Poll of the Day > Spider-Geek: Homecoming

Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Zeus 05/12/17 1:49:31 AM #251:	HellHole_ posted... wow man have some respect for yourself you're not a nobody you're a somebody who needs tony danza Have you ever considered switching from unintelligible ramblings to intelligible ramblings? --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:878944295] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>HellHole_ posted...</cite> <quote>wow man have some respect for yourself you're not a nobody you're a somebody who needs tony danza</quote> Have you ever considered switching from unintelligible ramblings to intelligible ramblings?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HellHole_ 05/12/17 1:58:41 AM #252:	only when you stop being the opposite of po --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzYL-gpWMKA <cite>HellHole_ posted [p:878944628] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>only when you stop being the opposite of po</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87 05/12/17 2:03:46 AM #253:	Wait, wouldn't the opposite of PO be someone who posts in the shortest posts possible though? <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:878944820] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>Wait, wouldn't the opposite of PO be someone who posts in the shortest posts possible though?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 05/12/17 2:05:59 AM #254:	tbh, technically Helly already fits that definition. Instead of posting giant paragraphs, he posts 1-sentence paragraphs. And, instead of posting substance, he posts nonsense. Plus, rather than address an argument on its merits, he just pisses on it. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:878944900] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>tbh, technically Helly already fits that definition. Instead of posting giant paragraphs, he posts 1-sentence paragraphs. And, instead of posting substance, he posts nonsense. Plus, rather than address an argument on its merits, he just pisses on it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HellHole_ 05/12/17 2:08:40 AM #255:	shadowsword87 posted... Wait, wouldn't the opposite of PO be someone who posts in the shortest posts possible though? no, that would be anti-po --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzYL-gpWMKA <cite>HellHole_ posted [p:878944998] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>shadowsword87 posted...</cite> <quote>Wait, wouldn't the opposite of PO be someone who posts in the shortest posts possible though?</quote> no, that would be anti-po</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Korruptor 05/12/17 5:19:31 PM #256:	nah, that would be like 90% of potd <cite>Korruptor posted [p:878981384] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>nah, that would be like 90% of potd</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 05/12/17 5:45:30 PM #257:	I think Mimikyu might be my favorite Gen7 Pokemon, which is unexpected since I thought it looked goofy and kinda junky in the trailer. However, its Disguise ability is pretty baller. Also I love how the game made Muk pretty strong. Poison/Dark is probably one of my fave typing combos, since I'm a fan of both types (and it was probably half the reason I enjoyed Drapion) Otherwise, I tried to watch the MST3K ep where they snarked on Hobgoblins and, while I remember really enjoying the show when I was younger, I just couldn't get into it now. I guess the movie choice was half of it. The one thing I still love about the show is the themesong, which harkens back to an earlier time when tv theme shows explained the premise of a show (something that was also praised by Jim Cornette in a podcast where he sung one such song) --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:878982866] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>I think Mimikyu might be my favorite Gen7 Pokemon, which is unexpected since I thought it looked goofy and kinda junky in the trailer. However, its Disguise ability is pretty baller. Also I love how the game made Muk pretty strong. Poison/Dark is probably one of my fave typing combos, since I'm a fan of both types (and it was probably half the reason I enjoyed Drapion) Otherwise, I tried to watch the MST3K ep where they snarked on Hobgoblins and, while I remember really enjoying the show when I was younger, I just couldn't get into it now. I guess the movie choice was half of it. The one thing I still love about the show is the themesong, which harkens back to an earlier time when tv theme shows explained the premise of a show (something that was also praised by Jim Cornette in a podcast where he sung one such song)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Wave Master 05/12/17 5:57:59 PM #258:	So your logic is that it's okay to steal online because if you don't steal it no one uses it anyway so it's just doing nothing for anyone and is lost for potential use for all time? Does that sum up how you feel? --- We are who we choose to be. <cite>The Wave Master posted [p:878983513] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>So your logic is that it's okay to steal online because if you don't steal it no one uses it anyway so it's just doing nothing for anyone and is lost for potential use for all time? Does that sum up how you feel?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 05/12/17 6:27:45 PM #259:	The Wave Master posted... So your logic is that it's okay to steal online because if you don't steal it no one uses it anyway so it's just doing nothing for anyone and is lost for potential use for all time? What the fuck are you talking about? Theft is theft. Pointing out that something is less bad than another thing doesn't magically justify the first thing. However, that said, as a content creator, I would rather have my content consumed without compensation than not have it consumed at all. That doesn't mean that it's not a form of theft but, at the same time, if I wrote a book and somebody read it a library, bought it used, borrowed it from a friend, etc, I wouldn't be getting a cut of that either. And you know what? Ad-blockers are also theft and therefore morally wrong. However, it's something that most of the board uses while refusing to acknowledge that it's morally wrong to do so. More importantly, if you got rid of everybody who ad-blocks, then you'd gut the place and the non-ad-blocking crowd would probably leave because they wouldn't have many people to interact with. Piracy is inherently wrong but it's not necessarily a net negative (given that no material loss is incurred) and it doesn't always equate to actual loss. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:878985182] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Wave Master posted...</cite> <quote>So your logic is that it's okay to steal online because if you don't steal it no one uses it anyway so it's just doing nothing for anyone and is lost for potential use for all time?</quote> What the fuck are you talking about? Theft is theft. Pointing out that something is less bad than another thing doesn't magically justify the first thing. However, that said, as a content creator, I would rather have my content consumed without compensation than not have it consumed at all. That doesn't mean that it's not a form of theft but, at the same time, if I wrote a book and somebody read it a library, bought it used, borrowed it from a friend, etc, I wouldn't be getting a cut of that either. And you know what? Ad-blockers are also theft and therefore morally wrong. However, it's something that most of the board uses while refusing to acknowledge that it's morally wrong to do so. More importantly, if you got rid of everybody who ad-blocks, then you'd gut the place and the non-ad-blocking crowd would probably leave because they wouldn't have many people to interact with. Piracy is inherently wrong but it's not necessarily a net negative (given that no material loss is incurred) and it doesn't always equate to actual loss.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CyborgSage00x0 05/13/17 8:18:12 PM #260:	Zeus posted... However, that said, as a content creator, I would rather have my content consumed without compensation than not have it consumed at all. You seem to have this bizarre notion that you can speak for all content creators. I don't know about you, but I, Cyborgsage, am a content creator, and I would be pissed if I put something out there for monetary gain, and people took it without paying. Some artists are cool with it, or put out work for free. That's cool and all, but note it's up to THEM to decide that, NOT you, random internet dweller. So stop trying to justify it. Taking something that is not for free is stealing. Period. Everything else is immaterial to this fact. Zeus posted... if I wrote a book and somebody read it a library, bought it used, borrowed it from a friend, etc, I wouldn't be getting a cut of that either. But the library bought the book initially, so again, shitty examples and justifications galore. However, it's something that most of the board uses while refusing to acknowledge that it's morally wrong to do so. Yes, and that's the point: No one is arguing that is isn't wrong to use them. So now you've gone full circle and are just agreeing with the original premise of everyone you've argued with. So just stop. I'm putting a decree, no more discussion of this in this topic. Take it outside if anyone wishes to continue. --- PotD's resident Film Expert. <cite>CyborgSage00x0 posted [p:879048299] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>However, that said, as a content creator, I would rather have my content consumed without compensation than not have it consumed at all.</quote> You seem to have this bizarre notion that you can speak for all content creators. I don't know about you, but I, Cyborgsage, am a content creator, and I would be pissed if I put something out there for monetary gain, and people took it without paying. Some artists are cool with it, or put out work for free. That's cool and all, but note it's up to THEM to decide that, NOT you, random internet dweller. So stop trying to justify it. Taking something that is not for free is stealing. Period. Everything else is immaterial to this fact. <cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>if I wrote a book and somebody read it a library, bought it used, borrowed it from a friend, etc, I wouldn't be getting a cut of that either. </quote> But the library bought the book initially, so again, shitty examples and justifications galore. <quote>However, it's something that most of the board uses while refusing to acknowledge that it's morally wrong to do so.</quote> Yes, and that's the point: No one is arguing that is isn't wrong to use them. So now you've gone full circle and are just agreeing with the original premise of everyone you've argued with. So just stop. I'm putting a decree, no more discussion of this in this topic. Take it outside if anyone wishes to continue.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 05/13/17 9:26:56 PM #261:	CyborgSage00x0 posted... You seem to have this bizarre notion that you can speak for all content creators. I don't know about you, but I, Cyborgsage, am a content creator, and I would be pissed if I put something out there for monetary gain, and people took it without paying. Some artists are cool with it, or put out work for free. That's cool and all, but note it's up to THEM to decide that, NOT you, random internet dweller. So stop trying to justify it. Taking something that is not for free is stealing. Period. Everything else is immaterial to this fact. Calm down there, Harlan Ellison. If you go back further in my discussion with WaveMaster, you'd see the excerpt where I was specifically asked how I would feel about it if my content was pirated. It's not speaking for "all" content creators when I'm personally asked how I feel. The only general comment I made about content creators was to debunk your presupposition that creators only make things when compensated. That was way back in post #242. Otherwise, at every step I've referred to it as theft, so I'm not sure why you're saying, "Oh, it's stealing PERIOD!" because right from the get-go everybody acknowledged it as theft. That's never been a point of contention. CyborgSage00x0 posted... But the library bought the book initially, so again, shitty examples and justifications galore. If somebody pirates something or borrows a book, it's the same issue of non-compensation. Piracy is wrong on a moral level (because again, it's theft), but arguing against it primarily on the basis that it could potentially hurt content creators means you should address other activities which hurt content creators. More importantly, if you borrow something from the library or a friend then copy any part of it, that's straight-up piracy (and, I don't feel like finding it, but some older study noted that -- at the time anyway -- piracy was more common IRL than online, since you'd had friends just copying each others' CDs or uploading the songs) . However, if you want to talk shitty examples and justifications, you can call out whoever compared piracy to stealing a bike or a car. In fact, this whole discussion started because WaveMaster evoked that trope. CyborgSage00x0 posted... Yes, and that's the point: No one is arguing that is isn't wrong to use them. So now you've gone full circle and are just agreeing with the original premise of everyone you've argued with. Full circle? THAT'S WHAT I SAID IN MY FIRST POST ON THIS! I haven't argued against it ONCE in this whole damn topic no matter how many times you insist the contrary. See post #231. Hell, I'll even link it for you and, to make sure you see it, I'll tag you as well just this once. https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/75167540/878863839 @CyborgSage00x0 Post #321 is when I entered this discussion in response to Wavemaster's terrible example where he said it was exactly the same as walking out of Gamestop with a game, which is patently false on any number of levels including material loss. And by pretending that nonsense rhetoric like that is true, you indirectly support pirates who can point to that absurd example. Disagree with me all you want, but don't misrepresent me. CyborgSage00x0 posted... So just stop. I'm putting a decree, no more discussion of this in this topic. Take it outside if anyone wishes to continue. If you don't continue it, I won't continue it. However, don't continue it and then expect me to not respond because that's hardly fair and it's a damn cheap way of getting a petty last word. