Pippi's page

Watermelon. Our group is crazy for watermelon.

I'm trying to encourage healthy snacking at our table, as two of our players have had diabetes since childhood, so I bring a lot of fruits and vegetables.

If I'm being naughty, Lays Sour Cream and Onion chips.

I joined a D&D 5.0 Encounters group at my local gaming store, because I was curious about the system. I didn't know anyone at the table, I've been very fortunate in my experiences with gamers so I wasn't too nervous.

The young man sitting next to me started up a friendly conversation as we were developing our characters and he asked if I wanted to hear the backstory of his human bard. I wish I would have thought to pull out my iPod to record the following:

"A meteorite smashes into the Underdark, and within the debris the Drow investigators find a baby- my character. The dark elves would have normally killed such an aberration on sight, but instead they decided to sacrifice him to the local dragon, in an attempt to appease his anger. They left him at the entrance to the red wyrm's lair, but instead of eating the baby, the dragon took him to a nest, filled with the monster's clutch.

The dragon left to do whatever it is dragons do, and my character could tell that he was in a bad spot, So he grabbed a rock and smashed all the dragon eggs around him. The father dragon returned to find his brood massacred, and snatched the baby up in one bite. But my character had grabbed a large shell from one of the smashed eggs, and used it to lodge himself in the dragon's gullet. Instinctively, the dragon tried breathing fire to clear the obstruction but you obviously know what happened next?"

Me, blinking in stunned amazement: "No... I honestly have no idea."

"Well, red dragon egg shells are, of course, naturally fire-resistant, so the flame slammed up against the stuck shell, and the dragon exploded into a million pieces! The baby was thrown clear of the blast, and landed safely in the comfort of the nest. A group of human explorers found him a few days later, sleeping after another fine meal of barbequed dragon. He thought they were going to be angry at him, but they declared him a hero for killing the dragon, and returned him to the surface to be raised by a local noble family.

I'm taking 'Folk Hero' as my background."

Me: "Wow."

I just... I dunno. I was simultaneously horrified and in love. I almost felt like a bit of a hack for just having the same old "Monk ignores wishes of master (who is also her father) to run off into the wide world to find her mother" back-story.

Pippi wrote:

Sorry... I failed my Will save. ... I just can't ever resist a pun.

As Shakespeare might have said, 'get thee to a punnery!'

... Honestly, all my life I've never heard that one! *Adds it happily to list of "pun" puns*

I have been on the other end of a coming out...

I had got back from Uni for my Christmas break, I lived 15 mins walk the beach and Christmas is in summer in Australia.

One of my best ever friends and I were walking back from the beach through the scrub at sunset the sky was orange pink and the smell of barbecues and sea salt was in the air.

My friend look at me and said something like "hey mate I have something important to tell you"

"Yep"

He said "mate I think I am gay"...serious voice not joking.

My brain went oh this is very important don't balls this up for him, say something that will reassure him that this doesn't change our friendship and that peoples sexual orientation is not an issue for me.

My mouth says "mate I am your friend no matter what".... Brain says "Oh s#!# I worded that wrong... did I word that wrong?, oh crap I think I did... because what I said sounds like there is something wrong with him and I am still his friend...

He didn't speak to me for a few days I kept calling him to hang out, still friends 20 years later...

Brains are weird. I'm very glad your friendship is still going strong.

I am forever grateful that when my little brother came out to me the first thing that came to my head was: "Huh. I totally didn't expect that", and the first thing that came to my mouth was: "Okay... Do you still want to get pancakes?"

I do not envy you that conversation. I hope it goes well though. Having to be straight with a friend is never easy, even though it's right thing to do most of the time. Good luck!

I see what you did there.

Sorry... I failed my Will save. Please don't think trying to make light of your situation, Cheeseweasel. I just can't ever resist a pun.

It's never easy to turn someone down, especially when they're emotionally vulnerable. But ultimately, you need to do what's best for you.

Best of luck! And stay well!

Dotty McDotterton!

Oh, I'm pretty sure one can play a character that follows the basic rules of some real-world religion/philosophy in Golarion. For example, a character that doesn't kill (except in self-defense), doesn't steal, lie or bed another's wife/husband could pretty much say he's doing all the seven commandments while in a fantasy make-believe world and it makes him/her happy.

