PrimeJunta

Because said circumstances are present in all computer role-playing games, unless the game is specially designed to avoid those circumstances, and I think desiging a game around a perk like this is a dumb idea. I think theorycrafting is largely a waste of time. Iterating on existing designs is much more fruitful. I'm not sure I understand this paragraph. What do you mean by 'this?' A perk, or a game? If a game, what does it have to do with the topic under discussion? Yes, and I'm pointing out that the perk/trade-off you suggested as an example is an inherently bad one, unless the game is explicitly balanced around that trade-off, and excplicitly balancing a game around something as trivial as a perk is stupid. Hypothetical extremely resource-scarce scavenging-based game notwithstanding. Yes... and in any game not explicitly balanced around that trade-off, you won't miss the other, and balancing a game on something as trivial as a perk is a stupid idea. How many times do I have to repeat this? Oh please, Lephys. Now really existing games are "crappy" because they're not balanced around your pet perk? Why don't you give it a shot. Describe a party-based fantasy cRPG where the mace/sword trade-off isn't something you would want to have. Assume the choice is between taking it and not taking it, not between taking it and taking some other even more munchkiny trade-off. Go.

I'm not sure deflection is purely gear-dependent. I think it's possible -- even likely -- that there are talents and other class-related abilities you can buy when leveling up. All we know is that it's not affected by your attributes.

@Osvir Ugh, no. For me at least the whole point with guns in a high-magic game is that they're anti-magical. In PoE, one of their reasons for being is that they ignore Arcane Veil. Making them into just another kind of wand would totally defeat the purpose. This game, OTOH, will totally rock. Not for TREND. Not for CORPORATE ATTITUDE. Not for STONER. Only true DOOM-MURDER HEADS.

I care that people aren't talking past one another. That makes my caring about semantics a strictly local, contextual business. Discussions about semantics may be needed if it turns out that the people in a conversation understand the meaning of some term differently enough to cause misunderstanding, so that meaningful conversation can continue. However I find such discussions in and of themselves worthless and uninteresting. I.e., I have zero interest in discussing what the term 'anachronistic' "really means." However if someone says that in his opinion firearms in a bronze-age tech-level fantasy are not anachronistic, I may be interested in finding out whether the disagreement is about substance (whether firearms belong in said fantasy world or not) or semantics (whether 'anachronistic' is a suitable word to express the way they do not fit). If it turns out to be the latter, I'm done. (And, should there be some meaningful conversation to be had, entirely willing to switch to some other word for the purposes of the conversation, should someone suggest one.)

What's that got to do with it?

BTW, Sharp_one, you might want to check your profile -- I just checked, and you don't, in fact, list your gender there.

Why would I do that? It would be silly.

Close enough for me. <plonk>

"-Sir, what do you consider the worst attitude nowadays unawareness or ignorance? - I don't know, I don't care" I will remember that you cannot comprehend the meaning of words for future discussions. Words only have the meaning we ascribe to them. Conversations about semantics are worthwhile only to the extent they're needed to clarify misunderstandings in a particular context.

Yeah.... you're pretty much alone here, on that one. No none here's being racist. And i urge you to look up a comedian named Reginald D. Hunter on youtube where he talks about middle class white people like you, who think everything is racist. Maybe it will help you stop being such a socially nervous, politically correct, ironical nazi. Plus he can make you laugh. Going to bed, work in the morning. I know the gamer scene has deeply entrenched racism and sexism in it. A few years ago, I would have been alone. Fortunately that's changing. I'm not alone in opposing that culture even on this thread, and of course many of Obsidian's leading lights are pushing to change things too. Better times are a'coming.

Please post it here. I'm not responding to any off-site stuff. Edit: And "man-hating?" That's... worrying. If you have anything at all to do with the MRA scene, please say so, so I'll put you on my ignore list right away. I want nothing whatsoever to do with that lot.

Haha, you sure that's the analogy you want to make?

Okay, in that case I concede the point. I don't give a sh1t about semantics.

Wow, looks like this thing is really flushing them out of the woodwork.

I do. But that doesn't mean others have to as well. Like gay people. Wow. For once, I am lost for words. And thus prove my point. Hahano.

HELL YES! Seriously, do you even have to ask this? Hounds = good. Wolves = evil. Horses = good. Cats = evil. Tolkien associated major meanings with various animals. Carcharoth ring any bells? What about Draugluin? You keep bringing the Ku Klux Klan and gas chambers into this. News flash: you do not need to want to actually exterminate a group of people to qualify as racist. It's enough to consider them intrinsically inferior. I'm claiming Tolkien did the latter about any number of groups -- Jews, blacks, Mongols/Turks/Arabs -- while explicitly and firmly disassociating himself from the former. You're welcome. True, that. The same goes for choice of words when expressing yourself, though. For example, if you did indeed mean 'attractive' in the broadest possible sense in both cases, then I would suggest you expressed yourself poorly in the first case. Mentioning 'banging' in the same paragraph would cause most readers to assume you meant 'sexually attractive.' Put another way, if someone misunderstands you, I would suggest you consider the possibility that the fault was with your choice of words, not the other party's reading skillz. Why would I bother to check it, since the question was whether you're attracted to girls or not, not whether you're male or female or not? Good, looks like I'll fit right in, then. Edit: I hate this POS editor.