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:879052121] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>CyborgSage00x0 posted...</cite> <quote>You seem to have this bizarre notion that you can speak for all content creators. I don't know about you, but I, Cyborgsage, am a content creator, and I would be pissed if I put something out there for monetary gain, and people took it without paying. Some artists are cool with it, or put out work for free. That's cool and all, but note it's up to THEM to decide that, NOT you, random internet dweller. So stop trying to justify it. Taking something that is not for free is stealing. Period. Everything else is immaterial to this fact.</quote> Calm down there, Harlan Ellison. If you go back further in my discussion with WaveMaster, you'd see the excerpt where I was specifically asked how I would feel about it if my content was pirated. It's not speaking for "all" content creators when I'm personally asked how I feel. The only general comment I made about content creators was to debunk your presupposition that creators only make things when compensated. That was way back in post #242. Otherwise, at every step I've referred to it as theft, so I'm not sure why you're saying, "Oh, it's stealing PERIOD!" because right from the get-go everybody acknowledged it as theft. That's never been a point of contention. <cite>CyborgSage00x0 posted...</cite> <quote>But the library bought the book initially, so again, shitty examples and justifications galore. </quote> If somebody pirates something or borrows a book, it's the same issue of non-compensation. Piracy is wrong on a moral level (because again, it's theft), but arguing against it primarily on the basis that it could potentially hurt content creators means you should address other activities which hurt content creators. More importantly, if you borrow something from the library or a friend then copy any part of it, that's straight-up piracy (and, I don't feel like finding it, but some older study noted that -- at the time anyway -- piracy was more common IRL than online, since you'd had friends just copying each others' CDs or uploading the songs) . However, if you want to talk shitty examples and justifications, you can call out whoever compared piracy to stealing a bike or a car. In fact, this whole discussion started because WaveMaster evoked that trope. <cite>CyborgSage00x0 posted...</cite> <quote>Yes, and that's the point: No one is arguing that is isn't wrong to use them. So now you've gone full circle and are just agreeing with the original premise of everyone you've argued with.</quote> Full circle? THAT'S WHAT I SAID IN MY FIRST POST ON THIS! I haven't argued against it ONCE in this whole damn topic no matter how many times you insist the contrary. See post #231. Hell, I'll even link it for you and, to make sure you see it, I'll tag you as well just this once. https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/75167540/878863839 @CyborgSage00x0 Post #321 is when I entered this discussion in response to Wavemaster's terrible example where he said it was exactly the same as walking out of Gamestop with a game, which is patently false on any number of levels including material loss. And by pretending that nonsense rhetoric like that is true, you indirectly support pirates who can point to that absurd example. Disagree with me all you want, but don't misrepresent me. <cite>CyborgSage00x0 posted...</cite> <quote>So just stop. I'm putting a decree, no more discussion of this in this topic. Take it outside if anyone wishes to continue.</quote> If you don't continue it, I won't continue it. However, don't continue it and then expect me to not respond because that's hardly fair and it's a damn cheap way of getting a petty last word.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Wave Master 05/14/17 7:02:07 PM #262:	We can just all agree that taking things without permission, physically or digitally, is still wrong. We can argue about whether it's ethical or a moral gray area, but I think the golden rule applies here. We should all respect each other and each other's properties. --- We are who we choose to be. <cite>The Wave Master posted [p:879103784] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>We can just all agree that taking things without permission, physically or digitally, is still wrong. We can argue about whether it's ethical or a moral gray area, but I think the golden rule applies here. We should all respect each other and each other's properties.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87 05/14/17 7:08:04 PM #263:	I just wanna learn about dumb superheroes. <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:879104052] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>I just wanna learn about dumb superheroes.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 05/14/17 7:44:24 PM #264:	shadowsword87 posted... I just wanna learn about dumb superheroes. I prefer smart superheroes myself. Speaking of, for some reason I don't recall Ant-Man ever going to NFI, and I think the same has been true for several other Marvel movies. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:879105798] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>shadowsword87 posted...</cite> <quote>I just wanna learn about dumb superheroes.</quote> I prefer smart superheroes myself. Speaking of, for some reason I don't recall Ant-Man ever going to NFI, and I think the same has been true for several other Marvel movies.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87 05/15/17 3:15:11 AM #265:	Oh, RPG friends, I'm curious if you have heard/have opinions of Blades in the Dark? I keep hearing people recommend it, and I'm curious about it. <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:879124968] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>Oh, RPG friends, I'm curious if you have heard/have opinions of Blades in the Dark? I keep hearing people recommend it, and I'm curious about it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 05/15/17 6:36:19 AM #266:	shadowsword87 posted... Oh, RPG friends, I'm curious if you have heard/have opinions of Blades in the Dark? I keep hearing people recommend it, and I'm curious about it. Never heard of it before now, but apparently it's a successful Kickstarter project so it doesn't need my awareness or approval anyway. Seems like someone played Thief or Dishonored and decided to make a game where you play as members in a city's Thieves' Guild, though. Which doesn't seem all that necessary - it looks like something that would have worked just as well as a secondary sourcebook for D&D than an entire system on its own. In fact, I'm dead certain a ton of people have already played out campaigns that are pretty much the same concept. From a technical perspective, you already know I'm not the person to ask because I barely care about game mechanics. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:879128931] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>shadowsword87 posted...</cite> <quote>Oh, RPG friends, I'm curious if you have heard/have opinions of Blades in the Dark? I keep hearing people recommend it, and I'm curious about it.</quote> Never heard of it before now, but apparently it's a successful Kickstarter project so it doesn't need my awareness or approval anyway. Seems like someone played Thief or Dishonored and decided to make a game where you play as members in a city's Thieves' Guild, though. Which doesn't seem all that necessary - it looks like something that would have worked just as well as a secondary sourcebook for D&D than an entire system on its own. In fact, I'm dead certain a ton of people have already played out campaigns that are pretty much the same concept. From a technical perspective, you already know I'm not the person to ask because I barely care about game mechanics. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Wave Master 05/16/17 11:56:57 PM #267:	Still have not made it to the theater to see Guardians of the galaxy Volume 2 I want to go but I end up having to do adult stuff like pay bills, clean the house, cook dinner. I miss being a dumb kid sometimes. No responsibility. --- We are who we choose to be. <cite>The Wave Master posted [p:879248676] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>Still have not made it to the theater to see Guardians of the galaxy Volume 2 I want to go but I end up having to do adult stuff like pay bills, clean the house, cook dinner. I miss being a dumb kid sometimes. No responsibility.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
knivesX2004 05/17/17 12:10:36 AM #268:	shadowsword87 posted... Oh, RPG friends, I'm curious if you have heard/have opinions of Blades in the Dark? I keep hearing people recommend it, and I'm curious about it. YES!! BITD is amazing!! What are your questions? <cite>knivesX2004 posted [p:879249406] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>shadowsword87 posted...</cite> <quote>Oh, RPG friends, I'm curious if you have heard/have opinions of Blades in the Dark? I keep hearing people recommend it, and I'm curious about it.</quote> YES!! BITD is amazing!! What are your questions?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 05/17/17 12:19:06 AM #269:	The Wave Master posted... Still have not made it to the theater to see Guardians of the galaxy Volume 2 I want to go but I end up having to do adult stuff like pay bills, clean the house, cook dinner. I miss being a dumb kid sometimes. No responsibility. I accidentally spoiled the movie for myself when looking up details about Ego. I assumed he had a smaller role in the film, given that he wasn't being portrayed as a Living Planet. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:879249894] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Wave Master posted...</cite> <quote>Still have not made it to the theater to see Guardians of the galaxy Volume 2 I want to go but I end up having to do adult stuff like pay bills, clean the house, cook dinner. I miss being a dumb kid sometimes. No responsibility.</quote> I accidentally spoiled the movie for myself when looking up details about Ego. I assumed he had a smaller role in the film, given that he wasn't being portrayed as a Living Planet.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87 05/17/17 12:21:47 AM #270:	knivesX2004 posted... YES!! BITD is amazing!! What are your questions? How does the clocks-mechanic work out in-play? It feels kinda weird and clunky to me, espically the whole "clocks within clocks to fill in a larger clock" thing. Is it straightforward enough to learn? Is the setting actually interesting? All I hear about is that it's great for heist games, and that's sort of it. I know about the whole, "dead turn into wraiths unless someone takes care of them" thing doesn't really interest me either. Is the game complete yet? Or is it still in a constantly updating beta? I'll ask more questions as I think of them, but this is just off the top of the head. <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:879250034] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>knivesX2004 posted...</cite> <quote>YES!! BITD is amazing!! What are your questions?