Cantousent

In Exile --- The Dream Academy

I've played with all kinds of groups over the years, but the most basic assumption I have is that a role-playing game is a sort of contract between the players and the DM. That means both between the players and between the players and the DM. Sure, your job is to create an entertaining setting, most of which the many players won't see and the intracacies of which they will not appreciate. Still, they'll find some sort of angle in your campaign to enjoy. On the other hand, the players must be willing to follow at least some constraints in order to facilitate the gaming experience. We always say you should be able to do whatever you want to do in a PnP RPG. It ain't true, though. You might want to play a housewife who cleans all day, burps junior, and handbrushes Mr. Wiggles the cat. Sure, you could roleplay that experience, but it would probably be boring to the DM and you'll undoubtedly have a hard time finding players to join the group. A good case in point is this business where there should be side chat between the DM and individual players. In my in-person games, I have no problem with this side chat. I can handle it very quickly and no one feels left out while I have a quick convesation with another player. Online, however, it causes a serious breakdown in the game. players are bored while I spend a substantial amount of time in private chat with one individual. Sometimes it makes sense, and some players would like to do it, but it creates an adverse situation in the game. So, we don't allow it. So, I guess what I would probably do is just let them act out whatever part they want, within reason, and let them create their own story within the confines of your universe. However, if it's really important to you, then level with them. Tell them to what you aspire as a DM and then have them help you fashion a backstory, premise, and a specific story for your campaign. My approach is to level with players when something is important to me. Hell, that's my approach to people with everyone. Nothing beats a respectful but candid discussion.

I don't know about regal, but I like the cat. Mean looking thing, though. Something about the light hitting that inner eyelid? Oh, and some nice looking equipment on yours, Kaftan. Wasted on a yutz like you, but I like it.

Who all's game for Friday? Please send word.

I didn't clean my desk. The only thing I did was move my laptop to my computer desk rather than take a picture of it at my dining room table which is where I use it a lot of the time.

I've been playing Medal of Honor Allied Assault.

Good Lord, Kor. How the hell do you fit in that space?

Heart of the Matter -- Don Henley

I'm really looking forward to this title. I just hope the single player game doesn't suck. I enjoyed Diablo 2 in both single player and multiplayer games.

Hahaha. You know what's comedy? Feargus originally posted in the "Top Ten with Feargus" thread: http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?showtopic=41308 Fionavar moved his response into it's own thread, complete with the ten questions: http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?showtopic=41584 I noticed that "How's the family" made it into the top ten while my question about Feargus' comments did not. hahahaha No hard feelings, though. There's more imformation coming out about this stuff and I never figured we'd get a response from The Big Cheese. I'd just hoped we might. Pretty slick way of doing things though, Fionavar. I say that without a hint of irony or sarcasm. heh heh heh. Oh well, we're just a bunch of message board cowboys. Sometimes you lose a gunfight or two.

Well, here are the three computers. I put my laptop on my computer desk top. Notice that my wife's computer desk is in far worse shape than my own. I do most of my work on my laptop, but that tends to be all over the place so no real "desk top." Mine w/laptop: Mine: Wife's:

I say you two fight over it. hehe

Wow, that is an impressive looking cat. What a shame you stuck antlers on her head. hahaha Anyhow, anyone else going to post a pic of the "desktop?" I'll have to wait until this evening when I have access to a digital camera.

Too much testosterone, I guess. I'm actually probably one of the biggest whimps on this board. I destest and fear violence. I guess we all have "war stories" of some sort or another. My dad went to Germany at the end of 1945, fought in Korea, and did a tour in Viet Nam. He hates and fears violence. He doesn't put it in those terms of course. He says things like "what a waste" or "all those dead kids" or... well, you get the picture. He has never, once, expressed regret for serving his country. My grand-dad was in the battle of Guadalcanal. He was a marine. He hated the Japanese, I believe, until the day he died. He also hated his drill instructor. What a terrible thing war is, to make us hate our fellows. The question didn't regard war. The question regarded volunteers. Inasmuchas folks deride volunteers, even by implication, I'll continue to respond. In regards to war, however, it sucks. There are points where there is no choice, because it only takes one side to force a war between two parties. Nevertheless, what sane person desires war?

Show off. Nice icon.

