Search results

I think some people would prefer them to be so. In practice, though, I think many people get what they want, and a lot of fun out of RPGs with those connections being flexible, possibly to the point of being haphazard.

I do not accept Hussar as the One True King of Playstyles. (Nothing personal, Hussar) I reserve the right to think that maybe Ironsworn gives Hussar what he wants, but maybe misses the mark for "sandbox" in a broader sense. I think some folks, for their own reasons, are focused a great deal...

Given how new Ironsworn is, perhaps you should not rely on folks accepting it within the core scope of sandbox play just yet. Player freedom is one aspect of sandbox play, but not the only quality many find important in the playstyle, and you shouldn't shove those out because of one new-ish...

They are very common - after all, the Victorian era from which the fiction takes inspiration... wasn't great for most people, now was it? It is the era of early industrialization - it is an era of coal-smoke fogs, black lung, and high levels of economic disparity. It is the era of fake patent...

Mod Note: Whatever you are saying, you are, in effect, shouting at people. If that's the level of aplomb you are going to bring to the discussion, you will be removed from the discussion going forwards. Keep your cool, or take a break. Those are your options.

Mod Note: Hey, how about this: @Clint_L and @Mistwell - just stop responding to each other in this thread, please. Thanks much.

No. "Retrofuturism" is "what the past thought the future would be". Steampunk would be more appropriately classified as alt-history, except for how it rarely cares about the historical aspect except for the aesthetics and Jack the Ripper.

With respect. Wells was commenting on his present, using allegory set in the future. For steampunk, it's nigh-dystopian aspects are similarly commentary on the present in which they are written, not predictions of the future.

What, you think folks are going to drop a fully-written and documented research thesis in your lap? That's the point of the conversation! If you want to get descriptions of how things work, you're going to have to draw people out in talk about what they love. Indeed, you'll probably need...

Not the point. Do not confuse "this game supports X, Y, and Z" with ""this game was designed to support X, Y, and Z".

Having been witness to the creation process of some games... I feel you are incorrect. At least, as a generalization. I am sure there are some creators who do to undertake design processes, but some do.

I think you misunderstand me. Now, people can look back and say that they can collect a number of works and say, "These were the early elements in the genre," and have a pretty solid argument that they are correct. But, this is done in hindsight. There is some moment when someone first says...

Insofar as the early D&D is barely "designed" at all, though? Classic D&D is a bunch of disparate subsystems glommed together. And early writing about those rules do not give, to me, at least, a clear image of well-defined goals for design. There are certainly elements in there that are...

The word "steampunk" is first attested to 1987: I am skeptical many would have been thinking about it as a unified genre before that point.

Well, that's an opportunity, but it won't be one you can exploit by being confrontational. If you are actually curious about their point, and what they think (as opposed to being interested in proving them wrong), you can ask questions about their particular needs and desires, and how they game...

Yeah, so they are wrong. Your point?

There should be two separate questions: 1) Does game X do thing Y well? 2) Do I want to use game X? Why or why not? One should not have to deny a game does something you want to do well in order to claim you don't want to use it.

Mod note: Politics. Please don't. Thanks.

Mod note: You have carried on with the name calling and accusations long enough. Rule #1 of this place is "Keep it civil." You are expected to abide by that. We also don't support commentary about real world politics. So, dial it back, please and thanks.

It doesn't need to be a "significant number" of courts. You only have to be found guilty in one to be, by the law, guilty. That Meta acquired some 80 terabytes of copyright protected works without paying for them, and used them to train their generative AI, is apparently not in dispute at this...