So what's up with the cat ear thing ^-^ I gotta know, I see it crop up more and more :-)
It's a happy face, isnt it?
^_^
Oh god, please tell me that's what it is!
I still don't know what smh means.
I think it's something lewd though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just so long as I can play a Lava Child Paladin in full plate that wields a giant's sword...
The cat face is =^_^=
I still don't know what smh means.
I think it's something lewd though.
shakes/shaking my head.
And no lava child either! Read the campaign documentation!
|
Confession:"Having fun" is not an aegis that protects one from criticism of their character idea nor an instant approval of said idea. It may be fun for you to play an hyper-intelligent flail snail rogue/witch with otherwise normal characters in the party; for other people and/or the GM, it is the beginning of a story about "that guy/girl".
Hey! Rogue/Witch/Arcane Trickster is my goto character. (Seriously. I have three of them.)
As a flail snail?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't know what smh means.
I think it's something lewd though.
shakes/shaking my head.
And no lava child either! Read the campaign documentation!
If I'm a player why on earth would I read the campaign documentation, that's not what the cliche says :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Followup - I do have weird exceptions to my insistence on proper spelling/grammar/etc.
I'm rather fond of "moar", for example. ^_^
Moar is the perfect tool for expressing online lunacy. However, I submit that it must always be expressed as MOAR so that it gets interpreted properly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh...I remember those years. Seems like forever ago. Been married to mine for 17, been a couple for 21, and it just seems like she's always been there. Still trying to figure out how I got by without her...I hate to admit it, but I don't get the reference...No reference. Just memories of tenth grade.
EDIT - Don't worry. It ended quite happily. Got my first girlfriend the next year, and went through a string of psychos until I finally met my wonderfully sane wife, and put a ring on that as soon as she said yes...roughly four proposals and a year after the first time I asked. Seven years this month!
My wife and I just reached our 17th year in May. We've been together for 26, since we were sophomores in high school.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My wife and I have been married 25 years, but have lived apart 9 years. We still love and care for each other; it's a weird relationship, but it seems to work out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My wife and I have been married 25 years, but have lived apart 9 years. We still love and care for each other; it's a weird relationship, but it seems to work out.
If it keeps you from killing each other, it's not weird.
[Insert Internet smiley device of your choice here]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate beer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love Hard Root Beer, everyone must try it!! Unless you don't drink, in which case you probably shouldn't :-)
Of course, it's just like the management to come in and "keep order" once the truth is said about Skub.
I will not be silenced!
Skub Hair gel..
In game terms it's a hair gel that keeps one person's hair in place while casting rage on everyone within 50 feet of the hair for 10 rounds. There are 5 applications in the small tub. It gives only a +2 circumstance bonus to charisma based skills.
I used to have a Mohawk:-)
However the thickness of my hair made spiking it or getting it to stand up was cost prohibitive, also my hair was too dark to effectively dye
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I only GM because every single time I am a player I keep getting new ideas for characters. Not just builds, but stories, personalities, etc. I greatly prefer playing to GMing, but nobody likes the revolving door PC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love Hard Root Beer, everyone must try it!! Unless you don't drink, in which case you probably shouldn't :-)
I recently tried hard root beer. It was disgusting, tastes like someone poured Budwiser into flat Mug root beer.
I disagree :-)
Wait...wait...
...when did they add a Q?
What's the Q?
Queer. Questioning. I've heard other possibilities that I don't remember.
There are other letters too. There's QUILTBAG, but I don't know what all of those are for. Intersex? Asexual? U?
Why not just say "Sexually Nonstandard" and be done with it?
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not just say "Sexually Nonstandard" and be done with it?Wait...wait...
...when did they add a Q?
What's the Q?
Queer. Questioning. I've heard other possibilities that I don't remember.
There are other letters too. There's QUILTBAG, but I don't know what all of those are for. Intersex? Asexual? U?
It's not always about sex, or even sexual preference.
Plus, "Nonstandard" contributes to a culture of othering... and we certainly don't need any more of that about the place.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
*tries to nudge back on topic*
I think encounters that that the PCs can't possibly win through combat are acceptable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*tries to nudge back on topic*
I think encounters that that the PCs can't possible win through combat are acceptable.
