Hey guys, I've decided to get back into GMing after an eight year hiatus. As I've been becoming a total comic book nerd lately, I decided to go with a superhero setting.


Mutants and Masterminds is a d20 game based around superheroes/heroes, set in a modern setting. We're going to be using the rolld20 only app to play the game. http://app.roll20.net/campaigns/search/


Beginners are more than welcome as we haven't actually played this campaign setting before previously. I'm obviously hugely familiar with d20 as a system, but even if you've never played a tabletop style game before you're more than welcome to play with us.


It's easy enough to get total randoms to play from d20.net, but sessions have always worked better if they're people from saltw forum/irc, so basically it'd be nice to have some people from here rather than COMPLETE randoms filling up all other spots.


There are five spots.


One is currently filled by Dorothy, the other four are UP FOR GRABS.


Anyone in?

What is your favourite moment of the games so far?

I loved the opening ceremony for sure, but my best event so far was the team Archery
 It literally couldn't have been closer, with the Italuan team winning by one point and ON THE LINE. I was hoping for an Italian victory (go team EU!), but both teams deserved the win at the end.

The South Korean and Mexican teams were also impressive.

Ps: people on the DM forums are saying the opening ceremony was an example of 'Kultural Marxism' lol. Oh you crazy guys!

I wanted to make a thread concerning the SoIaF series.


Who are your favourite characters? Who are you rooting for? What plot points made you go "SAY WHAT" etc.


My major problem is spoilers, as DS nearly stole my life from me when I revealed something in IRC, so how about the old WHITE TEXT stuff?


Let me test it (highlight below to see if works!!!)


Theon Greyjoy is the son of Aerys and the Queen of Thorns.


Is this a bad idea, or should we wait for the spoiler stuff tags or what? ADVICE PLS GUYS!!

Most societies throughout the ages have had strict rules for male and female roles within society. While many religions now regard men and women as total equals, there are still differences concerning what they are expected to do to fulfil their contract with the society they inhabit. For example, even in this modern age, women are expected to have children and those that do not are considered out of the ordinary. Some women who choose a profession over having children view those that do differently as being inferior or having wasted their lives, as do some women who choose to raise a home and family over having a profession. Men do not make this choice, as they are expected in society to seek employment and provide for a family. While it does happen that you get househusbands and so forth, for the most part people have a negative view of them, some believing them to be "slackers" or taking the "woman's role" in the relationship.


Religious attitudes vary concerning the equal treatment of women, but many of the major branches of the world's Abrahamic faiths believe in gender equality. Genesis 1:27 states that "And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" and, while most people interpret this passage to mean that we are ALL created in G-d's image, some choose to claim that it reinforces gender roles due to the specific statement and splitting of male and female in this passage itself.


Related to this, Transgender people feel that they were born into the wrong body, thus have a hard time adapting to the role they are expected to fulfill in society. Those born male who feel female are unable to fulfil some of the expected roles of their preferred gender, even after surgery - they are unable to have children, do not have periods, and live with the knowledge that not every male will accept them in their new gender role. Likewise, those born female who become male are unable to fully utilise their genitalia to function as a male, are infertile, and generally suffer the same rejection from a large sector of society, sometimes resulting in situations like the movie 'Boys Don't Cry', a tale about a transman being murdered.


International Human Rights Law claims the importance of freedom of expression when it comes to gender issues:


"[/size]freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other experience of gender , including dress, speech and mannerism. Further, in Principle 3, that each person's self-defined gender identity is integral to their personality and is one of the most basic aspects of self-determination, dignity and freedom."

[/size]"The Yogyakarta Principles, which is a document on application of international human rights law, provides definition on gender identity. In the preamble, "gender identity" is understood to refer to each person's deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the person's sense of the body."


SO what are your thoughts? Are gender roles still important in our society? How far should they be encouraged, if at all? Does a man or woman who refuses to live up to gender roles still contribute in the way that they are expected to? Does a diminishing respect for gender roles leave Transgender people in a quandry concerning their condition - after all, if male and female are treated the same in society, aren't we effectively gender neutral? What hurdles might transpeople face when dealing with living as another gender?


What do you think?

Hello!


Here in the UK we're having a referendum on our voting system in a couple of months time, with the aim of increasing Democracy by changing the way in which people's votes are cast.


We currently have a system known as 'First Past the Post', which is a charming metaphor for winning a race. In this system, the person with the most votes in the constituency wins the seat. The party which first passes the majority mark wins the overall election and gets to form the next government Many people say this is the fairest way as the winner is the person with the most votes overall. However, if a party does not achieve a majority then they must form a coalition with another party, hence the Conservatives here joining with the Liberal Democrats to make a government (to the upset of supporters from both sides).


The alternative we're going to be voting on is known as 'Alternative Vote'. In this system you number your choices based on how much you favour them.
As an example, we'll just use Labour, The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. You may vote 'Labour 1, Liberal Democrats 2, Conservatives 3', or you may vote 'Conservatives 1, Liberat Democrats 2, Labour 3'. There are multiple stages of counting the votes, with the lowest scoring individual being CAST OUT OF THE RACE at each stage and their second votes being distributed amongst whoever each voter voted as second. preference. This continues until one person has a clear majority. This is the system that political parties use to choose their leaders in the UK, but it isn't used to elect them to parliament.


Representation is the key argument in this discussion as many people feel that either system doesn't allow full representation by the population. Currently, for example, the Green party have 1 member of Parliament and the British National Party, in spite of gaining a higher share of the vote overall, has no MPs at all. Personally I'm happy with any system that stops fascists gaining seats, but this has caused upset and political apathy with a great deal of people.