</quote> How does the clocks-mechanic work out in-play? It feels kinda weird and clunky to me, espically the whole "clocks within clocks to fill in a larger clock" thing. Is it straightforward enough to learn? Is the setting actually interesting? All I hear about is that it's great for heist games, and that's sort of it. I know about the whole, "dead turn into wraiths unless someone takes care of them" thing doesn't really interest me either. Is the game complete yet? Or is it still in a constantly updating beta? I'll ask more questions as I think of them, but this is just off the top of the head.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WhiskeyDisk 05/17/17 12:22:25 AM #271:	Just saw Guardians 2. Absolutely loved loved loved that they finally made my favorite fan theory about the Stan Lee cameos cannon. --- http://i.imgur.com/4fmtLFt.gif http://s1.zetaboards.com/sba/ ~there's always free cheese in a mousetrap. <cite>WhiskeyDisk posted [p:879250068] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>Just saw Guardians 2. Absolutely loved loved loved that they finally made my favorite fan theory about the Stan Lee cameos cannon.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WhiskeyDisk 05/17/17 12:25:41 AM #272:	Also, obligatory update that American Gods just keeps getting better. 3 episodes in and I'm still slack jawed in awe of how good it is turning out. --- http://i.imgur.com/4fmtLFt.gif http://s1.zetaboards.com/sba/ ~there's always free cheese in a mousetrap. <cite>WhiskeyDisk posted [p:879250235] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>Also, obligatory update that American Gods just keeps getting better. 3 episodes in and I'm still slack jawed in awe of how good it is turning out.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Entity13 05/17/17 12:25:57 AM #273:	WhiskeyDisk posted... Just saw Guardians 2. Absolutely loved loved loved that they finally made my favorite fan theory about the Stan Lee cameos cannon. And now he can die a happy ma-- actually, let's knock on wood on that one. --- http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb179/EntityXIII/entityfn7.jpg <cite>Entity13 posted [p:879250246] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>WhiskeyDisk posted...</cite> <quote>Just saw Guardians 2. Absolutely loved loved loved that they finally made my favorite fan theory about the Stan Lee cameos cannon.</quote> And now he can die a happy ma-- actually, let's knock on wood on that one.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WhiskeyDisk 05/17/17 12:28:59 AM #274:	Entity13 posted... WhiskeyDisk posted... Just saw Guardians 2. Absolutely loved loved loved that they finally made my favorite fan theory about the Stan Lee cameos cannon. And now he can die a happy ma-- actually, let's knock on wood on that one. I hate to say it but part of me thinks this is what Stan was going for the whole time. The fact that they've finally tipped their hand concerns me in that something tells me that behind the scenes he wanted to get that scene shot because he knows he's not long for this world. Yeah, let's knock on wood here. To be fair though, if you're going to tie in Uatu and the Watchers in general, a story prominently featuring Ego prior to Infinity Gauntlet is probably the time to sneak that in anyway before the greater Marvel movieverse gets completely out of control. --- http://i.imgur.com/4fmtLFt.gif http://s1.zetaboards.com/sba/ ~there's always free cheese in a mousetrap. <cite>WhiskeyDisk posted [p:879250403] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>Entity13 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>WhiskeyDisk posted...</cite> <quote>Just saw Guardians 2. Absolutely loved loved loved that they finally made my favorite fan theory about the Stan Lee cameos cannon.</quote> And now he can die a happy ma-- actually, let's knock on wood on that one.</quote> I hate to say it but part of me thinks this is what Stan was going for the whole time. The fact that they've finally tipped their hand concerns me in that something tells me that behind the scenes he wanted to get that scene shot because he knows he's not long for this world. Yeah, let's knock on wood here. To be fair though, if you're going to tie in Uatu and the Watchers in general, a story prominently featuring Ego prior to Infinity Gauntlet is probably the time to sneak that in anyway before the greater Marvel movieverse gets completely out of control.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
knivesX2004 05/17/17 12:51:54 AM #275:	shadowsword87 posted... knivesX2004 posted... YES!! BITD is amazing!! What are your questions? How does the clocks-mechanic work out in-play? It feels kinda weird and clunky to me, espically the whole "clocks within clocks to fill in a larger clock" thing. Is it straightforward enough to learn? Is the setting actually interesting? All I hear about is that it's great for heist games, and that's sort of it. I know about the whole, "dead turn into wraiths unless someone takes care of them" thing doesn't really interest me either. Is the game complete yet? Or is it still in a constantly updating beta? I'll ask more questions as I think of them, but this is just off the top of the head. 1. Clocks are very abstract. The DM (forgot the official name) sets a 'Clock' for something and then when they deem it appropriate they will up the count. Like say you want a robot arm. I'll be like "well ok, first you need to find a doctor so that will take 2 ticks, then you need to find the material to build it, that's also 2, then another 2 to build it and get used to it." So how that translates is when you have down time (after a heist) you can spend your actions advancing that clock. Depending on how well you roll you might get to advance more than 1 tick. Clocks can also be used for enemy's. "If the cops' clock gets full then they will deploy a special force designed to track down the players" Then depending on what happened in the session you'd advance the clock. Killing innocents would advance it more than bribing the cops and whatnot. 2. It's incredibly straight forward. Took me about 2 hours of reading the rules to learn everything you need to learn. 3. The setting is very fun. Think Dishonored and Thief like what PO said but there's more of a focus on your team. Each character has a level up system and each team does as well. You can split your points however you want. Team level ups will benefit all new gang members (including your other characters) and are harder to get. The damage is pretty hard to recover and the stress is the real killer so the strength of the game IMO is how easy it is to drop in and out with "new" chars while your "old" char rests and recovers. The game version I have is pretty damn close to being complete if it's not already. The only thing still in the works are more settings and more classes and themes. <cite>knivesX2004 posted [p:879251471] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>shadowsword87 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>knivesX2004 posted...</cite> <quote>YES!! BITD is amazing!! What are your questions?</quote> How does the clocks-mechanic work out in-play? It feels kinda weird and clunky to me, espically the whole "clocks within clocks to fill in a larger clock" thing. Is it straightforward enough to learn? Is the setting actually interesting? All I hear about is that it's great for heist games, and that's sort of it. I know about the whole, "dead turn into wraiths unless someone takes care of them" thing doesn't really interest me either. Is the game complete yet? Or is it still in a constantly updating beta? I'll ask more questions as I think of them, but this is just off the top of the head.</quote> 1. Clocks are very abstract. The DM (forgot the official name) sets a 'Clock' for something and then when they deem it appropriate they will up the count. Like say you want a robot arm. I'll be like "well ok, first you need to find a doctor so that will take 2 ticks, then you need to find the material to build it, that's also 2, then another 2 to build it and get used to it." So how that translates is when you have down time (after a heist) you can spend your actions advancing that clock. Depending on how well you roll you might get to advance more than 1 tick. Clocks can also be used for enemy's. "If the cops' clock gets full then they will deploy a special force designed to track down the players" Then depending on what happened in the session you'd advance the clock. Killing innocents would advance it more than bribing the cops and whatnot. 2. It's incredibly straight forward. Took me about 2 hours of reading the rules to learn everything you need to learn. 3. The setting is very fun. Think Dishonored and Thief like what PO said but there's more of a focus on your team. Each character has a level up system and each team does as well. You can split your points however you want. Team level ups will benefit all new gang members (including your other characters) and are harder to get. The damage is pretty hard to recover and the stress is the real killer so the strength of the game IMO is how easy it is to drop in and out with "new" chars while your "old" char rests and recovers. The game version I have is pretty damn close to being complete if it's not already. The only thing still in the works are more settings and more classes and themes.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Raganork10 05/17/17 2:23:04 AM #276:	As much as I love the American Gods book, as well as Ian Mcshane (his shlocky movies are such a treat to watch - and I really ought to watch Deadwood at some point), I still haven't watched the show yet. Been too preoccupied with other things. Good to know that the show is being received well; makes me all the more excited to eventually watch it. <cite>Raganork10 posted [p:879254994] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>As much as I love the American Gods book, as well as Ian Mcshane (his shlocky movies are such a treat to watch - and I really ought to watch Deadwood at some point), I still haven't watched the show yet. Been too preoccupied with other things. Good to know that the show is being received well; makes me all the more excited to eventually watch it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Metalsonic66 05/17/17 4:24:40 PM #277:	WhiskeyDisk posted... Just saw Guardians 2. Absolutely loved loved loved that they finally made my favorite fan theory about the Stan Lee cameos cannon. It does create kind of a plothole with Stan mentioning his cameo in Age of Ultron which canonically takes place after Guardians 2. But that can be explained away by time-warp shenanigans. --- PSN/Steam ID: Metalsonic_69 Big bombs go kabang. <cite>Metalsonic66 posted [p:879288109] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>WhiskeyDisk posted...</cite> <quote>Just saw Guardians 2. Absolutely loved loved loved that they finally made my favorite fan theory about the Stan Lee cameos cannon. </quote> It does create kind of a plothole with Stan mentioning his cameo in Age of Ultron which canonically takes place after Guardians 2. But that can be explained away by time-warp shenanigans.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Wave Master 05/18/17 9:46:17 AM #278:	American Gods has been kicking royal levels of ass. No complaints at all. Well, the fact that I want all the episodes now. The wife is finally reading the novel. I need to read it again. Goi5d stuff. --- We are who we choose to be. <cite>The Wave Master posted [p:879333285] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>American Gods has been kicking royal levels of ass. No complaints at all. Well, the fact that I want all the episodes now. The wife is finally reading the novel. I need to read it again. Goi5d stuff.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Wave Master 05/18/17 11:26:56 PM #279:	Is anyone really interested in Destiny 2? IGN had a huge blow out today, and I just couldn't muster any energy to watch the live stream or the litany of articles about the stream and reveal. My Texas friends loved the first game, but it felt like a grindy shooter, which it is, and I don't want to have to deal with the grind or the other jerks out there to have fun. How do all of you feel? --- We are who we choose to be. <cite>The Wave Master posted [p:879382242] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>Is anyone really interested in Destiny 2? IGN had a huge blow out today, and I just couldn't muster any energy to watch the live stream or the litany of articles about the stream and reveal. My Texas friends loved the first game, but it felt like a grindy shooter, which it is, and I don't want to have to deal with the grind or the other jerks out there to have fun. How do all of you feel?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 05/18/17 11:45:49 PM #280:	I'm usually not a big statue guy -- since they're kinda expensive as far as collectibles go -- but picked up one of Kotobukiya's ArtfX+ Marvel Now Emma Frost statues at a Barnes & Noble on clearance for $17 (B&N's list price was $70, but supposedly the actual MSRP is around $55 with Amazon having it for $30). Granted, this is the black outfit. Apparently they also did a white outfit version which I would have preferred because I don't keep up with the comics and I'm more used to the character as the White Queen of the Hellfire Club. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:879383155] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>I'm usually not a big statue guy -- since they're kinda expensive as far as collectibles go -- but picked up one of Kotobukiya's ArtfX+ Marvel Now Emma Frost statues at a Barnes & Noble on clearance for $17 (B&N's list price was $70, but supposedly the actual MSRP is around $55 with Amazon having it for $30). Granted, this is the black outfit. Apparently they also did a white outfit version which I would have preferred because I don't keep up with the comics and I'm more used to the character as the White Queen of the Hellfire Club.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