Agreed, though I think this should be made clear up front.
A simple "This guy is basically impossible for you to fight and win." at least.
Confession, I believe equal oportunity to get what one deserves, which by it's very nature is a concept counter to equality. I.E. a murderer should not get equal treatment as Mother Teresa or Princess Diana.
Granted, how one determines what someone deserves us a sticky point, but I would think limiting the factors of determination to behaviour and exclude physical attributes should be generally agreeable.
I've got one of those planned in about two adventures from now. They'll realize they cannot win the that fight and will have to either stay and rebuild or move on to other places.
Agreed, though I think this should be made clear up front.
I make it clear, but not out-of-character. Example, level one characters see a sleeping great red dragon - pretty clear you're 99.99% likely to die if you attack it.
*tries to nudge back on topic*
I think encounters that that the PCs can't possible win through combat are acceptable.
Agreed, though I think this should be made clear up front.
A simple "This guy is basically impossible for you to fight and win." at least.
Intelligence check DC10. If successful you realize you do not have a nuke grenade.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed, though I think this should be made clear up front.I make it clear, but not out-of-character. Example, level one characters see a sleeping great red dragon - pretty clear you're 99.99% likely to die if you attack it.
The problem mainly comes with when it's not so obvious.
For example, in a Medieval Europe game I'm in, we came across a heavily armored undead when we were level 3. My Paladin was able to identify it as a Graveknight.
This means it could be anywhere from a tough-ish fight (level 5, the minimum) to him being strong enough to OHKO anyone in the party.
The GM made it clear that the latter was the case (well, it quickly became clear after he whipped out 10d6 Acid damage as a Move action after shrugging off a puny attack from an over zealous member of the group).
Y'all is a legitimate contraction y'all.
Even some language experts agree the English language needs a proper 2nd person plural.
What about thee and thine? English has a 2nd plural pronoun, "you" and the older "ye," but for some odd reason "you" has stolen the spot for 2nd plural subjective and two forms of 2nd singular, "thee" and "thine."
So why not put them all back where they belong?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not just say "Sexually Nonstandard" and be done with it?Wait...wait...
...when did they add a Q?
What's the Q?
Queer. Questioning. I've heard other possibilities that I don't remember.
There are other letters too. There's QUILTBAG, but I don't know what all of those are for. Intersex? Asexual? U?It's not always about sex, or even sexual preference.
Plus, "Nonstandard" contributes to a culture of othering... and we certainly don't need any more of that about the place.
Sex can mean gender just as often, so everyone of the letters that I actually know, would fall under that in one way or another.
Also, you are dividing groups as being outside the normal in anycase. If you didn't, you wouldn't be referencing a group at all, instead you just say "Some people..." and that be it. By giving a name or in any way describing a select group (such those that fall under lgbt... whatever), you are inherently including a division, even if only for the sake of making a discussion easier.
Therefore, how is my suggestion any different?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it spoils the point of an unkillable enemy if the players know it. It's metagaming at the very least.
Some people you can tell will whip your butt if you look cross at them. If I see a guy 6'9" with biceps the size of pony kegs, I know to shut my mouth when he stutters.
...but if a little 4'8" guy built like a straw man does, and I make fun of him, he still might be a master of fourteen martial arts, and make me pay for every word I said.
No, I tell players at the start of a campaign, "do not assume you can defeat everyone or everything you come across." The mistakes they make after that are their own fault.
If it helps, I let them roll sense motive to be given a relative idea of someone's toughness, based upon their stance, how they carry themselves, etc...but some folks hide it better than others. Knowledge checks can also help.
But if they can't figure it out, and pick a fight with someone out of their league, well...The dice fall where they land, chumps.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it spoils the point of an unkillable enemy if the players know it. It's metagaming at the very least.
Some people you can tell will whip your butt if you look cross at them. If I see a guy 6'9" with biceps the size of pony kegs, I know to shut my mouth when he stutters.
