jjjalljs

That’s an interesting point you make and I partly agree. There are certain undertones and sometimes you can create a better story by engaging these undertones and creating a monster in noble clothing and a metaphor for the societal corset women are forced ro wear.

Well, I'm glad we're approaching some common ground.

No one here is making the argument that you're seriously "encouraging mindless slaughter of people based on some regular dungeon crawling". No one's saying you're, like, recommending people go out and do that in real life. The argument is there is a message, even if it's unintentional.

But other times I just want to enjoy a trash movie or 15$ airport library book.

There's little wrong with enjoying a trash movie, but

And the undertones there are purely accidental and shouldn’t be taken too seriously.

Why? What authority says subtext shouldn't be taken seriously?

There's a lot of rich material for analysis, for talking about what our society values among other things, by looking at the messages in pop culture. Imagine two societies. In one, all their pop culture and trashy airport novels are about murder and plunder. In the other, they're about cooperation and building a better world together. Do you think that would mean anything? Do you think you could infer anything at all from that? It says something that we're cool with "then I killed him and took his stuff! Rock on!". We've all played that kind of game, but if you think about it that's a horrible story.

Surely there are stories that would be on the far side of the line for you. "I killed the men and enslaved the women! Look at all these points the game gave me!" would probably make most people uncomfortable. Why is the line there, but murder is fine? Does the placement of that line mean anything?

And again, this doesn't mean you can't play a beer-and-pretzels half-brained game about tactics, strategy, and extermination. But to wave your hands in the air and say it doesn't mean anything is absurd.

I dunno man, you're the one that said the players can't talk focus on gay rights now. there's a demon invasion. Which, again, maps pretty cleanly to that kind of attitude. But I think you might be the kind of person who doesn't understand subtext, or maybe text.

you choose to lead a gay rights movement while the world is being overrun by the demon king’s hordes.

This maps kind of easily onto "We can't fight for gay rights right now. They just blew up the twin towers!" or similar "wait your turn for justice" arguments.

I get the impression that you don't see that kind of thing, and furthermore don't care. You run whatever kind of game you want, but I would be surprised if your settings weren't full of unexamined biases and defaults.

Have you taken any literature or maybe other media classes at the 200 level?

Sometimes people say really weird things and I wonder if they just don't know any better. Maybe they're a teenager.

But like "fact from fiction" is irrelevant here. No one's saying Dracula is non-fiction, but you can still read it and take meaning from the text. Furthermore, it's not just a story about a guy who bites people. The read on how women are expected to behave is pretty obvious, for example.

You don't have to care about the subtext of "kill all the goblins and take their stuff", but saying there is no subtext or "no one cares" is absurd and self-centered.

It sounds to me like you’re struggling to suspend your disbelief.

Well, yeah. It looks stupid that someone takes multiple shots to the face and doesn't react appropriately. Takes me right out of the game. Same as if a character inexplicably walked through walls or flew off into the sky.

Maybe some people don't mind that but I don't like it.

In this case, it’d be best to go back to turn based gameplay.

Yes. This was my initial thesis. Either do an action game, or do a stats RPG. Doing both at once clashes.

I feel like online spaces like lemmy over represent some behaviors.

People do not all have the same working definition of "politics". Many people seem to use it to mean "overt content about contemporary issues", but that's not really a good definition.

If your game has sentient creatures with agency and desires, it has politics.

For example, if your game has a king, there's politics. Having the people accept monarchy is a political statement. It's not as hot-button as, say, having slavery, but it's still political.

You might not be surprised if your players react to a world with chattel slavery by trying to free the slaves and end that institution. The same mechanism may lead them to want to end absolute monarchy. They see something in the setting they perceive as unjust, and want to change it.

A lot of people are kind of... uncritical, about many things. They don't see absolute monarchy as "political" because it's a familiar story trope. They are happy to accept this uncritically so they can get to the fun part where you get a quest to slay the dragon. (Note that the target of killing the dragon rather than, say, negotiating or rehoming it is also political)

People then get frustrated because they feel stupid, and they're being blocked from pursuing the content they want. They just want to, for example, do a tactical mini game about fighting a big monster that spits fire. They don't want to talk about the merits of absolute monarchy or slaying sentient creatures.

It's okay to not always want to engage in the political dimension. That doesn't mean it's not there. If someone responds to the king giving you a quest with "wait, this is an absolute monarchy where the first born son becomes king? That's fucked up" they're not "making it political". It already was political.

If you present a man and a woman as monogamously married in your game, that's political. That's a statement. If you show a big queer polycule, that's also a statement. The latter will ping the aforementioned uncritical players as "political", because it's more atypical, but both are "political".

Some of this can be handled in session 0. But sometimes you learn that some people in the group have different tastes and probably shouldn't play together.

I disagree that misses are a problem in the 3D games

It's not so much about missing in 3d games. It's about the game showing a bullet going into someone's eye, and then that someone not reacting appropriately. Usually that's because they have a lot of HP or armor, but the animations and mechanics are out of sync.

One solution, if you want to keep the weird HP bloat, is to animate "hits" when they have HP left, as misses. Only show the bullet hitting their face when their HP drops to zero. If they have HP left, animate them dodging or something.

The other solution is don't do HP bloat, and have anyone die if they get shot in the face.

Or, don't let people free aim like an action game.

Probably other solutions, too. Bethesda just does a bad job

Every Republican that leaves office, by whatever means, is good for the world.

I feel like trying to mix an action game (eg: click on their head!) and a stats game (eg: your precision stat gives you a 80% chance to hit their head!) almost always has bad outcomes.

Bethesda games are kind of the quintessential example of it. Everyone's probably had the experience where there's some half naked goon, you slam an axe right into his head, and... he just gets mad. Maybe your damage is low, his HP is high, or your accuracy is low so it "missed". Fallout is full of "I shot this guy four times in the face and he didn't die!" dissonance.

You could probably do a lot of work so the animations map to the outcomes better (eg: they dodge or parry), but Bethesda seems happy with just not doing that. So you get goons in Skyrim with 20 arrows in their face, because they're higher level than you.

Uh... What?

Game A has 100 recommends, 300 not-recommend

Game B has 90 recommends, 10 not-recommends.

Is A more highly recommended? In a meaningful way?

Well, thankfully I included examples other than magic.

However, I do think trying too hard on "martials should be like real life" easily leads to harsher limitations for them. It's not always intentional. But when someone says "I want to leap 15 feet over the chasm" some people get all "you can't do that! I can barely jump five feet and I'm athletic (they're not)" and you have a whole digression where someone looks up human records and then argues about if 16 strength is really Olympic class and what about all your equipment and blah blah blah.

It's much rarer for that kind of argument to come up with wizard types, in my experience.

Clearer rules up front help, though I feel like half of DND players have never read the rules.