And like don't get me wrong, art doesn't have to justify its own existence, but I can't help but feel like a lot of this kinda discourse comes from people misdiagnosing the cause of their artistic dissatisfaction.
fascinating, and in relation to that manifesto, would they have worked better as actual (borderline unplayable) videogames?
It raises the question whether and why your art needs to be a game instead of a different medium. And like, I'm not being facecious here. In these cases is there more to it that just being an aesthetic and group signifier. Like I think of those books that are guides for fake videogames. They're
too see*
Don't really care that much about the TTRPG discourse of the week but it's kinda funny to how low games actually being played ranks on some people's priorities when it comes to this medium.
This is what puts me off so many licensed games. I'd want a Fallout ttrpg, not a Fallout 4 one.
But if you want to do immersive, actor stance stuff, it's a kiss of death.
It can work if the player isn't reluctant and is just being genre savvy. Same with playing cowards.
It's just another manifestation of centrism tbh.
Yeah. Like I sympathise with him, but only to a point. Selling the adaptation rights was his choice and it was a wildly lucrative one. And he's been very engaged with the productions in ways a lot of writers don't get to be.
It's kinda funny to see him madder now about the adaptation issues in House of the Dragon when they pale in comparison to how badly GoT butchered his work.
Also, the so called order was three decades of genocide and slavery for huge chunks of the galaxy.
it's probably the connective tissue to make all the political stuff work in the next books.
And like, don't get me wrong. A Dance With Dragons ends in a tough place from which to continue the series (as evidenced by GRRM being stuck on it for 15 years), but D&D approached the off book stuff with what I consider reckless disdain. Like how they just cut the Young Griff plotline even though
The degree to which GoT got retroactively worse because of this choice is genuinely impressive.
Even on a purely semantic level, it has to be reactionary because it only exists in relation to other ideologies. But yeah, in a more practical sense it's just conservatism that's afraid to admit what it is.
V20s combat is really bad, but it's impressive to ask for the only thing that could make it worse.
Tbf, it's easy to shit on the works of conservatives and reactionary centrists whereas in this episode they admit that the thesis is broadly agreeable and they mainly take issue with the framing, details and the lack of rigour in supporting the book's arguments.
better and more important.
I should also mention that BS Jobs is probably Graeber's weakest work, and as it was presented sometimes comes across as an academic airing his grievances about the different places he worked in over his career more than anything else. It's a fun book, but Debt and The Dawn of Everything are much
bureaucracy has that covered.
missed probably the most important takeaway from the book which is the proliferation of second order bullshit jobs, i.e. real jobs that only exist in service of propping up bullshit. That said, bullshit work/bullshit tasks is a probably more useful concept, but also a lot of Graeber's work on
Definitely one of their more mixed bag episodes. Their most salient criticism is of Graeber's imprecision and framing. And maybe this is because of the book's imprecision, they kept saying they were disagreeing with passages when they actually ended up just echoing what the book said. They also
One of the defining features of fascists is that they're culturally parasitic and people keep forgetting that.
I've noticed that in particular, that reflexive out of the gate house ruling tends to be in service of reducing perceived friction without regard for whether that friction is good for the game, or if it's not actually friction and they're just looking through the lens of their comfort game
You do you, but having played a lot of 2e, it feels really good to play and what you're saying is a charicature here of the experience.
I've more come to the opinion that big bonuses are a trap as. Figuring out how to make smaller bonuses actually good is more worthwhile IMO, and I think 2e does that where 3.5 and pf1e wholly failed there.
rocket tag.
and item bonuses). Third is that a difference of 10 above or below the DC gives a crit so in most circumstances, every +1 is a practically+2. It strikes a nice balance between having enough granularity that teamwork and good tactics tangibly feel rewarded, without becoming a bookkeeping nightmare or
Pathfinder 2e has three main tricks to make those small bonuses work. First is that the maths is really tight so you will regularly see the difference small bonuses and penalties make. Second is that bonuses and penalties all fall into one of three categories (status i.e. buffs/debuffs, circumstance