...but if a little 4'8" guy built like a straw man does, and I make fun of him, he still might be a master of fourteen martial arts, and make me pay for every word I said.
No, I tell players at the start of a campaign, "do not assume you can defeat everyone or everything you come across." The mistakes they make after that are their own fault.
If it helps, I let them roll sense motive to be given a relative idea of someone's toughness, based upon their stance, how they carry themselves, etc...but some folks hide it better than others. Knowledge checks can also help.
But if they can't figure it out, and pick a fight with someone out of their league, well...The dice fall where they land, chumps.
This is what I do when I run my homebrews. I tell everyone up front that they can go where they like but they shouldn't expect the world to be tiered levels to suit them like in video games.
NO! I will not continue to feed the beast! I will not continue this (particular) derail. No!
Quick, yesterday, distract me with a nonsequitor by Red Bull! He's our only hope!
I'll insult stinky gamers again! That can always keep my attention more than any political agenda.
Damn you smelly bastards. No, no sympathy for you. Showers take five minutes. I'd rather you were an hour late for the game and clean than on time, and I'm an incredibly punctual dude. I will buy you soap for your birthday. No, Axe does not cover it, now you smell like B.O., butane, cheap cologne and date rape.
Oooh, I have another confession that totally would start another derail. Does it count as feeding the beast if I bring another one up?
Red bull side effects include many pairs of tiny wings, one pair per can. So an addict is easy to recognize by the dozens of little wings flittering on their body making them float about uncontrollably.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Confession du moment: I have always treated the acronym of SMH as 'so much hate".
With SMDH being, naturally, a more emphatically profane variant.
I think it spoils the point of an unkillable enemy if the players know it. It's metagaming at the very least.
I don't think it spoils the point at all.
Really, an unkillable enemy that is not easily recognizable as such is more a "Gotcha!" from the GM than anything.
Say your character likes to talk shit in the tavern or whatever, and some guy picks a fight. You would reasonably assume he's like everyone else in the tavern, your level at highest, whether his arms are thick as beer kegs or not (after all, yours very well could be too).
So you start a tavern brawl or what have you and the guys a 16th level Brawler or some nonsense and accidentally (or not) kills the PC.
Not exactly fun for anyone.
An unkillable enemy should be both rare and easily recognizable, serving a purpose rather than just being there.
It may be metagaming, but that's not really a bad thing all around. There is a certain amount of metagaming expected in any game ("Why hello kind sir, I see you are skilled and have tons of gear. Would you like to travel with us?").
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why not just say "Sexually Nonstandard" and be done with it?Wait...wait...
...when did they add a Q?
What's the Q?
Queer. Questioning. I've heard other possibilities that I don't remember.
There are other letters too. There's QUILTBAG, but I don't know what all of those are for. Intersex? Asexual? U?It's not always about sex, or even sexual preference.
Plus, "Nonstandard" contributes to a culture of othering... and we certainly don't need any more of that about the place.
Sex can mean gender just as often, so everyone of the letters that I actually know, would fall under that in one way or another.
Also, you are dividing groups as being outside the normal in anycase. If you didn't, you wouldn't be referencing a group at all, instead you just say "Some people..." and that be it. By giving a name or in any way describing a select group (such those that fall under lgbt... whatever), you are inherently including a division, even if only for the sake of making a discussion easier.
Therefore, how is my suggestion any different?
"Nonstandard" grates my ears and in this case my eyeballs, not so much because it's exclusionary (which I agree it is), but because it carries negative connotations along the lines of "you should be standard. Why are you not standard? Be standard! I demand that you're standard!"
It is probably not meant that way but it is the kind of word that can be used as a sledgehammer.
The same goes for that another recently added expression to the whole argument, namely "gender nonconforming".
"CONFORM! I AM TELLING YOU TO CONFORM! BE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!"
That's all I hear when someone uses that expression. When you include a negative, such as "non" in a word, it automatically takes on a subtle, negative meaning, even if it was not intended to.