The system the minor parties feel would serve 'democracy' is called Proportional Representation. In this system, seats are doled out based on percentages of the vote - so if you get 20% of the vote you get 20% of the MPs. This is a simplification however, and there are many types of formula for PR. Here in the UK we use Proportional Representation to elect our MEPs (Members of the European Parliament), but not our domestic MPs. The PR system in the last MEP election led to the BNP gaining two MEP seats in the European Parliament. (For those who don't know, the BNP are our party that hates minorities, BOLSHEVIKS and "sexual deviants". They're often affectionately referred to as the British 'Nazi' Party).


Which do you think is more fair, First Past the Post, Alternative Vote, Proportional Representation (where seats are distributed based on percentages of the vote in each region), or another system of voting altogether? What about Democracy itself - does our system facilitate the idea of 'Democracy' or do you think it has major failings? Would you be in favour of a Chaocracy or Athenian system of voting for individuals on a day to day basis?


What's the voting system like in your nation? If you're British, which way will you be voting in the referendum? What are your thoughts on the process of voting overall???


(By the way, I don't know which way i'm voting in the upcoming referendum yet, oh no!)

There's been a huge discussion on IRC today on the topic of masochism in gaming. The debate got pretty heated, and it was suggested that it spill over this way, to give more people a chance to have their say in a much more organised manner than using caps at each other and bringing mothers into it.


For those that don't know the concept, masochism is a (usually) sexual pleasure in being degraded, whether in word or action. It can also be used in this sense to just mean a thrill of a game inflicting harshness upon you. There's better definitions online if you want to debate me on this, but let us MOVE ON! STOP STOP READ HERE: [Vellfire according to this definition i found it has to be physical pain, suffering or humiliation.


We'll use that definition rather than my saucier one if it makes more sense to the argument.




Can gaming be masochistic? Do you play games for the thrill of failure, or for the triumph of succeeding over a challenge? Do you get any buzz at all from dying in videogames? Does the rage that comes with throwing a control count as part of the buzz? What about sadism? Do you get any kind of release from inflicting virtual pain on your virtual enemies?


Speedruns were also mentioned - is this masochistic? What about Xbox games like Aban Hawkins and the Thousand Spikes, which give you a thousand lives to continuously fail at the game's insane challenge? What about 'The Impossible Game'?




Share your thoughts!

A minimum wage is a delightful concept on its surface as it represents a legal guarantee that a worker won't be paid any less than a certain amount for an hour of work. Surely a legal minimum can only be a positive thing?


Some people believe that the minimum wage limits overall earnings for those on society's lowest salaries, as it effectively sets a low-bar for companies to aim for. This can mean the retail and service industry earn ONLY this amount and never any more. However, without this low-bar in place, who can say if the employees would earn even less?


In the 80s here in the UK the government set up "youth training schemes", which was effectively rounding up young adults with no jobs and taking them to clean parks etc for pennies a day. One conservative MP is renowned for paying a gardner 85p a week.


What are your feelings on the minimum wage? Does your country have one? Is it too low or too high? Should companies be free to pay whatever they wish without federal involvement, or do we need federal involvement to ensure that people are paid fairly? Is like six quid for an hour of your life a fair wage? Should there be a maximum wage?


WHAT YOU THINK?

I had a chat with dicko about the old tradition of 'topic of the week', and it seemed like HELL YEAH LET'S DO THIS. Belross appeared in IRC today and it totally reminded me, so I'ma try to inspire some more HOT HIGH LEVEL SEXY POLITICAL DISCUSSION, using this topic as a gauge for if people are still into that any more. Let's hope, eh?




Anyway - I've been teaching the Civil Rights Movement in the US for a few months now, and I'm conflicted about Local Government versus Federalism. People seem to have their own take on government involvement, whether it's states setting their own ages of consent, or the influence of the European Union on domestic court rulings and legislation, or simply who has the power to tax you.


Here in the UK we have local government, councils which run areas and who we vote for. We also have a parliament, which votes on legislation. Parliament is made up of MPs who represent constituencies, which overlap with council areas. On top of this, we have higher level federalism with the European Union. So there are a few ranks of government which affect people's everyday lives.


Governments have a conflict within themselves about whether they like "big" or "small" governments, and there's often talk of 'devolving' power. However, this can also lead to situations like states opposing federalism on issues like segregation, just due to the fact that they don't like being told what to do.


The topic sums up like this: Do you believe in local government as the solution to many problems, or do you prefer federal governments taking more responsibility for your everyday lives? What are your feelings about the balance of power? Who are you more comfortable with deciding about things which affect you? Do you even vote, or indeed care? Do you believe that State laws are important and should be enshrined, or that there should be some overseeing power ensuring that these laws match up with the ethics of the day? What do you think? SHARE WITH ME YOUR SECRET THOUGHTS!

I was talking to a few IRC guys and we came to the conclusion that we need to play D&D really, and we need to do it soon.




Faust
Toothache
Dorothy




If anyone else has interest post here and we'll sort it out.




We're using 3.5e and will be playing on IRC most likely! I'm going to DM it maybe unless someone else would prefer to.


LET ME/US KNOW ​!!

Is anyone else orgasming at the prospect of this, or is it just me? I LOVED the original crusader kings as it mixes the grand strategy of the Europa Universalis series with a healthy dose of characterisation and roleplaying.


Instead of playing a nation, you play an individual count, duke or king with their own demense and vassals. Instead of aiming to conquer everywhere, the aim is to establish a great house, a dynasty bearing your surname. The original contained territory wars, historical events, papal influence, fighting the infidels, and constantly fighting your own heirs!


It's such a fun game. I suggest checking the original out to anyone into strategy with roleplaying elements.







http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?551-Crusader-Kings-II - this is the forum for CKII as the game is still pretty early on, but it has some visuals and a few development diaries to catch up on.