knivesX2004 05/19/17 12:24:42 AM #281:	The Wave Master posted... Is anyone really interested in Destiny 2? Ehhh I'll wait for reviews. I stopped playing Destiny 1 a few weeks after Iron Banner (I didn't get it until my friend moved away so I got aboard right as Sparrow League 1 was ending). I also let me PS Gold subscription run out and I'm not really in a hurry to renew it. I learned my lesson with getting hyped for games and being incredibly disappointed. glares at diablo 3 <cite>knivesX2004 posted [p:879385117] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Wave Master posted...</cite> <quote>Is anyone really interested in Destiny 2?</quote> Ehhh I'll wait for reviews. I stopped playing Destiny 1 a few weeks after Iron Banner (I didn't get it until my friend moved away so I got aboard right as Sparrow League 1 was ending). I also let me PS Gold subscription run out and I'm not really in a hurry to renew it. I learned my lesson with getting hyped for games and being incredibly disappointed. glares at diablo 3</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 05/19/17 3:51:44 AM #282:	The Wave Master posted... Is anyone really interested in Destiny 2? I'm anti-interested. They did such a terrible job and fucked up Destiny 1 so badly IMO, I now have zero interest in the franchise and will continue to do so from now until the end of time. They poisoned the well so badly for me, even if one of the future games winds up being the greatest game ever created by humans and exactly what I want out of a game in every single way, I still won't be able to enjoy it because the franchise as a whole is kind of ruined for me. I do feel sad that my previous love for Bungie due to Marathon and Halo has led me to a point where I now basically hate Halo and Bungie. Not that this is anything new, considering my past history with Square. Apparently everything I love eventually turns against me. (Why hello there, Steven Moffat and Doctor Who! Fancy meeting you here in this incredibly appropriate metaphor!) knivesX2004 posted... I learned my lesson with getting hyped for games and being incredibly disappointed. glares at diablo 3 To be fair, Diablo 3 vastly improved post-launch, once they dropped the Auction House and re-balanced all of the item drop rates. Then again, it also helps that I didn't really give a shit about Diablo 3 beforehand and never played it until after most of those problems were fixed, so I lacked the bitter history with it and was better able to appreciate it once those kinks were ironed out. In the same sense, maybe I'd enjoy Destiny more if I hadn't come into it until after Year 3 or so, but that might be a franchise I was never going to love because of how deep it's MMO roots run (no matter how often they keep trying to convince themselves and others that it's not an MMO). --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:879392149] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Wave Master posted...</cite> <quote>Is anyone really interested in Destiny 2?</quote> I'm anti-interested. They did such a terrible job and fucked up Destiny 1 so badly IMO, I now have zero interest in the franchise and will continue to do so from now until the end of time. They poisoned the well so badly for me, even if one of the future games winds up being the greatest game ever created by humans and exactly what I want out of a game in every single way, I still won't be able to enjoy it because the franchise as a whole is kind of ruined for me. I do feel sad that my previous love for Bungie due to Marathon and Halo has led me to a point where I now basically hate Halo and Bungie. Not that this is anything new, considering my past history with Square. Apparently everything I love eventually turns against me. (Why hello there, Steven Moffat and Doctor Who! Fancy meeting you here in this incredibly appropriate metaphor!) <cite>knivesX2004 posted...</cite> <quote>I learned my lesson with getting hyped for games and being incredibly disappointed. glares at diablo 3</quote> To be fair, Diablo 3 vastly improved post-launch, once they dropped the Auction House and re-balanced all of the item drop rates. Then again, it also helps that I didn't really give a shit about Diablo 3 beforehand and never played it until after most of those problems were fixed, so I lacked the bitter history with it and was better able to appreciate it once those kinks were ironed out. In the same sense, maybe I'd enjoy Destiny more if I hadn't come into it until after Year 3 or so, but that might be a franchise I was never going to love because of how deep it's MMO roots run (no matter how often they keep trying to convince themselves and others that it's not an MMO). </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Metalsonic66 05/19/17 3:06:16 PM #283:	The Wave Master posted... Is anyone really interested in Destiny 2? A bunch of people I used to play with online now play Destiny, a lot. I imagine most of them will also be getting Destiny 2 when it comes out. If it's still active when I finally get a PS4, I'll probably pick it up. --- PSN/Steam ID: Metalsonic_69 Big bombs go kabang. <cite>Metalsonic66 posted [p:879418163] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Wave Master posted...</cite> <quote>Is anyone really interested in Destiny 2? </quote> A bunch of people I used to play with online now play Destiny, a lot. I imagine most of them will also be getting Destiny 2 when it comes out. If it's still active when I finally get a PS4, I'll probably pick it up.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
knivesX2004 05/19/17 7:17:37 PM #284:	It's also for PC so yay! <cite>knivesX2004 posted [p:879432398] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>It's also for PC so yay!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 05/20/17 8:06:35 AM #285:	I suspect they're going to be shocked when sales figures for Destiny 2 don't match up with original Destiny's. Because while the game did retain a lot of players, many of whom will probably re-up for the new one, there were also a LOT of disgruntled early adopters who bought Destiny who wound up disillusioned and who probably won't waste money on the sequel, no matter how many people tell them "No no, they fixed everything this time!" Not that I think it's going to FAIL, because it definitely won't. But I suspect it's going to move at least a few million copies less than the original did. On a completely unrelated note, here's a list of all the new comic TV shows in the pipeline for next year. Most of these I already knew, but some were new to me: http://www.cbr.com/comic-book-tv-shows --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:879460339] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>I suspect they're going to be shocked when sales figures for Destiny 2 don't match up with original Destiny's. Because while the game did retain a lot of players, many of whom will probably re-up for the new one, there were also a LOT of disgruntled early adopters who bought Destiny who wound up disillusioned and who probably won't waste money on the sequel, no matter how many people tell them "No no, they fixed everything this time!" Not that I think it's going to FAIL, because it definitely won't. But I suspect it's going to move at least a few million copies less than the original did. On a completely unrelated note, here's a list of all the new comic TV shows in the pipeline for next year. Most of these I already knew, but some were new to me: http://www.cbr.com/comic-book-tv-shows </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 05/20/17 4:02:31 PM #286:	ParanoidObsessive posted... On a completely unrelated note, here's a list of all the new comic TV shows in the pipeline for next year. Most of these I already knew, but some were new to me: http://www.cbr.com/comic-book-tv-shows It's embarrassing that they have a typo in their opening sentence: With the renewals las week of Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Gotham and iZombie, new fewer than 16 comics-based television series — from Arrow to Legion to Wynonna Earp — are set to return for the 2017-2018 season. I assume that's supposed to be "now" rather than "new" but who knows. At any rate, kind of interested by some of the news (Black Lightning, Inhumans) and excited by other bits (Constantine, the Gifted -- particularly if it does have Sentinels, Runaways, Titans, a new YJ). However, I have no confidence in Disney's ability to do a Spiderman cartoon right after seeing a few episodes Ultimate which was terrible and a slap in the fact after Spectacular. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:879480307] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>On a completely unrelated note, here's a list of all the new comic TV shows in the pipeline for next year. Most of these I already knew, but some were new to me: http://www.cbr.com/comic-book-tv-shows</quote> It's embarrassing that they have a typo in their opening sentence: With the renewals las week of Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Gotham and iZombie, new fewer than 16 comics-based television series — from Arrow to Legion to Wynonna Earp — are set to return for the 2017-2018 season. I assume that's supposed to be "now" rather than "new" but who knows. At any rate, kind of interested by some of the news (Black Lightning, Inhumans) and excited by other bits (Constantine, the Gifted -- particularly if it does have Sentinels, Runaways, Titans, a new YJ). However, I have no confidence in Disney's ability to do a Spiderman cartoon right after seeing a few episodes Ultimate which was terrible and a slap in the fact after Spectacular.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Entity13 05/20/17 4:10:30 PM #287:	ParanoidObsessive posted... there were also a LOT of disgruntled early adopters who bought Destiny who wound up disillusioned and who probably won't waste money on the sequel, no matter how many people tell them "No no, they fixed everything this time!" That was pretty much my attitude at first towards "FFXIV: A Realm Reborn." A little more than a year later, I started playing it because it was actually playable, and better-so than even XI ever was. It's still got a number of MMO trappings that aren't for everyone, though. So I can hope Destiny 2 turns out better, but I can see also how many people's opinions are already soiled on the matter before even a screenshot can be released. --- http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb179/EntityXIII/entityfn7.jpg <cite>Entity13 posted [p:879480693] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote> there were also a LOT of disgruntled early adopters who bought Destiny who wound up disillusioned and who probably won't waste money on the sequel, no matter how many people tell them "No no, they fixed everything this time!"</quote> That was pretty much my attitude at first towards "FFXIV: A Realm Reborn." A little more than a year later, I started playing it because it was actually playable, and better-so than even XI ever was. It's still got a number of MMO trappings that aren't for everyone, though. So I can hope Destiny 2 turns out better, but I can see also how many people's opinions are already soiled on the matter before even a screenshot can be released.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Metalsonic66 05/20/17 8:13:15 PM #288:	Zeus posted... However, I have no confidence in Disney's ability to do a Spider-Man cartoon right after seeing a few episodes Ultimate which was terrible and a slap in the fact after Spectacular. The character designs look like a step-up, at least. --- PSN/Steam ID: Metalsonic_69 Big bombs go kabang. <cite>Metalsonic66 posted [p:879492702] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>However, I have no confidence in Disney's ability to do a Spider-Man cartoon right after seeing a few episodes Ultimate which was terrible and a slap in the fact after Spectacular.