I never take anything you say personally, Gorth. I wear my heart on my sleeve, so if I feel attacked, it's pretty easy to see. hahaha Seriously, though, as long as I remember you guys are Danes, I remember to take your Danish sense of humor into account. :Eldar's ****-eating grin icon:

A quick note in regards to the evolving argument in which Moose and Gorth represent a more or less coherent side: I don't think anyone has yet argued that we should gladly give up our lives for anything. I think my argument, and Gorth used similar language in his response, revolves around risking life rather than simply laying it down. So, some things are worth fighting to protect. I believe that with all my heart. Moose comes up with a poem that shows that war sucks. Good God above, I never contended otherwise. Hell, I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that war is a pleasant activity. Moreover, Moose then let's us know that the author of the poem died in the trenches of World War One. Fair enough. I guess that gives him the grauitas to comment on warfare. However, he must have felt that there were things worth fighting, risking his life, and eventually dying to protect. There is no greater proof than the fact that he fought, risked his life, and died. War is not pleasant, but there are things less pleasant than war. Gorth, whom I consider as much a personal friend as I'm likely to find on a message board, says he can't think of anything other than his life that he would fight or die to protect. I don't believe him. I think, should a foreign army come to his land and demand that he give up his essential and basic human rights, he would resist. There's a good chance that he would outright fight. You know, I still don't look down on folks who don't volunteer, but I disdain people who look down on folks who do. There are things for which it is worth both to fight and to die.

Oversimplification? "Germany was bitter because of lost territories after WW1, it was moral on their side to claim back what was lost." Ridiculous. Oh, wait, I'm supposed to provide the "pinnacle of debating techniques," the exemplar of which is found in your posts. If only I used rolling eyes icons, I could insert one here. I'm a bit more direct than you. Your arguments are pedantic, but that's not really the problem. The real problem is that you're putting World War One as the moral equivalent of World War Two. Unless you'd like a history lesson, for which you have simply to attend a good university rather than debate on a message board, you're going to deal with simple answers. The fact is, however, that World War One was a contest between more or less equal aggressors while World War Two was a response to one. While you might want to put the showdown between the colonial powers on the same level as the western democracies uniting against a common foe, you'll probably have a hard sell. However, if you really do believe that the moral cleanliness of defending your country, and therefore you familly and yourself, against a foreign army is in question, a thought that is as dubious as the rest of your post, then make the sale and convince the world. BTW: Stupid: "Main Entry: 1stu

I wondered that also. This way, however, folks are encouraged to buy two systems for their lan. hahaha Seriously, I imagine they did it this way on purpose to eek out more sales. Now, I'd like the light side case, but I won't buy it. I'm going to be getting a new computer soon, but I just can't see buying it for six grand. My usual budget is $1,000 for a new system, scavenging parts from the previous system. This time around, I'll probably get more new components and buy one for around 2k. Still, that's over 4k less than the Alienware rig. ...And I noticed that there weren't very many options for lowering the price but plenty for raising it. I don't blame them trying to make money. That's what businesses do. It's just that someone else will have to help them make that money.

I could see buying the case and putting in my own powersupply and components. I wouldn't do it, but I can see a big Star Wars fan shelling out the cash.I can't see paying for an Alienware computer. That kind of scratch for a Star Wars case? Alienware might be good, but that's some kind of nuts.

We can get into stupid arguments about right and wrong wars. However, in World War One, Germany was acting in the part of a 19th century colonial power. The European powers as a whole were a mixed lot, but, while there was a difference in the preferred methods between countries, they all relied on similar methods and worked for similar goals. Germany, leading to World War One was not much/any worse than the other European powers. World War Two is not morally ambiguous. Hitler was attempting to realize the dream of empire by swallowing the surrounding democracies. He was wrong. As for the allies, only a fool would contend that defending your country and your people is morally ambiguous. It's popular, in our day and age, to say that all violence is wrong. Whatever you might think now, it looks different from the other side. Killing folks trying to take your land, destroy your democracy, rape your wifes, slaughter your children, and kill you is not morally ambiguous. It is appropriate. So, in short, no, Diamond. I think your argument is ridiculously stupid on its face. I don't need to grasp at straws. @Gorth: I'll respond to you later. Your posts require a thoughtful response.

Great, now Gorth's scoring points off me. :Eldar's hazy headed icon:

This is a good point. Think of the Spartan who died at Thermopylae. He lost all honors because the Spartans decided that he actively sought death. dying on the battlefield because you want to die is not heroic. It is suicidal.

Those were conscripts, Gorth. Verdun might be a bad example, as World War One was morally ambiguous. The joke is good. Nonetheless, like most jokes, it doesn't really do much to enlighten the issue. On the other hand, do you suggest that there is nothing for which you would fight? If someone attacked your land, you wouldn't fight? ....Or maybe you'd fight if someone attacked your land but would not fight if, say, your land attacked someone? You see, it transcends simplistic views. Somewhere between blindly following or resisting authority is the idea that we buy into our own culture, government, and community. It is ours and it is worth protecting. We live in a democracy. If folks don't like our foreign policy, they have but to vote. So, yes, any one of those young men who donated his bones to the monument of freedom and country and God is a thousand times more worthy than the old man who died some fifty years later afterwards didn't even consider the risk. Some of them lived and some of them died. It was ever thus.

I like that idea. Let's take the political process away from the civilian government and place it in the hands of the military. The good news is, if a general tried wrest power from the Republic, the military itself would protect the Constitution. For good or ill, we live in a western democracy. That means our elected officials decide policy. We don't have to like it. We just have to live with it until the next election cycle.