Quote from: CausticJedi;1023648No, one person got suspended for "getting too close to the line" about personal and group attacks from earlier posts having nothing to do with that thread, but also including that thread.  Did I report his posts?  No.  Do I agree with that ruling?  Not even.  It's a shame that he got a week off and no real way to complain about it.  Another who was bashing the game got red texted.

How's your perspective, BTW?  I take it that you believe you're the balanced one in all this?

My perspective is unchanged and still not as skewed as yours or some here on the opposite side of the fence. RPGnet is a mess. It was a mess. Will be a mess. Its been that way for years. That does not mean that people over there are all kooks and scum. But there is an appalling percentage over there now. The rest of us just putter along as normal.

But at the end of the day RPGnet didnt get its horrible rep for no reason.

So try again please.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1023651@CausticJedi

I was going to say "you're a passive aggressive 2@" but then I chose to rise above it.

Well, that's fine.  I guess I had to lurk moar to figure out what really goes around here.  I seem to be learning pretty quickly and have no doubt, I do have the ability to live up to my user name.  I just try for the peaceful "can't we all get along" first.  Basically.

Quote from: Omega;1023670My perspective is unchanged and still not as skewed as yours or some here on the opposite side of the fence. RPGnet is a mess. It was a mess. Will be a mess. Its been that way for years. That does not mean that people over there are all kooks and scum. But there is an appalling percentage over there now. The rest of us just putter along as normal.

But at the end of the day RPGnet didnt get its horrible rep for no reason.

So try again please.

Nah, not going to bother.  Just don't tell me I'm wrong or a liar based on my opinion of make pretend games or people who enjoy them.  And I think I'll take my skewed perception as a compliment, as I'd much rather see the good rather than wallow in the bad.

But that's just me.

My objection to calling somebody a twat is that it implies twats are a bad thing.  I think they're wonderful, myself.

Tasty, and so good for you.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023895My objection to calling somebody a twat is that it implies twats are a bad thing.  I think they're wonderful, myself.

Tasty, and so good for you.

LOL

Okay, no matter what you say from now on, I still like you.

I have to wonder what these identarian hang-wringers think of all the female historians and novelists who have spent their lives writing about historical social environments. The Mary Beards, Barbara Tuchmans, Mary Renaults, Sharon Kay Penmans, Pauline Gedges, Colleen McCulloughs, and Rosemary Sutcliffs. Were these women traumatized by spending so much of their lives immersed in the gendered social structures of the ancient world and medieval Europe? Are they perpetrating the patriarchy by writing books set in such unjust societies?

Quote from: CausticJedi;1023985LOL

Okay, no matter what you say from now on, I still like you.

Good deal.

Me, I've always looked at this place as "the usual gang of clowns hanging around at the pub," and sometimes the situation just calls for a muff-diving joke.

Quote from: CausticJedi;1023863I just try for the peaceful "can't we all get along" first.  

Really? I thought you were starting off with a heavy dose of patronising, denying and disingenuous victim-hood.

I can go for "get along", as long as it is not the sort of getting along lock-step, if you know what I mean.

Sounds good.  Just be aware that in this pub "getting along" may mean half a dozen people yelling "You're pissed, you old fart, and you're talking bullshit, sit down and shut up."

Quote from: CausticJedi;1023865Nah, not going to bother.  Just don't tell me I'm wrong or a liar based on my opinion of make pretend games or people who enjoy them.  And I think I'll take my skewed perception as a compliment, as I'd much rather see the good rather than wallow in the bad.

But that's just me.

I didnt call you a liar. Though as your posts accumulate you trow yourself into increasing suspicion.
And you can go "la-la-la its not there!" all you want. That wont change the very blatant facts that RPGnet is an absolute mess.

Quote from: jhkim;1023395I'm curious, Pundit. How is social class determined, and how is gender, in Lion & Dragon? Can a player just choose to be the son of an earl rather than a peasant? Can they choose to be male rather than female?

Having the social barriers to struggle against is interesting, but there is an issue of balance as well.