</quote> The character designs look like a step-up, at least.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Entity13 05/23/17 2:33:50 AM #289:	Saving the topic with this post. I know we're rather busy or generally don't have a ton to say at the moment,but still. =p --- http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb179/EntityXIII/entityfn7.jpg <cite>Entity13 posted [p:879635790] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>Saving the topic with this post. I know we're rather busy or generally don't have a ton to say at the moment,but still. =p</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Wave Master 05/23/17 4:22:08 AM #290:	I just lost track of time. I still haven't had my leg amputate yet so I am in constant pain. It hurts too much to do anything. Never get sick. I see the doctor on Thursday. Hopefully we can get something scheduled very soon. --- We are who we choose to be. <cite>The Wave Master posted [p:879638385] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>I just lost track of time. I still haven't had my leg amputate yet so I am in constant pain. It hurts too much to do anything. Never get sick. I see the doctor on Thursday. Hopefully we can get something scheduled very soon.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 05/23/17 3:46:02 PM #291:	Here's an offhanded question for people here: What's a realistic age for a young kid to be completely orphaned and have to "live on the street" in a large, medieval fantasy-esque city? Talking the more Aladdin-esque street urchin as opposed to a situation where someone is taken in by a local thieves' guild or an apprentice/master sort of scenario. Or the more realistic-yet-depressing scenario of kids basically becoming prostitutes to eke out a living. ie, someone who probably sleeps in alleys, abandoned buildings, or even in alcoves in the sewers, and who mainly steals food, clothing, and trinkets in a crowded city (likely with some sort of bazaar or the like). Sort of the proto-stage before they can theoretically manage to graduate up to actual pickpocketing (which takes more practice, and isn't really beginner-level thievery). Just curious for RPG-ish purposes. Thinking about a character who is basically forced to live on the streets and steal to survive, who is old enough to actually succeed and live for at least a few years (either as a traditional cliched "Rogue" origin story or as a segue into something else). But they also have to be young enough to actually fit the "street urchin" trope AND to explain away why they don't just get a job somewhere to try and support themselves. Obviously, it isn't realistic to think that, say, a 5-year old kid is going to manage to survive on their own in those sorts of circumstances, but I was sort of thinking about just what age would be perfect for that trope to really work well. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:879667443] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>Here's an offhanded question for people here: What's a realistic age for a young kid to be completely orphaned and have to "live on the street" in a large, medieval fantasy-esque city? Talking the more Aladdin-esque street urchin as opposed to a situation where someone is taken in by a local thieves' guild or an apprentice/master sort of scenario. Or the more realistic-yet-depressing scenario of kids basically becoming prostitutes to eke out a living. ie, someone who probably sleeps in alleys, abandoned buildings, or even in alcoves in the sewers, and who mainly steals food, clothing, and trinkets in a crowded city (likely with some sort of bazaar or the like). Sort of the proto-stage before they can theoretically manage to graduate up to actual pickpocketing (which takes more practice, and isn't really beginner-level thievery). Just curious for RPG-ish purposes. Thinking about a character who is basically forced to live on the streets and steal to survive, who is old enough to actually succeed and live for at least a few years (either as a traditional cliched "Rogue" origin story or as a segue into something else). But they also have to be young enough to actually fit the "street urchin" trope AND to explain away why they don't just get a job somewhere to try and support themselves. Obviously, it isn't realistic to think that, say, a 5-year old kid is going to manage to survive on their own in those sorts of circumstances, but I was sort of thinking about just what age would be perfect for that trope to really work well. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WhiskeyDisk 05/23/17 4:07:51 PM #292:	Maybe between 9 and let's say 12? --- http://i.imgur.com/4fmtLFt.gif http://s1.zetaboards.com/sba/ ~there's always free cheese in a mousetrap. <cite>WhiskeyDisk posted [p:879668936] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>Maybe between 9 and let's say 12?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 05/23/17 4:08:03 PM #293:	ParanoidObsessive posted... What's a realistic age for a young kid to be completely orphaned and have to "live on the street" in a large, medieval fantasy-esque city? Talking the more Aladdin-esque street urchin as opposed to a situation where someone is taken in by a local thieves' guild or an apprentice/master sort of scenario. Or the more realistic-yet-depressing scenario of kids basically becoming prostitutes to eke out a living. ie, someone who probably sleeps in alleys, abandoned buildings, or even in alcoves in the sewers, and who mainly steals food, clothing, and trinkets in a crowded city (likely with some sort of bazaar or the like). Sort of the proto-stage before they can theoretically manage to graduate up to actual pickpocketing (which takes more practice, and isn't really beginner-level thievery). There's no minimum age on orphans. Historically orphans can be any age although, for practical reasons, they'd need to be able to at least walk and talk to beg. In our actual world right now, you have kids in China aged 5 or 6 who are part of beggar gangs where the child -- who might be rented rather than an orphan -- will just grab onto a person and refuse to let go until they either buy an overpriced trinket or give them money. Those kids usually have handlers, a few guys in the crowd watching them to shake down the person if the situation turns violent. ParanoidObsessive posted... Just curious for RPG-ish purposes. Thinking about a character who is basically forced to live on the streets and steal to survive, who is old enough to actually succeed and live for at least a few years (either as a traditional cliched "Rogue" origin story or as a segue into something else). But they also have to be young enough to actually fit the "street urchin" trope AND to explain away why they don't just get a job somewhere to try and support themselves. Obviously, it isn't realistic to think that, say, a 5-year old kid is going to manage to survive on their own in those sorts of circumstances, but I was sort of thinking about just what age would be perfect for that trope to really work well. Kids living on the street eventually fall into some criminal group in most urban settings. Sure, some of the teens can get away with just having friends who they work with -- homeless kids tend to seek out other homeless kids and the experienced ones mentor the young ones in terms of where it's safe to sleep, where to beg, how to steal, and help to turn them into accomplices -- but in a thriving urban medieval setting, they're probably working with a group. If they're not, the group will drive them off from their area. The thing that people don't realize about begging is that it can be very competitive and thieves tend to protect their area as well. Honestly, under any circumstance, it would be weird to have just one kid working completely alone. That doesn't often happen in the real world. A real-world Aladdin wouldn't just have a monkey, he'd have beggar friends helping him out or he'd be part of a gang. Also keep in mind that you don't need to be an orphan to be a vagabond. A lot of homeless kids are runaways -- having a sexual or physically abuse parent -- or just thrown out of their home. In a medieval setting without a social safety network, parents tend to have larger families and sometimes the ones they can't feed they might either sell into bondage (at which point the kid could run away) or just turn them out of the house. Granted, people die all the time in medieval settings as well so orphans aren't that unlikely, although many times they'd have another relative or something. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:879668951] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>What's a realistic age for a young kid to be completely orphaned and have to "live on the street" in a large, medieval fantasy-esque city? Talking the more Aladdin-esque street urchin as opposed to a situation where someone is taken in by a local thieves' guild or an apprentice/master sort of scenario. Or the more realistic-yet-depressing scenario of kids basically becoming prostitutes to eke out a living. ie, someone who probably sleeps in alleys, abandoned buildings, or even in alcoves in the sewers, and who mainly steals food, clothing, and trinkets in a crowded city (likely with some sort of bazaar or the like). Sort of the proto-stage before they can theoretically manage to graduate up to actual pickpocketing (which takes more practice, and isn't really beginner-level thievery).</quote> There's no minimum age on orphans. Historically orphans can be any age although, for practical reasons, they'd need to be able to at least walk and talk to beg. In our actual world right now, you have kids in China aged 5 or 6 who are part of beggar gangs where the child -- who might be rented rather than an orphan -- will just grab onto a person and refuse to let go until they either buy an overpriced trinket or give them money. Those kids usually have handlers, a few guys in the crowd watching them to shake down the person if the situation turns violent. <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>Just curious for RPG-ish purposes. Thinking about a character who is basically forced to live on the streets and steal to survive, who is old enough to actually succeed and live for at least a few years (either as a traditional cliched "Rogue" origin story or as a segue into something else). But they also have to be young enough to actually fit the "street urchin" trope AND to explain away why they don't just get a job somewhere to try and support themselves. Obviously, it isn't realistic to think that, say, a 5-year old kid is going to manage to survive on their own in those sorts of circumstances, but I was sort of thinking about just what age would be perfect for that trope to really work well.</quote> Kids living on the street eventually fall into some criminal group in most urban settings. Sure, some of the teens can get away with just having friends who they work with -- homeless kids tend to seek out other homeless kids and the experienced ones mentor the young ones in terms of where it's safe to sleep, where to beg, how to steal, and help to turn them into accomplices -- but in a thriving urban medieval setting, they're probably working with a group. If they're not, the group will drive them off from their area. The thing that people don't realize about begging is that it can be very competitive and thieves tend to protect their area as well. Honestly, under any circumstance, it would be weird to have just one kid working completely alone. That doesn't often happen in the real world. A real-world Aladdin wouldn't just have a monkey, he'd have beggar friends helping him out or he'd be part of a gang. Also keep in mind that you don't need to be an orphan to be a vagabond. A lot of homeless kids are runaways -- having a sexual or physically abuse parent -- or just thrown out of their home. In a medieval setting without a social safety network, parents tend to have larger families and sometimes the ones they can't feed they might either sell into bondage (at which point the kid could run away) or just turn them out of the house. Granted, people die all the time in medieval settings as well so orphans aren't that unlikely, although many times they'd have another relative or something.