I do. But that doesn't mean others have to as well. Like gay people. Wow. For once, I am lost for words.

I never argued otherwise. You're always "guilty" of injecting your politics into whatever you read. That said, it is possible to tease out the author's politics from his writing too. In fact, systematic analysis like that is the only tool we have of disentangling your politics from the writer's politics. Sorry, Karkarov, but no can do on my part. I'm still waiting for Merlkir's response, which he promised. I wouldn't have written that series of posts if he hadn't made that promise, and I hope he'll honor it. It was a quite a bit of work. However, I apologize if I've insulted anyone. I have been making an extra effort to stay civil, address only the statements people make, and not the people themselves. If I've failed, I'm sorry and I'll try to do better.

In that case, it sounds like we're quibbling over semantics. I would find 'anachronistic' an appropriate term to use if a fantasy world included a technology (e.g. firearms) without including the precursor technologies for it (e.g. metallurgy good enough to forge gun barrels).

"Redheads" or "green-eyed women" are not an ethnicity. They're particular physical features. That doesn't carry the same kind of baggage. That said, if you said "There is not a single red-haired woman I could find attractive," I would find that... not exactly racist, but definitely off. Wouldn't you? Which, of course, is not what I was saying. You didn't say "I like green-eyed women." You said "There is not a single black woman I could find attractive." That, Sharp_one, is a racist statement, any way you parse it.

Do you see ethnicity as equally fundamental to sexual attraction as sex? Just asking.

Now, that's better. Not good enough, though. Once more. Orcs are the evil race, correct? In his letter, Tolkien explicitly connects Orcs with Mongols, correct? How is connecting a specific ethnie -- Mongols -- with an explicitly evil race -- Orcs -- not a racist connection? It sounds to me that your threshold for racism are as high as your standards for versimilitude in fantasy are low, man. Absurdly high. And absurdly low. Google "some of my best friends are black." It's a cliché. You just did it. I was referencing it. Sorry, Sharp_one. Language just doesn't work that way. Words have multiple meanings, and you always have to parse out the one intended from context. I wasn't interested enough to check your profile. So, casually insulting people instead of addressing their points counts as "polite" in Poland? I'll keep that in mind next time I swing by.

There was no subject change. You appear to have very low standards for consistency in your fiction. Firearms in a bronze-age fantasy are anachronistic. There's simply no way you could have firearms with bronze-age technology. If they're present, they must come from somewhere else, e.g. left from a previous much more advanced civilization. They're still anachronistic. If you disagree, that, to me, shows that your standards for fantasy are low. It's not enough to simply declare victory to win an argument, by the way. You actually have to demonstrate your point first.

That's a pretty loaded statement. Are you saying he is required to feel sexual attraction to black women or that makes him racist? Does that mean that all gay men/women are sexist? Are you saying that a gay man is required to feel sexual attraction to women or be called sexist? I already addressed the orientation aspect in the above post, so I won't repeat that here. As to the other point, "there is not a single black girl I could find sexually attractive" is racist. For one thing, it demonstrates that you see black girls primarily as black girls, i.e., members of a group, rather than individuals whom you may or may not find sexually attractive. That makes the categorical statement, in and of itself, racist. FWIW, "I find black girls sexually attractive" is also racist, for the same reason.

That's the best you can do? Seriously? And you really consider that a winning argument? "It's not because I say so! And now I'm taking my toys and going home, you mean liberal politically correct indoctrinated person you!" Ah, the "some of my best friends are black" defense. Never would've seen that coming. It occurred to me that you might be trying to score cheap rhetorical points. You have a habit of switching between definitions of a word as it suits you, like right here: It was obvious from context (mention of 'banging') that by 'attractive' you meant 'sexually attractive.' Here you're using 'attractive' in its broader sense, since I would expect that a 100% gay man or 100% straight woman would could state 'there is not a single black girl I find sexually attractive' without lying. The 'black' qualifier could be there to make it the trick question. (I wasn't just thinking you might be a gay man, by the way. I was also thinking you might be a straight woman. To my recollection, your gender has never come up in these discussions, and your avatar and handle are sexually ambiguous.) That's what you get for having a history of weaseling with words, you know. People get careful and start adding caveats. It also makes you a somewhat tedious person to converse with, since you spend so much time evading points with little rhetorical tricks rather than addressing them. Also, I thought you said you were leaving...?