Torment Torment: Tides of Numenera Pre-Release Thread [ALPHA RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Gozma]

If you want to make a legit commie analogy for the hand of cards things, here's what you say:

One class cooperates to make the rules of the game favor the hands they were dealt

A revolution changes the rules

 

[hiver]

so in this sense it is very fair.

But it's not fair in the universal scheme. Because hurrr I got a bad hand, life is so unfair, I want to have the same cards as everybody else. ((((

Nah, its about the general feature of unfairness, it is represented in poker, its what you rely on. In part.
Therefore, there should be some unfairness everywhere. Fairly distributed.

And when you have unfairness fairly distributed then you have equality. Or balance.

>


Anyway, an open char gen certainly allows one to make a build relying more on charisma. Plus, of course, there can be a few premade customary builds like "pretty princess", "Vamp", "Steppin razor" female archetypes.

 

[Roguey]

Ok, so you are saying that reactions to gender or similar attributes (e.g. hair color) limit role-playing options. Why and how? Or did I get it wrong?

It means playing the character can come with baggage you don't necessarily want. The ~unique reactions~ to female PCs I remember the most are of the "hurr whut r u doing little girl, leave the fighting 4 men" variety. I don't see why that's necessary. I'm not opposed to getting that kind of reaction if I'm playing as a man or woman who is ill-equipped or has low strength, but to say that kind of thing to someone who looks like she can kill you (if the game allows it) with little effort? Ludicrous.

It depends what you mean by "fair". You see, poker, and any other card game for that matter is the game of statistics. Every player is subjected to the same rules, so in this sense it is very fair. True he may not get the best hand but he still can laverage it to you benefit.

Poker is biased, it's just random about whom it's biased for/against.

When I think about it now, this is kinda what happens in RPGs, especially those mainly stat-driven. To illustrate, if you have a single instance of a dice roll per turn these games are very unfair - one bad roll and Game Over for you good sir. However, if you get several instances, the randomness ceases to be "unfair" and becomes a legitimate challenge.

In good games, some bad rolls won't mean the difference between defeat and victory if your tactics are sound.

 

[evdk]

Sound tactics are not worth a damn when all your spells fizzle. Get the hell away from my RNG.

 

[Roguey]

I think it's totally awesome that spells in Project Eternity will still be 50% effective if the enemy makes the saving throw. Good game coming through.

 

[Delterius]

I don't know, one thing I like about strategy gaming is planning contingencies. So it depends on how much of a impact merely reducing the effectiveness of the spell implies.

 

[Infinitron]

I think it's totally awesome that spells in Project Eternity will still be 50% effective if the enemy makes the saving throw. Good game coming through.

50% effective, or 50% of the minimum roll effective?

 

[Harold]

Much like how your physical appearance (aside from generic beauty/charisma stats or a made-up fantasy race) will never, ever be taken into account in a professionally-made RPG.

Alpha Protocol. The Omen Deng mission.

Spoiler

I know it was just fluff, but I love to tease

 

[tuluse]

Much like how your physical appearance (aside from generic beauty/charisma stats or a made-up fantasy race) will never, ever be taken into account in a professionally-made RPG.

Arcanum has unique reactions for beauty, race, gender, and what your wearing. These are also the only appearance related things you can change.

 

[Harold]

It also had rections for having summons with you and being invisible. Mastering the Phantasm college was worth it just for the 'My shop must be haunted, I'm hearing voices again' line alone.

 

[FeelTheRads]

I think it's totally awesome that spells in Project Eternity will still be 50% effective if the enemy makes the saving throw. Good game coming through.

And I think it would be totally awesome if you went and played games you like instead of trying to break games other people like. Same goes for Sawyer, go tell him that.

 

[Cool name]

It relies on luck, so yes it's unfair.

According to Merriam-Webster online the two definitions of 'fair' that do suit or discussion are 'marked by impartiality and honesty' and 'conforming with the established rules.' Thus as long as there are rules both impartial and clear that do apply to everyone alike it is 'fair.'

Your personal definition of 'fair' is inconsequential.

Having to exchange sex for goods to get what you want? Definitely not fair. Reminds me of
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/may/01/news.features11

Let me get this straight: Are you comparing mass rape to a girl who does decide sex is an asset that can be capitalized upon? I do know you do live in a world of fantasy and demagoguery but this is too much even for you. I am sorry to break this to you but 'sex' is not some sacred thing we should all wonder at. It is a comodity. And it is a tool. Even the imagined promise of sex is a powerful tool. There are many girls out there who do understand this and capitalize upon it.

I am sure they do feel very demeaned all the way to the bank. Ka-ching.

Power is power is power.