However, you must remember, that for some people waving the banner is as, or even more, important. They won't be fine with having a PC that acts like a member of the player's faith would, they want to be able to say loudly "I smite thee in the names of Jesus Christ!". Simply put, they want to have the ability to show off certain artefacts of their belief not just as veiled analogy, but as a direct implementation.

And since the gaming world doesn't provide that, they're getting disgruntled at seeing other groups included. And so it happens, that they turn their frustration against that one group they consider to be "immoral" IRL (because let's face it, "get blacks/women/democrats/cat owners out of Golarion because they are immoral" would never find any major support these days). So it's the LGBT who get the full dose of "get out".

Hmmm... I guess? I dunno. As a Christian, specifically Mormon, I can't imagine wanting to drag my RL religious stuff whole-cloth into a fantasy game. The presence of Christ in a game, the way I view Him, automatically precludes other deities, a Vancian magic system, monsters and pretty much anything else in the game. For Christ to conform to anything that would be meaningful to me, Golarion wouldn't be Golarion, and Pathfinder wouldn't be Pathfinder. As much as it makes my athiest friends roll their eyes when I say this, to me Christ is real, and Golarion is fantasy. :P I think perhaps people's objections spring from something other than inclusion envy.

But that's just me? (And it's entirely possible you were just kidding?)

Anywho, again, I figure, if that's something you really desire to have put in place and your table is cool with it, why not just go there? No one outside of those you play with are stopping you.

@TheAntiElite, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I really like the way you write. :)

I think I get where you're coming from, but I wonder a little at your concern. In most official stuff I've seen, the Paizo writers don't ever really get into the way that an NPC socializes all that specifically. It seems the GM will get notes (outside of whatever is drawn from the alignment assigned a character) that the NPC is noble, or concerned with this that or the other, or what have you, but it's largely the GMs that come up with the "personality" or "socializing" aspect of the character. They kind of come up with the way the character is represented to the players, so your concern that a homosexual character would be represented as a broad stereotype would be something that would be more of a player/group/GM thing, rather than an official product thing. Does that make sense?

And while I'm addressing this, I guess I'll touch on the whole "stereotypical" thing while I'm here, because I obviously am stupid.

My friend's little brother has been extremely effeminate his entire life. He came out in high school (surprising no one), but even as a child, long before he had any real exposure to the idea of a "stereotypical gay male", he was presenting in a way that kinda fell into those stereotypes. He's not a gamer, but I imagined if he played a character that was anything like himself (as some folks do :P ), he might actually have a fighter who would maybe be a bit on the campy side.

I wonder how someone like that would fare at your table. I honestly don't think he's "bought into any stereotypes", per se, but rather, that he might be one of the ur-archetypes that certain sterotypes spring from. He wouldn't be playing a camp character to annoy others, but more because he's, well, he's campy. I'd like to think, because of what you've written (and the way that you've written it, :P) that he'd be welcome, despite whatever misgivings you might have of the way he interacts with others, just by nature.

I guess it doesn't have a whole lot to do with your voiced concerns, but maybe it's something to consider?

And again... I dunno... it's all between you and your table. Play the way you want to play, include and exclude whoever you want to, as long as you're not hurting anyone, what does it matter what you want to change in your personal campaigns, whether by addition or subtraction to/from the source material?

For my vote, I'm happy to see Paizo include people from all walks of life, or opportunities for decent, kind and fair representation of folks from all walks of life. I play with a largely hetero-normative crowd, so it hasn't much come up, simply because it's not something that immediately springs to mind. But due to discussions like these, the whole idea of a broader spectrum of humanity (Dwarfity, Elfity, Orcity and Gnomeity, too) has now come in from the periphery and is more of a thing in our games. I figure that the world of Golarian should be at least as wonderfully varied and colorful as the one I live in, if not more-so. I may never encounter him in my campaigns, but I know there has to be somebody somewhere in this crazy place that my friend's brother would identify with, and if we can ever convince him to join in, maybe we'll find him in some wizard's tower somewhere or in a local apothecary. Or maybe he'll just be the one that brings him into the world, hopefully having a lot of fun when he does so. :)

Dotted and squeed.

