Show Commentary: Episode 26
You know, when Josh said "Gor," the first thing I thought of was Al Gore. Closely followed by those power robots from Star Wars. Which, in a roundabout way, he kind of is.
Kudos to Zeke for nailing Kwisatz Haderach the way I'd always imagined it; but I'd always thought you'd also say Bene Gesserit the Hebrew way. I hear it as "beh-NAY GEH-seh-REET," which follows Hebrew rules and would actually translate to "Children of [Something]."
Brilliant Duneologists: The Gameology Must Flow!
Brilliant Duneologists: Take Spice Like You Have To!
Brilliant Duneologists: Leto Atreides Is An Asshole
Hey, at least you'd stil lbe welcome in Boston if you were Mario. Or at least the North Shore.
I'd like to point out that I'm occasionally an opinionator. Only when I really, really, REALLY want to screw with the people on the thread, though. (Meg may disagree with me, acerbic as I am. No, I will not let that go, because it's FUNNY at this point.)
You make good points about how to have a logical discussion, especially when it comes to non-sequitors. That said, I can't really agree that you shouldn't agree to disagree; in real life I see your point, but on a forum a long, heated argument can be more disruptive to the boards then helpful. Sometimes it really is better to back down.
...OMG. Can we NOT have a discussion about arguments on the internet that don't devolve into formal debate?
Also, Josh? I know you're a fightah. Case in point: any time the words "lacks tactical options, and therefore fails as an action-adventure system" appear on the boards. ;-)
Interestingly: I've played with a LOT of females, and I've only ever played with one that played a male. This is in RL; I see a lot of women as men online. But then, I see a lot more men as women online as well.
I like Rule 7. The sex one.
Hey! Rule 1 is the same as on the boards! Does that mean everyone there is gender-bending?
I think with Rule 2 Josh means to cry. Because Josh likes making people cry.
Rule 3 is awesome advice. Your character doesn't see it as anything unusual (in most circumstances;) why should you?
Rule 4 is in a similar vein, and I like it too. You will get bored really fast. The Hillary comparison is a good one, which is annoying because I DESPISE her. Same with Rule 5.
I, uhm. May have actually checked the intelligent items section to see if any were lesbian.
Sex is not the only decision a girl makes. Unless she's Meg. Also, sex + arson = AWESOME.
I'm... not actually sure if Zeke is talking about characters anymore once he gets to the ice queen. That said? I've seen a man-hating lesbian terrorist — actually a gun-toting Togrudan smuggler in SWSAGA — played by a woman. (A lesbian, actually.) The character is actually interesting and effective, because while she has real respect for the man who owns the ship she works on, the others are pretty disdained. That relationship, though, gives her character enough interesting depth that she comes off feeling like one of the stronger members of the party. Certainly stronger than the guy who's playing himself crossed with Obi-Wan Kenobi, down to the speech mannerisms.
I hate, hate, HATE the abuse victim thing. I've met a lot of survivors of abuse, actually — a completely distressing number — and none of them are like this. And it's just offensive to me, because these people who I care about deeply are a lot stronger than the people who make that stereotype want to make them out to be. I agree with you all, though — the "woe is me!" one is even worse.
You can have AWESOME mother characters — see Harry Potter. "NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU BITCH!"
HOLY CRAP YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BURNING WHEEL AND I UNDERSTOOD IT. And to bring it back to Burning Duneologists, there's a Fremen Wife (or X Wife, where X is whatever word they use for Fremen) lifepath in Jihad that seems like you could do really cool things with.
Meg, your Sarah Palin impression is spot-on and that's scary. I also fully expect your forum avatar to change to Marie Curie soon.
Man, Josh, I wish you were running a Jihad game. It'd be awesome.
Ooh! It could also be Josh playing a character that says, "I LOVE World of Darkness! Who needs tactical options? They're not REALLY necessary!"
RE Crazy: RESEARCH YOUR DAMN DISORDER. Don't do ADD, for example, without playing up the INTENSE focus that ADD comes with. (Don't know what I'm talking about? Look it up.)
Stereotypical old guy can work. Remember Jolee Bindo?
The opposite of an Edge is a Hindrance. Read SR4.
Great examples of functional blind characters are Kreia and Visas from KOTOR II. They have interesting ways of overcoming it, and when it gets noticed they really run with it. (I personally love Kreia's speech about "I have a better way of seeing," etc. It's one of the most memorable moments in the game for me.)
That said, I disagree with you on House. You constantly NOTICE House's disability, but it's not constantly an issue. I agree that his addiction is, but the leg only really becomes the FOCUS of the scene in a few episodes. (Season 3, Episode 1 springs to mind.) But just because he limps a lot doesn't mean that in an RPG, he'd be taking negative attention.
I think the difference is actually in how the player plays it. We know that, if a player was playing House in Savage Worlds, say — the first system that comes to mind with a really good way to present his disability — he'd be walking with a limp whether the player announced it or not. But if the player DOES spend all his time announcing it, then it's a problem — sort of like if every time we saw House walking, it was with a litany of slight cries of pain, or grunts, or "woe is me!" comments, or the like. Same with twirling the cane, or using it to open doors: if the player writes it on his sheet and mentions it once or twice, that's flavor. If the player announces it EVERY DAMN TIME, then it's annoying.
...NO. NO. NO. No Meisner, no Method. FUCKING TERRIBLE IDEA. (Sorry, as an actor you've hit upon my real dislikes here.) The best way to build a character in acting is to look at the text, and figure out what the text is telling you. I'm not gonna talk about RPGs, but PLEASE don't recommend those two schools to other people. They're basically the entire reason for crappy actors. (Stanislavsky's okay, but make sure you read his second and third books as well as his first.)
Okay, using the memory of losing someone? Terrible idea #2. I've done a bit of Method, which is how I know I don't like it, and the NUMBER ONE thing every teacher I had said is this: if it's especially painful, like losing a loved one, DON'T DO IT. Continually immersing yourself in that pain is a terrible thing to do to yourself, and it can mess you up really badly. If for some reason you think it's better to go MEthod, stay in a place that you can take yourself back from. You need to be able to get into a role every night, but you also need to be able to get yourself out of it. There are a lot of theatre people who know Method and think that not being able to bring himself out of it was why Heath Ledger killed himself. (He was Method, if you didn't know.)
Making positive choices is a good thing to import from Method, though. Making negative ones just cuts you off.
I actually don't have much to say about the voice stuff except that the advice is sound. (No pun intended.) It reminds me very much of my first year of Voice and Speech, way back in tenth grade. One thing I didn't hear you say is about the focus of where you speak.
When you speak in American dialect — okay, there are like twenty, but this applies to most of the more "neutral" ones — the focus of your sounds is on the middle of your mouth. Try focusing on different parts of your mouth when you talk — think about your lips the whole time, for example, and move them as much as possible when you make sounds. You'll automatically sound a bit more New England. Do the same with your teeth and you get a little British. It's fun to play around with.