Men do have to do stuff as demeaning in order to survive. They do have to do stuff as demeaning in order to obtain power. It is the same for everyone. Power is not free.

Butch fanatical feminists idealize the lives of guys. Yet guys do have it as hard as we do. Some times more. Some times less. No one does have it easy. The more power one does want the less easy it is. Everyone who does want to get somewhere does have to humiliate oneself, capitalize on what he or she has, and use her or his cards smartly.

I said I liked it, I didn't say "All dialogue in every RPG must be gender neutral" (though I would like to see more of it). And just because I want player sex to be a cosmetic option like skin/hair color or height doesn't mean I'm opposed to seeing different reactions to your character build which may include optional backgrounds.

Being treated different because of 'this' is fine. Being treated different because of 'that' is heresy. How utterly 'fair.' I.E: Impartial.



Allow me to LOL.

If you try to make a game with realism in mind you're not going to get a balanced set of advantages and disadvantages. I suppose you can just make stuff up, but that will just upset both misogynerds and women so why bother? A guard is not going to treat all women the same just like they wouldn't treat all men the same, so I don't see why that should be part of the criteria of how they react to you.

Isn't to have men and women be treated equally to 'just make stuff up?' Boys and girls are, gaspity gasp, different. All human societies and most of the animal world does understand that. Which does mean spiders are smarter than the 'we are all the same' strain of feminists. Ah, but I am sure you do not mind spiders as the females are the ones eating guys alive. Who cares about them, right? Horrible creatures, these guys. I am sure you do avoid them whenever you can. Most girls don't.

And why should both need to be more balanced than any other element in a game outside of your personal obsession with gender politics? The idea of creating diverse characters in a role playing game is to be presented with a different range of challenges, situations, and potential solutions. Just as a noble and a commoner or a wizard and a warrior should have different tools at their disposal a guy and girl should too. Because, newsflash, they are nothing alike.

Not to mention you do seem so obsessed with real world gender politics that you do seem unable to understand the way characters should interact with their enviroment and social context in a role playing game should be based on what does make sense in the internally consistent setting. And there are many examples in both history (many, many examples) of girls that did play a male dominated society to their advantage by being astute, hot, intelligent, and devious, and there are many in fiction as well. That's an option a girl in a game SHOULD have.

And to be honest I do find the idea of being able to play a game as Madame de Pompadour, Da-Ji, DiaoChan, Brita Tott, Stephanie Julianna Von Hohenlohe, etc would much more interesting and fun than to play yet another female warrior or female sorceress that does go toe to toe with giant monsters and elite warriors and does come on top every single time. Because, you know, I do fucking well understand that's not how it works. Better than you do, probably.

And I am sure they did feel very demeaned by having the fate of nations in their shoulders. Totally.

Much like how your physical appearance (aside from generic beauty/charisma stats or a made-up fantasy race) will never, ever be taken into account in a professionally-made RPG.

Things as such are why P&P will always be superior to CRPGs. So the CEO of that corporation fantasizes about blond haired, green eyed, big breasted jail bait? My Lammasu does go look for a good looking piece of jailbait to possess and then does use Lore of Tranfiguration/2 and Lore of Transfiguration/3 to carefully make her new host body into such a shape as Mister CEO secretly desires. Now gimme those bloody boni to all social interactions with him so I can fool him into signing a pact with me.

I am sure she will feel very demeaned all the way to the bank. Ka-ching. Let us see what does that foolish Earthbound does when I go all hostile takeover on his ass.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Black cat ragequit thread #2 coming up (posting in epic thread)

 

[Infinitron]

You wouldn't cause a woman to ragequit, would you Roguey?

 

[Cool name]

Black cat ragequit thread #2 coming up (posting in epic thread)

Do not worry about it. I am pretty much at peace with all this stuff already. I would not be who I am without all the crap I did go through, and I do love nothing as much as I do love myself. *shrug*

 

[Shadenuat]

Trying to refrain myself from posting witches, because know that then thread would collapse like a house made of cards into oblivion and things never will be the same.

 

[evdk]

Why post witches when witches are posting?

 

[Irenaeus]

Trying to refrain myself from posting witches, because know that then thread would collapse like a house made of cards into oblivion and things never will be the same.

http://www.games2girls.com/witch.html

 

[Mrowak]

Ok, so you are saying that reactions to gender or similar attributes (e.g. hair color) limit role-playing options. Why and how? Or did I get it wrong?

It means playing the character can come with baggage you don't necessarily want. The ~unique reactions~ to female PCs I remember the most are of the "hurr whut r u doing little girl, leave the fighting 4 men" variety. I don't see why that's necessary. I'm not opposed to getting that kind of reaction if I'm playing as a man or woman who is ill-equipped or has low strength, but to say that kind of thing to someone who looks like she can kill you (if the game allows it) with little effort? Ludicrous.

