather trying to make the issue about japanese games. Rather than getting into too much detail I'm going to just list a few questions and concerns I have with the article.
The author is correct that this is a complex sort of topic which is multi-faceted. Various factors come into play beyond the ones directly talked about in the video.
But the suggestion appears to be that you can't discuss one aspect of it (the portrayal of women chiefly from arguably the most iconic video game company of all), without touching on everything else that may be a factor in the same sentence. Beyond a disagreement over Sonic's cast the author hasn't tried to counter actual points that were made. Merely suggested they aren't important because a whole bunch of other points weren't argued at the same time.
I don't think that the theme park model is broken in itself, I think the problem is that WoW does so very well that a lot of big companies have thrown a lot of money at the game hoping to be a WoW-killer. They seem to be expecting the market to work like the normal video game market does where everybody moves on to the new shiny every few months.
The problem is first mover advantage (first MMO to get big at least) makes WoW a tougher beast to take down than other companies hope. Sure the new games will often have better graphics, but that isn't such a selling point in an MMO, even the best ones don't have great graphics compared to non-MMO games generally. And WoW has been around for years, thus has a massive amount of content compared to what a new game can realistically boast. It's also full of people who've been playing for various lengths of time, who can provide information to new players coming it.
On top of that it isn't nearly such a novelty to be playing a game online any more. The line between MMO and non-MMO with multiplayer games is becoming more and more blurred.
A lot of AAA games have been labelled as failures because they failed to do anything like WoW numbers and I think it's becoming clear that it will take something very special to take a big chunk of WoW's customer base in one go. To my way of thinking the broken thing isn't theme park games as a concept, it's the idea that you can make an MMO that will do WoW numbers out of the box.
Tabula Rasa certainly wasn't a success, but it lasted over a year I think, not 2-3 months.
This is much more of a return to what he knows though regardless. So I'll be rather interested to see where it goes. :)
Looking very nice so far. I already have a couple of big undead dragons coming from Reaper, but might have to look at getting them another friend.
That troll is great though! The way he's holding those cleavers I really want to get him a chefs apron or something. For some reason he puts me in mind of an angry chef storming out of the kitchen...
It makes sense to compare like for like when discussing height. Different races and genders have different heights. Your estimate of average height just seems to be taking the shortest person and the tallest person, picking a spot near the middle and calling it the average. Which isn't terribly meaningful.
This makes for quite and interesting read in comparing height with wages. I haven't read any of the studies in detail, but the 2001 study indicating that it's height as a teenager which matters most is interesting. And curiously there are some other studies suggesting a correlation between height and intelligence, but it sounds small enough that I'd be dubious over how real it is.
Nothing seems to get to the $10,000/year less in salary for each inch figure though. I wonder if that may have been $10,000 less over a certain number of years rather than just one?
It's a bit tangental (and I think a lot of great info has been given here already), but I had a funny incident with this kind of thing soon after I had moved to London a few years ago. A couple of friends from back home were going to a pub quiz with some of their London mates and I went along, having a fun time in the process. There were a lot of us though and so we split into two teams, so I never really met the friends of my friends who arrived late and were in the second team.
After the quiz night everyone popped outside and was about to head off. I was standing beside my old friends when one of the girls I hadn't met started to give them each a hug and a kiss on the cheek goodnight. Now I'm not the most 'touchy' person, especially not with somebody I haven't really met, so I didn't want the goodbye hug and didn't want her to feel as if she should give one. I didn't want to look like I was running the other way either though, so I just stood a few feet from my friends and probably looked a bit uncomfortable.
Upon reaching the end of the line she hesitated a bit and decided to give me a hug anyway. This made me a bit uncomfortable and she looked uncertain too so I figured it might break the ice to introduce myself to her right then. But being still jet-lagged, tired, and a bit embarrassed I mumbled and probably was a bit tough to understand since she wasn't used to my accent either. She then made an embarrassed comment about not normally hugging random guys and basically we ended up creeping each other out!
Now, the next time we saw each other we actually got along pretty well and decided that neither was creepy. But it was a fairly odd situation to have ended up in. Ultimately neither of us had engaged in especially creepy behaviour since it was all unintentional on each side, but each of us initially failing to read the other meant the night ended more uncomfortably than it should have.
If I'm running a game then I don't allow Dominate Person on another PC and I don't like to play in games where it's allowed either. It doesn't really sound much fun to have any action I do come with veto control from another player. But that's not what everyone likes, so if everyone enjoys it then that kind of PvP can work in some groups.
Whatever the initial baseline of this group though, things surely got to the point where you or the GM needed to make changes if the other player was being horribly upset. It's certainly not acceptable to keep using the Dominate Person once you know the other player is upset by it and it's hurting her enjoyment of the game.
Now the solution shouldn't just be to get rid of the Dominate Person and fully return to the disruptive behaviour from before as that doesn't solve anything. Maybe tell the other player out of character how annoying 'all chaos, all the time is', maybe the group can come up with some compromise, maybe the barbarian can make a character that fits in with the group better, maybe the players just have different expectations and aren't compatible in the same group. But once the actions of one player are upsetting another player and they're happening repeatedly then, yeah, the behaviour needs to be addressed.