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 05/23/17 4:40:50 PM #294:	Zeus posted... There's no minimum age on orphans. Historically orphans can be any age although, for practical reasons, they'd need to be able to at least walk and talk to beg. Those kids usually have handlers, a few guys in the crowd watching them to shake down the person if the situation turns violent. Kids living on the street eventually fall into some criminal group in most urban settings. Honestly, under any circumstance, it would be weird to have just one kid working completely alone. That doesn't often happen in the real world. Also keep in mind that you don't need to be an orphan to be a vagabond. A lot of homeless kids are runaways I actually understand most of that, but I'm not super hung-up on total realism. And yes, while homeless kids and beggars in general DO tend to clump together, there's always at least some intermediary period where the person is still likely to have to survive at least somewhat on their own before they ever really come into contact with anything resembling an underground society. I'm mostly just thinking about how old someone would have to be to theoretically be able to survive on their own WITHOUT a mentor or gang or other support (at least for a little while, say, maybe a year or two), with the added assumption that they'd need to be at least partly able to run away or fight if someone noticed them stealing and tried to stop them, while still being young enough to make legitimate work or opportunities seem less viable. And also, taking the potential for selling their body for cash out of the equation. It seems like there'd have to be a relatively specific age range where someone would be old enough to mostly survive on their own via theft and scavenging, but still young enough to not really be seen as an "adult". I also assume added complexity would come into play if we were differentiating between girls and boys, since girls go through puberty earlier and theoretically develop mentally and physically a bit earlier (meaning a younger girl could theoretically be on par with older boys). Not necessarily a range where it would be 100% realistic, as much as a range where it would just be mostly plausible in a setting where it would be possible at all. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:879670993] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>There's no minimum age on orphans. Historically orphans can be any age although, for practical reasons, they'd need to be able to at least walk and talk to beg. Those kids usually have handlers, a few guys in the crowd watching them to shake down the person if the situation turns violent. Kids living on the street eventually fall into some criminal group in most urban settings. Honestly, under any circumstance, it would be weird to have just one kid working completely alone. That doesn't often happen in the real world. Also keep in mind that you don't need to be an orphan to be a vagabond. A lot of homeless kids are runaways</quote> I actually understand most of that, but I'm not super hung-up on total realism. And yes, while homeless kids and beggars in general DO tend to clump together, there's always at least some intermediary period where the person is still likely to have to survive at least somewhat on their own before they ever really come into contact with anything resembling an underground society. I'm mostly just thinking about how old someone would have to be to theoretically be able to survive on their own WITHOUT a mentor or gang or other support (at least for a little while, say, maybe a year or two), with the added assumption that they'd need to be at least partly able to run away or fight if someone noticed them stealing and tried to stop them, while still being young enough to make legitimate work or opportunities seem less viable. And also, taking the potential for selling their body for cash out of the equation. It seems like there'd have to be a relatively specific age range where someone would be old enough to mostly survive on their own via theft and scavenging, but still young enough to not really be seen as an "adult". I also assume added complexity would come into play if we were differentiating between girls and boys, since girls go through puberty earlier and theoretically develop mentally and physically a bit earlier (meaning a younger girl could theoretically be on par with older boys). Not necessarily a range where it would be 100% realistic, as much as a range where it would just be mostly plausible in a setting where it would be possible at all. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 05/23/17 6:04:13 PM #295:	ParanoidObsessive posted... there's always at least some intermediary period where the person is still likely to have to survive at least somewhat on their own before they ever really come into contact with anything resembling an underground society. If you're talking about a big city, they'd need to hook up with somebody pretty quickly just to learn how to survive. Plus if they were to try begging, they'd likely be approached within a day or two since the organized beggars would spot them immediately and any beggar working a normal spot would try to drive them off. If not during the day, they'd get a thrashing at night. Plus unless they were orphaned in the city itself, it's likely they'd start begging or robbing somewhere else first. In general, though, the whole idea of orphans being completely on their own is misguided because usually they'll have some adult around offering some support even if the adult doesn't become their guardian. A runaway situation is more realistic. ParanoidObsessive posted... I'm mostly just thinking about how old someone would have to be to theoretically be able to survive on their own WITHOUT a mentor or gang or other support (at least for a little while, say, maybe a year or two), with the added assumption that they'd need to be at least partly able to run away or fight if someone noticed them stealing and tried to stop them, while still being young enough to make legitimate work or opportunities seem less viable. And also, taking the potential for selling their body for cash out of the equation. Here's the thing: If you're looking at the real world, kids hook up with somebody within a week or two of being on the streets. The lone wolf scenario is a fantasy largely reserved for works of fiction written by people with no understanding of living on the streets. Homeless people naturally tend to form communities or have some kind of order because, even if they don't legally have a home, they wind up having hangouts they protect. And, depending on your culture, you have beggar-gangs. Kids will be deliberately mutilated -- either blinded or crippled -- to make people feel sorrier for them (as is the case today in countries like China, India, etc). And, unlike normal beggars, they tend not to get driven off by the local law enforcement because cops are either paid off or scared off by the gangs. The idea that you'd have somebody doing that for a year or two in an urban setting is completely unrealistic. They'd either have associations with others in their situation (if not or they'd naturally pick up odd jobs. If you had a relatively inexperienced person begging or stealing alone, they'd either wind up in jail or run out of town. Honestly, even today a lot of homeless people get roughed up by cops as a message to move along and it's illegal to do that in this country. Places without those laws can be vicious. Also keep in mind that labor laws were virtually non-existent back then so "too young to work" didn't really happen. There were always a lot of small jobs which needed doing although, depending on the labor market, those could be unavailable because you've got enough people doing it. ParanoidObsessive posted... It seems like there'd have to be a relatively specific age range where someone would be old enough to mostly survive on their own via theft and scavenging, but still young enough to not really be seen as an "adult". Adulthood came younger at that age. By 14 or 15, boys might be marrying and girls could be married off before they even hit 10. However, in a practical sense, you'd really need to be at least an early teen to be able to fight effectively and do a lot of other activities which at the same time, was the age that you were started to be seen as almost an adult. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:879675893] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>there's always at least some intermediary period where the person is still likely to have to survive at least somewhat on their own before they ever really come into contact with anything resembling an underground society.</quote> If you're talking about a big city, they'd need to hook up with somebody pretty quickly just to learn how to survive. Plus if they were to try begging, they'd likely be approached within a day or two since the organized beggars would spot them immediately and any beggar working a normal spot would try to drive them off. If not during the day, they'd get a thrashing at night. Plus unless they were orphaned in the city itself, it's likely they'd start begging or robbing somewhere else first. In general, though, the whole idea of orphans being completely on their own is misguided because usually they'll have some adult around offering some support even if the adult doesn't become their guardian. A runaway situation is more realistic. <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>I'm mostly just thinking about how old someone would have to be to theoretically be able to survive on their own WITHOUT a mentor or gang or other support (at least for a little while, say, maybe a year or two), with the added assumption that they'd need to be at least partly able to run away or fight if someone noticed them stealing and tried to stop them, while still being young enough to make legitimate work or opportunities seem less viable. And also, taking the potential for selling their body for cash out of the equation.</quote> Here's the thing: If you're looking at the real world, kids hook up with somebody within a week or two of being on the streets. The lone wolf scenario is a fantasy largely reserved for works of fiction written by people with no understanding of living on the streets. Homeless people naturally tend to form communities or have some kind of order because, even if they don't legally have a home, they wind up having hangouts they protect. And, depending on your culture, you have beggar-gangs. Kids will be deliberately mutilated -- either blinded or crippled -- to make people feel sorrier for them (as is the case today in countries like China, India, etc). And, unlike normal beggars, they tend not to get driven off by the local law enforcement because cops are either paid off or scared off by the gangs. The idea that you'd have somebody doing that for a year or two in an urban setting is completely unrealistic. They'd either have associations with others in their situation (if not or they'd naturally pick up odd jobs. If you had a relatively inexperienced person begging or stealing alone, they'd either wind up in jail or run out of town. Honestly, even today a lot of homeless people get roughed up by cops as a message to move along and it's illegal to do that in this country. Places without those laws can be vicious. Also keep in mind that labor laws were virtually non-existent back then so "too young to work" didn't really happen. There were always a lot of small jobs which needed doing although, depending on the labor market, those could be unavailable because you've got enough people doing it. <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>It seems like there'd have to be a relatively specific age range where someone would be old enough to mostly survive on their own via theft and scavenging, but still young enough to not really be seen as an "adult".</quote> Adulthood came younger at that age. By 14 or 15, boys might be marrying and girls could be married off before they even hit 10. However, in a practical sense, you'd really need to be at least an early teen to be able to fight effectively and do a lot of other activities which at the same time, was the age that you were started to be seen as almost an adult.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87 05/24/17 3:44:22 AM #296:	I mean, there's always the other question: Why do you want to know the specifics and what does that tell you about the character? We all agree that someone can survive in a city being a Total Bad Boy/Girl (tm) before puberty, the specific details of age aren't exactly necessarily important for the character. Hell, this is someone who could have learned speech, arithmetic, and learning who to bow to literally on the fly with a couple of friends at the very most. Them knowing how old they were when they were initially dropped off is basically irrelevant if the character is older than 16 because they probably just don't know and the philosophical details of their abandonment and the effect on their psyche is less important than "I need to eat in the next two days, and Franklin needs pain medication for his broken leg which will never grow back right, but damn I'm thirsty". Hand-to-mouth survival comes to mind honestly. Something people don't really think about too: life on the street is 100% prison, no joke. You find someone to help you out, you save them if they need help, and you keep fit. Now if you want the character to be Total Bad Boy/Girl (tm), moving around and seeing all off the different bosses and just keeping alive is the best way to go. He/She isn't tied down to any one group, and can always learn what bridges are safe to stay under, and so on. Also his/her relationship to people will be broken in a weird way, because she/he is on a constant move "normal" people aren't real people, and people they consider friends are friends. This isn't because I have an innate RPG-tendency to say, "you like the group" and waving my hands and moving along, but this is pretty intrinsic. Human beings need socialization, so the whole, "lone wolf" thing never really works for anything more than just another god awful "woe is me" character with me wanting to just walk away from the group. ~~Hell, the worst thing we can do, legally, in prison is force someone alone for years at a time.