I don't quite understand this position. I think if the game takes into account a great deal of factors, and creates gameplay around it, character's sex can become legitimately important - depending on the setting. Leading another Joan D'Arc in the medieval setting could be great fun provided the game supported right reactions from the surrounding.

Now, I'd understand your reservations about "fluff" - when one variable (sex) overrules a set of others (experience, strength, reputation). That's just off and artificial.

Similarly, when the gameplay is simply not built around gender - for instance in generic dungeon crawler it makes little sense... unless there's some innovative game mechanic in it.

It depends what you mean by "fair". You see, poker, and any other card game for that matter is the game of statistics. Every player is subjected to the same rules, so in this sense it is very fair. True he may not get the best hand but he still can laverage it to you benefit.

Poker is biased, it's just random about whom it's biased for/against.

biased - unfairly preferring one person or group over another:

I don't think cards have any preference.

Let's face it - card games are all about randomness and they way you can leverage this randomness to your benefit. This is the gameplay. I mean, without cards being distributed randomly there would not be any gameplay at all. This serves to prove that while you might prefer games that are not random, they can be legitimately challenging and fun to play.

When I think about it now, this is kinda what happens in RPGs, especially those mainly stat-driven. To illustrate, if you have a single instance of a dice roll per turn these games are very unfair - one bad roll and Game Over for you good sir. However, if you get several instances, the randomness ceases to be "unfair" and becomes a legitimate challenge.

In good games, some bad rolls won't mean the difference between defeat and victory if your tactics are sound.

That's exactly my sentiment. My personal preference is for the randomness to be distributed flatly across multiple instances as opposed to a series of dice rolls and what have you. For example I find it infuriating that Age of Decadence has you control one character, who even if you play a perfect game and make best tactical decisions can fail, because one of your three opponents had a critical hit or when you have critical failure and break your arm or something, which translates roughly to "screw you, player". A simple solution to that would be giving the player control over multiple characters so it becomes a tactical RPG - that way one or two failures per turn merely mean you have to change your tactic (because you have multiple actions in a turn i.e. more dice rolls), and not seeing the Game Over screen.

That's also part of the reason why I prefer ability-based RPGs which stand in direct opposition to stat-based games.

Funnily enough there are card games that guarantee exactly that. For example Magic: The Gathering allows you to form your own deck, which with a proper combination of cards (e.g. including cards that let you draw more cards, or "resurect" cards that were used up) gain better control over what's happening. This is super-important part pf gameplay.

In all of the examples randomness remains a key factor, however. Battling against luck can be a great fun, provided "chance" does not dominate the equation. In fact, I think the entire notion of "character progression" in any RPG in existence is build around the idea of minimising chance as a factor. I am all in favour of having that in any RPG.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Black cat ragequit thread #2 coming up (posting in epic thread)

You should also take note of hiver Brofisting her posts.

 

[Roguey]

50% effective, or 50% of the minimum roll effective?

The latter of course.

According to Merriam-Webster online the two definitions of 'fair' that do suit or discussion are 'marked by impartiality and honesty' and 'conforming with the established rules.' Thus as long as there are rules both impartial and clear that do apply to everyone alike it is 'fair.'

Your personal definition of 'fair' is inconsequential.

Luck-based games are not impartial.

You wouldn't cause a woman to ragequit, would you Roguey?

I'm surprised you've overlooked how I made Lesi stop posting considering how often I talk about her. Too bad for me, she would be much better at debating than I am with her superior mind, education, and confidence.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Black cat ragequit thread #2 coming up (posting in epic thread)

You should also take note of hiver Brofisting her posts.

Huh. I did wonder who hiver would support in this battle of femmes, but I guess BCs youthful demeanor is more endearing to him than Rogueys.

 

[evdk]

Luck-based games are not impartial.

Of course they are if the rules are the same for everyone and no cheating is involved

 

[Cool name]

Luck-based games are not impartial.

Do you mean if I do wear a really short skirt I will get better cards than I otherwise would? Damn. And now you do tell me.

EVDK did say it already but it does bear repetition: Games of chance and luck are perfectly impartial as long as the rules are the same for everybody as everyone does have the same chances to win. Those chances are the same no matter who you are, who you do sleep with, or how short your skirt is.

You are of course free to demonstrate to us the way in which the chance of a coin beind head instead of tails can be different from 50% based on your gender, social strata, or fashion sense. Please. I do insist.

 

[Cromwell]

Im just posting to get alerted. Also, If I let you win because I like your skirt and lack of facial hair in my little round of poker, have you upped your chance of winning by your fashion choice?