In my historical games, I've usually had formal or informal factors to balance out social class and/or gender. Sometimes this is within some sort of point system, but often it is just informal rulings, where I give perks to those who take lower social class, and restrictions on those who take high social class.

Gender is by player choice.

Social Class, if you go with RAW, is by random roll. The probabilities are not actually representative of the real class-structure demographics of medieval society, because presumably there will be less peasant-heroes and more heroes of higher classes. The most likely social class is "villain" (which is to say burgher, someone who was born in a city), but the odds of being from the Knightly or Noble class is obviously higher than a pure population breakdown would suggest.

Also, it's made clear that a GM could choose to go another way, for example, wanting all the characters to be of the same social class or what have you.

In my new L&D campaign (started last week), I repeated my previous policy of having everyone roll two characters (they pick which character they want to play at the start of each session).  In this case, however, I wanted (because of the campaign I had in mind) to have one of their characters to be of the Knightly class. So one character was from that social class, the other was rolled randomly.

In old-school gaming, 'balance' is not as important a consideration. And I don't think it makes sense to try to give extra perks to peasants. Or female characters. I mean after all, you don't give make-up perks to people who didn't roll high stats either, right?
Well, maybe YOU do. But old-school gamers wouldn't.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023478You know, Greg Stafford's PENDRAGON has had restrictions on women since Day 1.

Stafford has reported that the overwhelming response of women to this has been "Well, yeah, that's what the source material was like, so I'm playing a male character."  This also matches my experience and that of a lot of other people, with both flavors of fun bits.

I agree with the overall tone of the OP; challenges are fun and interesting to overcome.

Yes, quite familiar with that about Pendragon. I could certainly understand a woman player never wanting to play a female character in Pendragon.

That's part of the reasoning for why I wanted there to be opportunities for women players to actually be able to run female characters, and within that presenting a variety of options to how challenging that could be (everything from female clerics, who are basically treated exactly the same as men, to female magic-users who certainly face some serious social challenges).

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1023541I just suggested using "Dark Albion" as a setting to a GM I know who is starting a new campaign using my Glory Road rules. His old setting was an adaptation of one of the D&D settings from the Nineties that he modified and he is tired of it.

Hope he takes your advice!

Quote from: RPGPundit;1024330Hope he takes your advice!

He has. He takes forever and a half to set up a campaign but he has started. I estimate session 0 will be in April, but I'm an optimist.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1024328Gender is by player choice.

Social Class, if you go with RAW, is by random roll. The probabilities are not actually representative of the real class-structure demographics of medieval society, because presumably there will be less peasant-heroes and more heroes of higher classes. The most likely social class is "villain" (which is to say burgher, someone who was born in a city), but the odds of being from the Knightly or Noble class is obviously higher than a pure population breakdown would suggest.

Also, it's made clear that a GM could choose to go another way, for example, wanting all the characters to be of the same social class or what have you.

In my new L&D campaign (started last week), I repeated my previous policy of having everyone roll two characters (they pick which character they want to play at the start of each session).  In this case, however, I wanted (because of the campaign I had in mind) to have one of their characters to be of the Knightly class. So one character was from that social class, the other was rolled randomly.

In old-school gaming, 'balance' is not as important a consideration. And I don't think it makes sense to try to give extra perks to peasants. Or female characters. I mean after all, you don't give make-up perks to people who didn't roll high stats either, right? Well, maybe YOU do. But old-school gamers wouldn't.

As you note, gender is by player choice, though. Every player has the same chance to get a noble, so they've all got the same shot. To my mind, options which are player choice are different. Even in old school, it seems to me that there is some effort to make the different options relatively balanced. For example, most games wouldn't have a standard class that is in every way weaker than another class, like hedge witch compared to a wizard, or a man-at-arms compared to a cavalier.

As you note, the probabilities can reflect that there are less peasant-heroes and more heroes of higher classes. Based on this logic, there is some justification that the rare woman who becomes a hero is extra qualified.

Also, one could just have gender be random-roll. I'm tempted to try that in one of my upcoming games.