That said, fitting more than one letter in the whole string of LGBTQIA-whateverelsehasbeenaddedsinceIcheckedlast, I am seriously looking forward to the day when it's not necessary to use these labels any more and we can all just use "human" or "person" and genuinely not give $0.02 about what set of genitalia someone was born with contra what they dress and act like, what gender someone we know falls in love with and whether someone enjoys all genders equally.
Quite frankly, I look forward to the day when the "gay best friend"-trope on TV isn't necessary anymore, and we can have a genuine villain in a movie again, who just happens to be homosexual, without anyone feeling a need to protest, because that character's sexuality is a total non-issue.
We're not there yet. Not by a long shot.
LGBTQIA-people have the exact same propensity for being total creeps as everyone else. We're not somehow magically incapable of being horrible to other people ... even to each other, perhaps especially that in fact ... but in today's society, it's impossible to acknowledge this without being accused of some kind of bigotry, and for good reason.
The amount of genuine bigotry out there is still massive. People still get beaten up and even killed simply for being gay. People still get fired from jobs because of their gender identity. People are thrown out of their homes for it. People are shouted at in the street. Estranged from their bigoted families. Treated like third rate citizens, never mind second class.
We do not need more exclusionary words added to the dictionary, just like Kalindlara said.
What we need is to arrive at a place, where bigotry has been eliminated or at least marginalized to such an extent that it is considered utterly socially unacceptable, but when even major political parties almost everywhere in the world can make hay about, and gather huge amounts of votes on, their bigotry, there is still a very, very real problem.
Hence why words such as "nonstandard" is a problem because they will be picked up and used to beat people with by aforementioned bigots. It's happened over and over and over again already. Any snifter of an opportunity to treat LGBTQIA-people badly is seized upon.
Consequently, we can't have a homosexual villain in a TV-series. Because it'll be used to demean and harass. And hence why I hope we one day reach a point where such a villain is possible. Because that'd mean we'd reached a point in society where it could be done without being used by large swathes of the population as "proof" of the evils (however fictional the character might be) of the LGBTQIA-community.
After being on the receiving end of that kind of hatred for generations after establishing itself publicly, the LGBTQIA-community can't really be faulted for being wary and extremely conscious of anything that can be used against us. We're the ones who have had to face the hatred and the bigotry and tried to make our lives function anyway. Most of us manage. But that doesn't mean we should accept terminology that can be used against us, even if the terminology was not meant negatively initially.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the exception in this context is generally portrayed as a negative. When people use terminology like homosexual-versus-normal they're not suggesting gay people are just "exceptions to the norm" - there's generally a negative judgement being made.
Even when the individual in question isn't making that judgement, our society imputes it.
Um, as far as I can tell, politics get votes not by being bigoted, but by making a show of fighting against bigotry.
It is like the gun laws. Listening to the news you'd think there was nothing but gangsters buying and using guns for crime. Truthfully, there are many tales of people using guns in self defense, but those stories don't drive the controversy. (also, most crimes committed with guns were illegal guns, so why are the legal gun owners being even further punished when that isn't how the bad guys are getting guns in the first place?)
Politics makes a stink about anything they think they can manipulate to get votes for them, and then they marginilize those things they can't get votes from.
Lbgt etc, is just another one of these issues to them. I seriously doubt it is anywhere near as bad as the politicians/newsies (same thing really) make it sound. Not to say it isn't bad, just that it's likely blown out of proportion.
Also, everything you said was wrong with nonstandard seems to apply to any label if you ask me, hence my suggestion for something simple and more inclusive than a bunch of random letters.
Because the exception in this context is generally portrayed as a negative. When people use terminology like homosexual-versus-normal they're not suggesting gay people are just "exceptions to the norm" - there's generally a negative judgement being made.
Even when the individual in question isn't making that judgement, our society imputes it.
I don't think it has anything to do with the specific term used. Whatever term you use, it will still sound that way, because anytime you actually need to refer to that group, you are almost certainly discussing a rather negative topic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In an attempt to divert back to the subject, here's one that ought to get some shunning:
I think less of DMs that go all Judge Dredd rather than working with a player who has an unusual character idea.
I'm not saying the answer should always be "yes", just that it shouldn't be "no". "Let's see if we can work something out" is ideal, I think.