Show them the polymorph subschool in the Magic Chapter of the Core Rulebook.

It clearly says they are wrong.

Man, I really wish I would have read this yesterday. It's going into the email I'm writing during lunch, though. Thanks for the excellent point, RD! :)

Thanks, guys!

I shall share this with her tonight. :)

Howdy!

This forum has been a quick resolution to so many of my other questions I thought I'd give this one a try:

Form of the Dragon spells. Pretty much as written, amiright? I figure the dragon bonuses you gain from casting the spell are all, um... spelled out in the description?

There are those (such as, oh, I dunno, let's say, my dumb friend who also believes "victuals" is pronounced "vih' kchoo əlz") who would argue that you also get all the other listed dragon-stat stuff when assuming the form of the dragon, as well as the things that the spells describe, simply because the first incarnation of the spell reads "You become a Medium chromatic or metallic dragon..." (emphasis mine, but really, emphasis that of my dumb friend).

They argue this while you're trying to enjoy an especially yummy batch of French toast, and also when you're trying to choose a feat for your 15th level wizard, and also when you're trying to go potty.

What the heck, dumb friend? The potty is completely off limits! You can't argue with someone when they're peeing!

This game, like the games that came before it and inspired it, should be about getting the GP, XP, staying alive and shivving, am I right?

If that's what makes the game fun for you and yours, then that is exactly what it is about. This is part of why I don't get most of the fuss about an LGBT presence in Golarion. As has been pointed out multiple times, folks get to run their own campaigns. Nobody will be standing over them with a frozen trout, poised to smack them on the noggin if they leave out inclusive plot points or characters.

Don't ask, don't spell.

Boo! :P

Deli-sliced cajun chicken and cucumbers on a toasted Smith's sesame bagel. Chili-Cheese Fritos. A banananananana! Some water.

Thanks! I'll look them up. :)

Perhaps of interest, Golarion is a place that could actually inflict non-congenital transgenderism on a character. The wrong elixer or belt, and all of a sudden you've got a character who might find it their new life's mission to correct their new gender difficulty.

I don't think this would qualify as homosexuality, per se, as a man who had been transformed into a woman who was heterosexual before the change would still identify as a man, and therefore his attraction, regardless of his new physical represention, would still be that of a man for a woman.

But I think this would be an interesting story to tell (if it hasn't been told already), and one that wouldn't be outside the scope of "Heroic Fantasy".

"I give them fifteen minutes."

--Michael Marshall Smith, "Fair Exchange", part of the anthology New Cthulhu: The Recent Weird. It's a Kindle edition, so...

Jeez, you just don't get my point.

The U.S military, the Navy Seals, this is not Lastwall. Nothing in this world has to be in Golarion. Porting things over may not fit. Lastwall has not been identified as a bastion for trans heroes... yet. :)

But if humans exist in Golarion, with what appears to be almost every other corresponding psychological and biological nuance, with all of the other passions, desires and concepts that we're so familiar with, it would seem silly to be upset about or protest the appearance of this particular shade.

As a matter of fact, I think it would be more conspicuous in its absence. Transgenderism has been a part of human history. Its inclusion among the population of the humans of Golarion doesn't strike me odd at all. It's only natural, if you'll pardon the phrase.

Thank you so much! You are the best customer service dragon ever!

Could I please cancel this order? It turns out that as I was waiting for it, a friend of mine picked this up for me for my b-day, and it sounds like it might be arriving before this gets settled here.

Thank you!

Maybe they're role-playing callous meanies? :P

From a general standpoint it sounds like your group was okay with your actions, (although I have to admit that I too would have been a little disappointed with their reactions. Sometimes even a "Man, you're over-reacting to this" is better than a "Meh"), so it seems like there were no lines crossed.

From a more personal view, I think that sounds awesome, and I love it when people put this kind of thought and life into their characters. So another "Well done!" vote, here.

I love my group to pieces, and generally am okay with our story and character progression, but I knda think I would love to have a slow progression game where I have a character who hasn't hit twentieth after two years.

At home:

"But one of the things that makes music different from painting is that it is dynamic, changing across time, and what moves the music forward are rhythm and meter."

-This Is Your Brain on Music by Daniel J. Levitin

At work:

"Fur split his skin."