~~ <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:879704446] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote>I mean, there's always the other question: Why do you want to know the specifics and what does that tell you about the character? We all agree that someone can survive in a city being a Total Bad Boy/Girl (tm) before puberty, the specific details of age aren't exactly necessarily important for the character. Hell, this is someone who could have learned speech, arithmetic, and learning who to bow to literally on the fly with a couple of friends at the very most. Them knowing how old they were when they were initially dropped off is basically irrelevant if the character is older than 16 because they probably just don't know and the philosophical details of their abandonment and the effect on their psyche is less important than "I need to eat in the next two days, and Franklin needs pain medication for his broken leg which will never grow back right, but damn I'm thirsty". Hand-to-mouth survival comes to mind honestly. Something people don't really think about too: life on the street is 100% prison, no joke. You find someone to help you out, you save them if they need help, and you keep fit. Now if you want the character to be Total Bad Boy/Girl (tm), moving around and seeing all off the different bosses and just keeping alive is the best way to go. He/She isn't tied down to any one group, and can always learn what bridges are safe to stay under, and so on. Also his/her relationship to people will be broken in a weird way, because she/he is on a constant move "normal" people aren't real people, and people they consider friends are friends. This isn't because I have an innate RPG-tendency to say, "you like the group" and waving my hands and moving along, but this is pretty intrinsic. Human beings need socialization, so the whole, "lone wolf" thing never really works for anything more than just another god awful "woe is me" character with me wanting to just walk away from the group. Hell, the worst thing we can do, legally, in prison is force someone alone for years at a time.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 05/24/17 5:32:27 AM #297:	Zeus posted... If you're talking about a big city, they'd need to hook up with somebody pretty quickly just to learn how to survive... etc etc. Again, I'm aware of most of that. I'm also ignoring most of that context, because I don't actually care about most of that context. I tossed "RPG" and "fantasy" into the original question because I'm not really interested in realism here. I'm more thinking in terms of "cinematic" urchin-hood. If anything, what I'm kind of pondering is more the mental and physical logistics of the question more than the socio-cultural implications. So, to sort of paraphrase the question to eliminate a lot of the cruft, imagine we're talking about a kid orphaned, with absolutely no extended family or local support system to take them in (for whatever reason), who are forced to live on the streets and steal to survive, in a moderate medieval city where, by some miracle of magic or recent history, there is literally NO local "guild" or "gang" or even a would-be Fagin to influence their situation in any way. Thus, the only thing that matters in context is at what age someone would actually be able - physically and mentally - to effectively steal enough food (or coin to buy food) to survive, entirely based on their own merits. If not long-term, then at least for a year or two. And honestly, I'm really only using a city as the setting for this because it seems like there would be enough available resources and potential hiding places, whereas in a village or small town it seems like people would be more apt to notice things going missing and have a much easier time of picking out the obvious culprit. Again, I'm thinking more the mental image of the kid who steal an apple off a merchant's stall (no matter how anachronistic that might be), then darts off into the crowd before slipping down a side-alley and hiding somewhere before the merchant or local guards can find them. Also, the image in my head is probably Middle Eastern, because I definitely think I've locked on to the Aladdin-type vibe mentally. Zeus posted... However, in a practical sense, you'd really need to be at least an early teen to be able to fight effectively and do a lot of other activities which at the same time, was the age that you were started to be seen as almost an adult. To be fair, when I said "fight" I was leaning more towards the idea of throwing a rock or bopping someone in the nose to distract them so you can then run, not necessarily being able to hold your own (or win) against an actual armed adult. Though that's actually the kind of thing I was thinking of in terms of "how old is old enough?" - ie, the level of mental maturity to plan effectively and the level of physical maturity necessary to follow through. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:879706428] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>If you're talking about a big city, they'd need to hook up with somebody pretty quickly just to learn how to survive... etc etc.</quote> Again, I'm aware of most of that. I'm also ignoring most of that context, because I don't actually care about most of that context. I tossed "RPG" and "fantasy" into the original question because I'm not really interested in realism here. I'm more thinking in terms of "cinematic" urchin-hood. If anything, what I'm kind of pondering is more the mental and physical logistics of the question more than the socio-cultural implications. So, to sort of paraphrase the question to eliminate a lot of the cruft, imagine we're talking about a kid orphaned, with absolutely no extended family or local support system to take them in (for whatever reason), who are forced to live on the streets and steal to survive, in a moderate medieval city where, by some miracle of magic or recent history, there is literally NO local "guild" or "gang" or even a would-be Fagin to influence their situation in any way. Thus, the only thing that matters in context is at what age someone would actually be able - physically and mentally - to effectively steal enough food (or coin to buy food) to survive, entirely based on their own merits. If not long-term, then at least for a year or two. And honestly, I'm really only using a city as the setting for this because it seems like there would be enough available resources and potential hiding places, whereas in a village or small town it seems like people would be more apt to notice things going missing and have a much easier time of picking out the obvious culprit. Again, I'm thinking more the mental image of the kid who steal an apple off a merchant's stall (no matter how anachronistic that might be), then darts off into the crowd before slipping down a side-alley and hiding somewhere before the merchant or local guards can find them. Also, the image in my head is probably Middle Eastern, because I definitely think I've locked on to the Aladdin-type vibe mentally. <cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>However, in a practical sense, you'd really need to be at least an early teen to be able to fight effectively and do a lot of other activities which at the same time, was the age that you were started to be seen as almost an adult.</quote> To be fair, when I said "fight" I was leaning more towards the idea of throwing a rock or bopping someone in the nose to distract them so you can then run, not necessarily being able to hold your own (or win) against an actual armed adult. Though that's actually the kind of thing I was thinking of in terms of "how old is old enough?" - ie, the level of mental maturity to plan effectively and the level of physical maturity necessary to follow through. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 05/24/17 5:32:36 AM #298:	Zeus posted... Adulthood came younger at that age. By 14 or 15, boys might be marrying and girls could be married off before they even hit 10. Yeah, but contrary to most people's perception of things, even if a girl was getting married off at age 10, they weren't really seen as adults, per se. It was more the case that they were seen as children who could be legally married off. It's sort of how, in spite of most people having the impression that people in the past had much shorter lifespans, they didn't really - a lot of the "average" age statistics tend to get pulled down by infant mortality rates. So while we actually have the "facts" right in our heads, our perception of them is deceptive. Our perception is also a bit skewed by the fact that a lot of what we know about prior cultures is rooted in what writing remains from that period, and most writing was focused mainly on the upper classes. A lot of things considered acceptable for nobles didn't necessarily apply to peasants. For example, girls could be married off at age 12 in England in the Middle Ages, but that would almost exclusively apply to noble girls. Peasant girls likely wouldn't get married until they were at least a few years older, AND would be far more likely to potentially choose their own husband rather than be part of an arranged marriage. I've been reading a lot of Medieval European history lately (which might be part of what's inspiring this sort of question in my head), and at least a few different books like to emphasize that we know WAY more about the lifestyles and customs of nobility and clergy than we do peasants from most eras. (In a similar vein, a lot of what we know about early Germanic tribal cultures come almost exclusively from what the Romans wrote about them - which means we have to take a lot of it with a massive grain of salt. Archeological study can offset at least some of that bias afterwards, but it does still linger in a lot of written history. History isn't so much written by the winners as it is written by the literate, and then only the parts that manage to survive the passage of time eventually get read.) shadowsword87 posted... I mean, there's always the other question: Why do you want to know the specifics and what does that tell you about the character? Honestly, I'm just kind of curious, in a completely academic sort of way. I suppose I could frame the question as "If I told you that this character's sole caretaker died at age X, and they had to live on the streets and steal to survive, at which point would the value of X make the average person go "That's bullshit! No one as young as X could survive!" Or conversely, "If they were already X years old, why didn't they just get a job?"" To be fair, Storm from the X-Men was supposedly a world-class pickpocket and thief in Cairo when she was only like 5 years old, and at no point did my brain ever really question that concept, but then again, she also falls into that "trained by an existing group of child thieves with an older mentor" archetype. Then again, we also have the "infant raised by wolves/animals" archetype that a lot of people never seem to question all that much (ie, The Jungle Book, Tarzan, etc), so we're apparently willing to accept a lot of things in our fiction. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:879706431] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Adulthood came younger at that age. By 14 or 15, boys might be marrying and girls could be married off before they even hit 10.