I agree completely, I refuse to join or take part in facebook myself. If people use it great, I would just find it annoying if I had to join facebook to find everything I wanted. There has been a few companies that did that and I never did care for it.
Yes I would stay away from ads from products/companies you review. But maybe ads for board games, or web comics, or things of that nature.
Not that i am in favor of ads on web pages, only saying IF you wanted to go the way of ads I would look at those kinds of ads.
Rachel F. Ventura wrote:
Regarding the PDF, Art resolutions, Maps, etc. This will be fixed. We need to re-compress the images differently. Working on that now. Rest assure the print version does NOT look like this.
I have not had a chance to read the whole thing but i have looked over it and so far i really like the book. Especially the part early on about the NPC's and how they go if the PC's don't intervene when they have a chance. I loved that, all and all I am very happy it. My only real complaint was the art and map resolutions but since that is due to be fixed that great. Looking forward to the fixed PDF and more importantly the book. :)
Well there is a BIG and I mean BIG difference between "bedroom play" with someone you know and trust and complete strangers. Your wife KNOWS you don't think of her as only a sexual object.
For shopping it depends on the women, but just like with men. Like minded people tend to hang out as they share common interest. So women who shop together will often have very similar fashion senses on what does and does not look good. If if they don't dress the same. If that makes sense.
But it is pretty much what Odrande said, best to error on the side of caution.
But objectification in it's most basic form is when you look at or treat someone as nothing more than a sex object, to be used and discarded at will. Least in my mind that is what it means anyways.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
What is the difference though? (Not being snarky, honestly want to see). For you personally, or just in general, where does one stop and the other begin?
Honestly if you don't know the difference I am not sure i could explain it.
For one where the line is, is not clear as it depends a lot on the person and where their limits are. But really there is fairly safe ways to handle it, borderline ways and then obviously over the top ways. It is the middle group that is grey and varies.
But in the short term.
Looking sexy is about looking good and feeling good about yourself. If men or women check you out great, if they don't who cares. You are dressing for yourself.
Being objectified is when you are seen solo as a sex object or eye candy with no other aspect of me taken into account.
A example of how they can be in public. I am dressed up well and looking good. I walk by a guy who obviously checks me out and he says something along the lines of "Damn" and thats it.
While another guy starts making comments like wanting to wear my rear as a hat and other such comments etc.
These are not great examples just quick and easy ones to make a point, but to me there is a very big difference in them.
It goes a lot deeper than this of course.
Interesting topic/s, while many of what I call hardcore gamers fit the stereotype mold to one degree or another, I find most gamers in general don't.
To be clear I consider hardcore gamers as ones that have several bookshelves of games often game 2 or more times a week.
As for casual gamers they tend to run the gambit. In my current group, there is a nerdy IT guy, a blue collar factor worker, a cop, a x-PJ(para-rescue) who seems to change jobs after the airforce about once every 6 months, a paralegal, and until recently we had a med student working on become a doctor, but he had to drop out cause he is to the point in his education where he has almost no time to sleep let alone do anything else. Then myself who is a punk/goth/emo or what ever you want to call the look, part time bartender and temp worker who is trying to get into the computer tech field.
Really by looks the only one in our group that remotely fits the stereotype is the IT nerd.
As for how I got started I got started young by my half brother when we was visiting when I was very young. I played in high school, I think mostly cause I was a tomboy and liked hanging out with guys more than girls. Mostly cause I kinda grew up in the boonies and there was no girls with in 3 years of my age above or below me with in a couple of miles walk. Lot of boys though so i learned early to play with the boys as much as they would let me or play along. When some of them got into gaming and stuff due to my half brother introducing them to it during one of his visits I got to be part of the group.
Alice Margatroid wrote:
I would say if you are looking for more check out Alice: Madness Returns for one.
brock, no the other one... wrote:
Yeah as brock says it shouldn't be showing that. Is the zip file showing that name that way as well? If yes then it sounded like a bad DL. if the zip file is correct then maybe the unzip program you are using is not working correctly.
It depends a DMPC tends to be a PC who is equal or better than the PC's.
Adding in NPC's that travel with the party is different. My group always tries to get some NPC's to help out. Some of them do, some don't. Some of them eventually die, some retire and some move on to do their own thing.
They key is make interesting NPC's the PC's can run into and if they try and talk the NPC into coming along, have the NPC do so. Let them form a bound with the NPC if they want to ask them to keep traveling or let it be a one off.
Once the players trust you to make NPC's who are just like any other NPC but that might travel with them at times most players become more cool with the idea.
Kinda like sidekicks, guest stars etc. The PC's stay the star of the show and the NPC's only stay around till the story writes them out or the PC's kick them to the curb which ever comes first.
James Jacobs wrote:
Incubi make great footstools.
John Kretzer wrote:
Sure fine and expect a big passionate kiss that brings you to your knee's... and maybe kills you ... in return.
We are just like guys, some of us are good, some are bad, most fall inbetween. In my personal experience I have noticed trends that more female GM's do certain things more than males or males do things more than females.
Have you had one? Ho was it?
Yes, twice. Once she was very good and very RP focused with very tight well thought out plots. Once it was horrible one of the all time worse GM's ever. She played blatant favoritism and was a complete control freak and took everything you said as a personal attack, but to be fair she was nuts to begin with.
Why do you think there are so few?
In my experience and this is just from what other female players have said when I tried to get them to try.1) Lack of confidence.
2) Lack of time.
3) Casual player (My experience has been percentage wise more female gamers are casual gamers than their male counterparts)
If you are a female GM, do you feel like you have been met with any additional challenges?
When I first started yes, the guys where less trusting and more quick to want to double check rules. Now that I have been doing it for awhile no.
Was it a leap for you to get your start?
For me personally no. I was nervous and a bit put off I keep getting second guessed but I was mentally ready for the what it took.
Well I already GM and as for other female players I have tried to talk into giving it a try you can see my answer above on the reasons I get on why most of them are not interested in GMing.
It is just blank. where the PDF would be is just grey. I don't have a account or signed in so maybe that is the issue.
I just tried it again and same thing.
I do notice the link changes name though from
Edit: Ok with firefox it won't work with seamonkey browser it works just fine so *shrug*