-The Poison Eaters and Other Stories by Holly Black

"Why by golly, my good old bean! In regard of the partaking of your most tippity-top personhood in tonight's merrymaking of verosimilitudinous and affectatious savoir-faire, mind if I entreat of you the grant of disestablishing said committement in favour of another that would result in a discongruity of our respective collocations? By all means, send my best of regards to [Insert Name of Someone Important]. Ta-ta!"

From now on, I am going to refer to people as "[their] most tippity-top personhood[s]" in all legal documents.

Sorry, nothing to add. Just dotting for future perusal. Please excuse.

No one expects me to demonstrate wall climbing, deadlifts, or juggling in real life. Why do my softer skill checks require me as a player to demonstrate IRL skills I might not have?

I don't think they should (and if anybody wants to sign a petition asking my DM to stop setting up a dungeon obstacle course in his back-yard and making us run it as we play, my knees and I would really appreciate it. Especially if we can stop him from filling it with his Orcs/pit bulls.)

But there are times when I'm sitting there, playing this crazy-smart wizard, and I just feel like a dunce (and that makes it sound like much more of a personal problem than it really is. :P).

When I'm playing my fighter who has finally managed to hit 24 on her STR, and I'm lifting stuff and climbing stuff and killing stuff like a sum-a-gun, there's a fun in-game feeling that I'm a fighter with a 24 STR.

Conversely, when I'm playing my Wiz with a commensurate INT, it's hard to get that same sense of accomplishment, because I'm still not that bright. :)

I'm guessing that that's just the nature of the beast, but I really like a lot of the suggestions that have been offered up thus far.

And I can see how important it is for a DM (and as a DM) to be actively trying to make this happen. I especially like Deadmanwalking's WIS advice. I think in my future DMing I might just keep a record of my players' characters' WIS and INT scores close at hand, and give them advice on a sliding scale.

Thanks for the great ideas, everyone!

I've seen a couple of threads talking about characters with the less-crunchy attributes as their weak stats. For me, it's not too hard (and even fun sometimes) to role-play a character with social/mental quirks or weaknesses.

But now I have this wizard, and she's so much smarter than me that it's not even funny. (I like to flatter myself that I sit around a 13-14 in the INT department, even though the amount of times I mess up spelling the word "weight" pretty much proves that I'm just kidding. My wizard has a 24 INT now. I'm imagining she's not having any problem figuring out the actual range of a dragon who is 120' away and 60' up. Le sigh.)

I know there are very set bonuses already in place for higher INT, WIS, and CHR scores. But outside of the pluses to skill checks, saves and attitude adjustments, how do you role-play a character who is a mensa candidate when you still count on your fingers when adding up your cone of cold? How do you role-play a convincingly silver-tongued bard when you can't even convince your 5 year old nephew about Santa?

And perhaps more to the point, as a DM, do you do anything outside of the mechanical to help your players feel like their characters actually possess these superhuman attributes?

Just curious.

Using crazy ol' science to gain a better understanding of how the T-Rex got its food. (Sorry, DungeonmasterCal... it's that spotlight hogging Tyrannosaur again.)

I understand it doesn't entirely eliminate scavaging from the T-Rex's eat-y ways, but I loves me the idea of T-Rex-as-apex-predator, and this makes me super happy!

Yay!

Dotting this for further perusal later. Thanks!

Me, too! Thanks, too! :)

As the guy who asked the original question I am still amazed how good this thread has been. Thanks for everybody who has responded. In case you are interested I decided to keep playing dnd with my friends. None are Christian but can be spiritual. I do stay away from the demon and devil stuff. Have a great weekend whether you are a believer or not.

Have fun!

I'm really glad you decided to go with it. It's been a lot of fun for me and my friends (the majority of whom are Christian). I hope it turns out to be for you guys, too! :)

And if I question why, I'm a monster who should be exiled from civilization.

THAT'S not why I want you exiled from civilization. :P

As to the thought of population control v. maternity leave, I don't think the arguments are terribly related. Well, at least not in my neck of the woods.

Women generally get six to eight weeks off for maternity leave, and men sometimes get one to two. I don't really see that as incentive to have a baby. For people who see that as their tie-breaker/decision-maker to "breed", well... I don't know what to tell you. That's just silly. I have no statistics to back me up, but I can't see that being a large portion of the population.