</quote> Yeah, but contrary to most people's perception of things, even if a girl was getting married off at age 10, they weren't really seen as adults, per se. It was more the case that they were seen as children who could be legally married off. It's sort of how, in spite of most people having the impression that people in the past had much shorter lifespans, they didn't really - a lot of the "average" age statistics tend to get pulled down by infant mortality rates. So while we actually have the "facts" right in our heads, our perception of them is deceptive. Our perception is also a bit skewed by the fact that a lot of what we know about prior cultures is rooted in what writing remains from that period, and most writing was focused mainly on the upper classes. A lot of things considered acceptable for nobles didn't necessarily apply to peasants. For example, girls could be married off at age 12 in England in the Middle Ages, but that would almost exclusively apply to noble girls. Peasant girls likely wouldn't get married until they were at least a few years older, AND would be far more likely to potentially choose their own husband rather than be part of an arranged marriage. I've been reading a lot of Medieval European history lately (which might be part of what's inspiring this sort of question in my head), and at least a few different books like to emphasize that we know WAY more about the lifestyles and customs of nobility and clergy than we do peasants from most eras. (In a similar vein, a lot of what we know about early Germanic tribal cultures come almost exclusively from what the Romans wrote about them - which means we have to take a lot of it with a massive grain of salt. Archeological study can offset at least some of that bias afterwards, but it does still linger in a lot of written history. History isn't so much written by the winners as it is written by the literate, and then only the parts that manage to survive the passage of time eventually get read.) <cite>shadowsword87 posted...</cite> <quote>I mean, there's always the other question: Why do you want to know the specifics and what does that tell you about the character?</quote> Honestly, I'm just kind of curious, in a completely academic sort of way. I suppose I could frame the question as "If I told you that this character's sole caretaker died at age X, and they had to live on the streets and steal to survive, at which point would the value of X make the average person go "That's bullshit! No one as young as X could survive!" Or conversely, "If they were already X years old, why didn't they just get a job?"" To be fair, Storm from the X-Men was supposedly a world-class pickpocket and thief in Cairo when she was only like 5 years old, and at no point did my brain ever really question that concept, but then again, she also falls into that "trained by an existing group of child thieves with an older mentor" archetype. Then again, we also have the "infant raised by wolves/animals" archetype that a lot of people never seem to question all that much (ie, The Jungle Book, Tarzan, etc), so we're apparently willing to accept a lot of things in our fiction. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 05/24/17 5:34:18 AM #299:	shadowsword87 posted... We all agree that someone can survive in a city being a Total Bad Boy/Girl (tm) before puberty, the specific details of age aren't exactly necessarily important for the character. True, but if someone were writing a background for a character, or their age was referenced at some point in backstory, the specific details of age definitely become a factor. And if someone is writing a character who, by their backstory, was orphaned at age 3 and learned to survive entirely on their own - whether as a urchin/thief in a city or some sort of feral kid in the wilderness, at least some of us would probably call bullshit on it. shadowsword87 posted... Something people don't really think about too: life on the street is 100% prison, no joke. You find someone to help you out, you save them if they need help, and you keep fit. True. Ironically, White Wolf actually released a relatively depressing book on the subject for Mage back in the day - laying out a lot of the darker aspects of living on the streets in the modern world for someone who is homeless/a runaway/trying to live off the grid/etc. Most of the advice being prefaced with "Don't do this. If you do, you're an idiot." But yes, that mentality is a large part of why gangs form in inner cities and other harsh environments. And, for that matter, why gangs form in actual prisons. And, arguably, is probably at the root of why humans invented civilization in the first place. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:879706454] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>shadowsword87 posted...</cite> <quote>We all agree that someone can survive in a city being a Total Bad Boy/Girl (tm) before puberty, the specific details of age aren't exactly necessarily important for the character.</quote> True, but if someone were writing a background for a character, or their age was referenced at some point in backstory, the specific details of age definitely become a factor. And if someone is writing a character who, by their backstory, was orphaned at age 3 and learned to survive entirely on their own - whether as a urchin/thief in a city or some sort of feral kid in the wilderness, at least some of us would probably call bullshit on it. <cite>shadowsword87 posted...</cite> <quote>Something people don't really think about too: life on the street is 100% prison, no joke. You find someone to help you out, you save them if they need help, and you keep fit.</quote> True. Ironically, White Wolf actually released a relatively depressing book on the subject for Mage back in the day - laying out a lot of the darker aspects of living on the streets in the modern world for someone who is homeless/a runaway/trying to live off the grid/etc. Most of the advice being prefaced with "Don't do this. If you do, you're an idiot." But yes, that mentality is a large part of why gangs form in inner cities and other harsh environments. And, for that matter, why gangs form in actual prisons. And, arguably, is probably at the root of why humans invented civilization in the first place. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 05/24/17 5:35:54 AM #300:	shadowsword87 posted... Human beings need socialization, so the whole, "lone wolf" thing never really works for anything more than just another god awful "woe is me" character with me wanting to just walk away from the group. Weeeeellll. In a general sense, yes. Though there are absolutely degrees of necessity, and while one person may start getting twitchy after not interacting with anyone else for only a day or two, there are absolutely humans who can go for months, if not years, without any significant interaction. That's at the root of a lot of ascetics and hermits who would go off alone and just sort of do their own thing and avoid people. Some people are absolutely much better able to cope with isolation than others. And there are also people who are pretty much antisocial and tend to do better WITHOUT interaction in general (though even they tend to need at least SOME human contact from time-to-time - we ARE social animals). But in RPG terms I absolutely agree - it's almost a necessity for players to make characters who are at least CAPABLE of being part of a group, if not actively craving group support and interaction on some level. The sort of people who make "bad-ass lone wolf" characters who don't want to be part of a group and always act out because of it are almost always trouble players - and even when they aren't (usually because they want a storyline where their broken bird learns to fly again, and come to appreciate the love and support of others), it still tends to be incredibly disruptive to table dynamics, and can derail games. I wouldn't have much problem as a GM with saying in advance that a player can't make loner-type characters. I usually go so far as to say that the whole "You all meet in an inn" is terrible mainly because of its potential for those sorts of problems, and that players should discuss reasons why their characters are already friends/trusted allies before the game even starts. As much as you hate Critical Role, most of their characters were directly tied to at least one other person at the table right from the start, so the idea of them linking together as a sort of surrogate family was hard-coded right into the game from the beginning. Combined with the fact that most of them have over-the-top family issues as their backstories (usually at least one dead parent and often another parent who is a total asshole), it led to an organic feeling that all of these incredibly broken people probably WOULD gravitate to each other, understand each other in ways most people wouldn't, and would ultimately forge incredibly strong bonds (especially when they're constantly in life-and-death struggles together, sort of combining family bonds with soldier bonds). That's good RP. shadowsword87 posted... ~~Hell, the worst thing we can do, legally, in prison is force someone alone for years at a time.~~ Well, at least part of that is that solitary is usually incredibly uncomfortable in general. A human stuffed in a box and left undernourished and dehydrated for days at a time (or just left alone with complete and total boredom) is going to break a lot faster than someone who is equally alone, but who is living in a comfortable dwelling, and has access to multiple forms of distraction (whether it be having to work hard to produce food/resources or being able to read books/watch movies/play games/etc). But again, personality plays a role. Some people will break in hours or days while other people in the exact same circumstance might last months or even years. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:879706478] in Spider-Gee... [t:75167540]...</cite> <quote><cite>shadowsword87 posted...</cite> <quote>Human beings need socialization, so the whole, "lone wolf" thing never really works for anything more than just another god awful "woe is me" character with me wanting to just walk away from the group.</quote> Weeeeellll. In a general sense, yes. Though there are absolutely degrees of necessity, and while one person may start getting twitchy after not interacting with anyone else for only a day or two, there are absolutely humans who can go for months, if not years, without any significant interaction. That's at the root of a lot of ascetics and hermits who would go off alone and just sort of do their own thing and avoid people. Some people are absolutely much better able to cope with isolation than others. And there are also people who are pretty much antisocial and tend to do better WITHOUT interaction in general (though even they tend to need at least SOME human contact from time-to-time - we ARE social animals). But in RPG terms I absolutely agree - it's almost a necessity for players to make characters who are at least CAPABLE of being part of a group, if not actively craving group support and interaction on some level. The sort of people who make "bad-ass lone wolf" characters who don't want to be part of a group and always act out because of it are almost always trouble players - and even when they aren't (usually because they want a storyline where their broken bird learns to fly again, and come to appreciate the love and support of others), it still tends to be incredibly disruptive to table dynamics, and can derail games. I wouldn't have much problem as a GM with saying in advance that a player can't make loner-type characters. I usually go so far as to say that the whole "You all meet in an inn" is terrible mainly because of its potential for those sorts of problems, and that players should discuss reasons why their characters are already friends/trusted allies before the game even starts. As much as you hate Critical Role, most of their characters were directly tied to at least one other person at the table right from the start, so the idea of them linking together as a sort of surrogate family was hard-coded right into the game from the beginning. Combined with the fact that most of them have over-the-top family issues as their backstories (usually at least one dead parent and often another parent who is a total asshole), it led to an organic feeling that all of these incredibly broken people probably WOULD gravitate to each other, understand each other in ways most people wouldn't, and would ultimately forge incredibly strong bonds (especially when they're constantly in life-and-death struggles together, sort of combining family bonds with soldier bonds). That's good RP. <cite>shadowsword87 posted...</cite> <quote>Hell, the worst thing we can do, legally, in prison is force someone alone for years at a time.</quote> Well, at least part of that is that solitary is usually incredibly uncomfortable in general. A human stuffed in a box and left undernourished and dehydrated for days at a time (or just left alone with complete and total boredom) is going to break a lot faster than someone who is equally alone, but who is living in a comfortable dwelling, and has access to multiple forms of distraction (whether it be having to work hard to produce food/resources or being able to read books/watch movies/play games/etc). But again, personality plays a role. Some people will break in hours or days while other people in the exact same circumstance might last months or even years. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Poll of the Day > Spider-Geek: Homecoming (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Spider-Geek: Homecoming