I'm kinda dicey on imposed population control, but I do think that slowing down the birth-rate is something we as a civilization need to examine and plan for. I also think we need to look into how we use our leisure time and how we consume resources in this world, too.

But maternity leave and reasonable population growth (or the reasonable lack there-of) aren't mutually exclusive, to my mind. Leave for mothers is more about quality of life and looking out for children's welfare, than it is about incentivizing "breeding". Helping existing parents be better parents.

Even at zero population growth, or reduced population growth, there will still be babies, and parents will nned to care for them. (Unless of course, there are NO babies, and then civilization dies off anyway. Because of the no babies.)

Villain's name: Babbage Yaga

Super powers: A master of powerful folk magics as well as an accomplished engineer and inventor.

Motivations and backstory: Enigmatic and secretive by nature, Bsbbage Yaga's reasons for joining the Legion are known only to herself and her orthodontist.

Secret hidden base: The Difference Engine on Fowl's Legs.

Minions: The Difference Engine on Fowl's Legs, a sentient traveling computer. Also, the White Knight, the Red Knight, and the Black Knight, her programable clockwork warriors.

Arch enemy: The Doom Patrol

Weaknesses: The pure in heart.

Who plays your villain in the movie: Helena Bonham Carter

I strongly agree that over population is a serious problem and needs to be addressed. I would have no problem with incentives not to breed or to adopt instead of breeding.

Although there are some folks who would say not having children is the reward for not having children. :P

If by "help," you mean "give extra time off of work," that's an incentive.

If we cared about a stable world population, we'd give that to people who adopt, but not to people who have their own!

Pippi wrote:

I can see the other point of view, and would probably agree with it too, if I saw babies as a negative impact on the world. But I don't.

Some counterpoints.

I'm not saying that we need SO MANY babies. And adoption is wonderful, but it still makes it necessary for people to have babies! And those people who CHOOSE to adopt should still have time off to bond with their new baby. (And population control is another argument entirely.)

I'm saying that some babies are neccesary (if you want a species to survive, this is true by definition alone), and that it doesn't hurt to help people who have babies.

And if you're having a baby just to get 6 weeks off of work, you're not very bright, in my estimation.

Pippi wrote:

No babies, no people.

Now, babies are going to be made regardless. It's too great of a biological imperative to be cut out anytime in the near future.

Your second statement renders the first moot.

There is absolutely no need to incentivize reproduction. None. People will have babies even if you dis-incentivize it as strongly as possible.

I never made an argument for incentivizing. I simply got that point out of the way to forestall any of what you just said being made as a counter-argument.

Helping was the point.

Coming in a little bit at the end of the "Maternity/paternity Leave" (and I feel foolish for even jumping in a little, but, like an idiot, I can't seem to help myself).

I'll just say this, and then slink back out.

Babies are, literally, the future of the society they belong to. They grow up to be the people who inhabit and work and play (and spend money) in that society. No babies, no people. No people, no society.

Better babies mean better people, for the large part. The current thought, based on years of scientific research (done by people, who were once babies!), is that the formative years for babies are crucial for making well-adjusted adults that contribute to society. Y'know; scientists, doctors and RPG designers.

Now, babies are going to be made regardless. It's too great of a biological imperative to be cut out anytime in the near future. Some people don't want babies. Not a big deal, there are enough folks that want them to more than cover for those others.

So, people mostly choose to have babies, true. But babies are a necessity for the survival of a species. And a society.

A business, which is also a part of society, could do worse than put a little money towards the continuance and betterment of that society. It's in its own best self-interest. Society expects—and needs—parents to provide their children with continuity of care, meaning the intensive, intimate care that human beings need to develop their intellectual, emotional, and moral capabilities. Leave to help promote this isn't a crazy idea.

I can see the other point of view, and would probably agree with it too, if I saw babies as a negative impact on the world. But I don't.

I don't see people who are raising children as "heroes", anymore than I see people who don't want kids as "villains". They're just people who are propagating their species, which is a role society needs filled. Like scientists, doctors and RPG designers. But it's not an easy job, and it has its drawbacks as well as it's rewards. I don't think it's wrong for folks to get help in doing a hard job.

Pippi wrote:

But that's not what I'm saying, Wolf.

Its exactly what you're saying. Case in point...

Quote:

I'm not saying that the problem exists because the Bechdel says it exists. I don't need anything besides my ability to pay for a movie to see that the problem exists. The Bechdel test is just an indicator that helps demonstrate it exists.

Try to follow this line of argument from the evidence to the conclusion. Draw it out. Its either circular or the Bechdel test is irrelevant.

To say I observe something and to say that something else serves to confirm what I observe is not circular, any more than saying "Oh, I think there's radiation here", and pulling out a geiger to check.

So yeah, the ratio of men that like giant robot movies is greater than the ratio of women that like them. But there are still women that like giant robot movies! And enough that I believe that if they made a decent giant robot movie staring women (who wouldn't even have to be dressed like strippers) they woyuld still pull in some good money. And part of that money would be because of men.

Hollywoood keeps banging out these flop summer "blockbusters" with male leads and the idea is just "that's how it goes in movies", but if there's a female lead and the movie flops, the idea is "women can't open pictures". There's a crazy confirmation bias where successful movies that are women-centric are "flukes", and successful movies with male leads are a winning formula.

There's a n interesting article here that talks about movies today without the much despised Bechdel test that still manages to make a good point, IMO.

Regardless, I don't think my opinion is going to change, and neither is the opinion of anyone who disagrees with me. I think I've said all I really can, so I'm going to give myself permission to step away from all this joy and go do something I like.

And here you have problem 1: You're being horribly circular. You can't say that the problem exists because the Bechdel test says it exists so that shows the accuracy of the Bechdel test which shows that the problem exists.

But that's not what I'm saying, Wolf.

I'm not saying that the problem exists because the Bechdel says it exists. I don't need anything besides my ability to pay for a movie to see that the problem exists. The Bechdel test is just an indicator that helps demonstrate it exists.

I think it has more to do with the difference between what men and women are looking for in movies*. Giant fighting robots, explosions, fights in factories lacking OSHA regulations, and zombie heads exploding are easy to show and easy to pitch to movie producers. Well done nuanced emotional drama.. not so much.

What makes you think women don't want giant fighting robots, explosions, fights in factories lacking OSHA regulations, and zombie heads exploding? What on earth does any of that have to do with having two named female characters talking about something besides men?

It's not about the idea behind the movie, it's about who is represented in those movies, how their stories are told, and why they do what they do.

I would kill to see a movie about two women mecha pilots dressed in reasonable armor fighting giant monsters. That would be neat!

But disregarding that, what could it possibly mean that a "man's" movie is easier to pitch to studios than a "woman's" movie? Does it mean that men are more important? Does it mean that "men's interests" are better? Does it mean that men spend more money on movies? Or does it say something about the mindset of movie producers, and society in general?

I wonder.

Feminism itself fails the test, (as the writers <probably women> tell the reads <mostly other women> just how much they do not need men to be happy).

This is news to me. I always thought feminism was about equality.

Weird.

I've been doing it wrong this entire time.

With a pregnancy test you can test their effectiveness and accuracy (by either getting a regular test or just waiting nine months) What checks the accuracy of the Bechdel Test?

I kinda let myself get roped into this, because I was trying to be funny. (Note to self: Stop trying to be funny!!)

The idea behind the Bechdel Test (outside of the initial idea that it was how one of the characters in Alison Bechdel's comic strip decided if she would watch a movie or not) was simply to demonstrate that the depths of female characters' stories and the range of their concerns were largely under-represented in movies.

It set out to demonstrate this by setting up the already discussed criteria. Fortunately, sometimes a movie can represent the stories and concerns of women well without passing the test, and the movie can also fail to do this while passing.

But this isn't something that happens too often, and I think the Bechdel test is useful, if only for sparking conversations like this, and helping people to thoughtfully consider the subject.

So I guess, to answer your question, even though it was an admittedly poor analogy, the "accuracy" of the Bechdel test, in that it is indicating a lack of complexity in the female cast member's story, can be tested by further observation.

Sometimes you'll see that, oh, that movie didn't pass the test, but it still does a good job of telling a woman's story, and sometimes you'll see that, oh, that movie did pass the test, but it still did a poor job.

But, at least in my experience, those times are likely to be on par with the accuracy of a home pregnancy test.

And both are still useful.

I ignored nothing.

quote you: It's to highlight how little our culture focuses on women

Its absurd to argue that the test is accurate in this case because a number of women clearly ARE being focused on. A very strong female character is one of the main three as well as a large number of the supporting cast.

Golly, you're right! I'm going to go throw away all the pregnancy tests in the local pharmacies, too. They're absolutely useless because they can get false postives as well.

The Bechdel test is a stupid test, and I reject it completely.

No, the Bechdel test is a joke, and should be treated as such.

What don't you guys like about it?

Damn... I forgot about The Kingkiller Chronicle - by Patrick Rothfuss

So far I have loved the heck out of that series, but I didn't feel I could add it yet, because I haven't read The Doors of Stone yet.

I am a weirdo. But honestly, that is the book I'm most excited about for 2014.

Have you checked out The Quantum Thief and The Fractal Prince by Hannu Rajaniemi? They feature characters inspired by Arsene Lupin in a post-human, post-singularity 'verse.

I haven't! That actually sounds really good. Thank you so much for the suggestion! They are now on "The List". :)

Tunafish on "Everything" Ritz Crackers, (forgot I was out of bread :P) a cucumber, a Honeycrisp apple, and two butterscotch oatmeal cookies.

Nope, sorry. We wouldn't allow that.

Which brings us back to Rynjin's wise (IMO) observation:

"If it enhances the game, and especially the fun for everyone at the table, it's good.

If it decreases either it's bad."

I think every table eventually reaches a common ground on what's allowable or "good" when it comes to metagaming.

We've had a new girl come into the game recently, so our meta-gaming was ptrtty high, for a bit, as we tried to help her understand what her options were. It's coming down again now, as she's becoming more aware of what's at her disposal. Her BF is having a hard time letting her make bad decisions, though, so sometimes our DM gives him a "meta" rap on the knuckles.

Fantasy: Malazan Books of the Fallen by Steve Erikson (Something as violent and graphic as this series would normally turn me right off, but the characters are so engaging, and the world is so well-crafted... This series has made me cry SO many times.)

Sci-fi: Jinx on a Terran Inheritance by Brian Daley (Also a well crafted universe, with an intriguing over-arcing plot through the series, with some crazy conspiracy stuff running along-side.)

Urban Fantasy: Songs of Earth and Power by Greg Bear (The protagonist is a poet. Also? The Loch Ness Monster. Sorta.)

YA: Tiffany Aching Diskworld Series by Terry Pratchett (When my neices get old enough, I will read these to them.)

What are anchovies?

Anchovies

I don't know if anyone else who's read the Malazan series would agree with me placing him in this category, but I think Kruppe winds up being one of my favorite rogues in fantasy.

Mostly because I love Castle of Cagliostro, but Lupin III, famous of anime and manga, based off of Arsène Lupin.

James Bolivar diGriz, The Stainless Steel Rat.

Um... Carmen Sandiego? Sorry. Sorry.

Has anyone mentioned Irene Adler? I've seen Raffles and Moriarty and Holmes mentioned. I think.

Why not both?

I have no idea. But I have the sad feeling we'll get to the latter long before we see the former.

thejeff wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

Be it race, gender, gay, etc, i believe in nothing less than complete equality. Sometime that means you pay for the perks with the downsides.

You seem to argue for false equality. Where those at the top of the heap get to use their power and status to keep those who were oppressed and may still be discriminated against from closing the gap.

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."
That kind of equality.

Not at all. i simply refuse to accept the communist idea of equal in poverty in taking from those that have or the racist AA policies of stripping opportunity from those how have earned it to give it to the "right kind" of person even if they have not. We can do what we can to guarantee equal opportunity, we cannot assure equal results. The laws must be blind, take from none and give to none, lest we just create new victims to cry for equality even as they are told they deserve to suffer.

Maybe we could take it in steps? We could work out the whole equal pay and representation part, and then we could get to the "punching in the face" thing you guys seem so excited about.

I think it's problematic to say "better", but I love the fact that it exists, because it gives gamers one more option for how they want to tell their stories, and offers another way for creative people to share their ideas.

Also? More Monster Manuals means more pictures of monsters.