Thread Closed
(06-24-2013, 10:05 PM)ForestGuardian Wrote: There's a reason so many people have responded defensively to this topic.
There's one. One person is not "so many". The others spoke their piece, and tottered on about their business. We're starting off on shaky ground, but whatever:
Let's mambo.
(06-24-2013, 10:05 PM)ForestGuardian Wrote: Ryanti's post was just longer than the others, and more passionate... So I was pretty disturbed to see the responses to it.
I'm not saying that this is what you said, or what you meant, but this is how what you said could be interpreted, and how it could provoke defensive responses.
So, you're not saying this is what was said. You're pretty much admitting that you're purposefully misinterpreting the material presented.
I mean, I would've stopped here. You can't assume meaning, or attach subtext. You have nothing but the words written to take your message from, and if you can't even do that to reinforce your point, you have no point.
(06-24-2013, 10:05 PM)ForestGuardian Wrote: "...being a rough bitch visually is refreshing to see."
(Interpreted as preferable.)
You're out of context, which is, again, a willful misinterpretation of the material presented.
The rest of the sentence that this was taken from is as follows:
'Beatric Rei Wrote:This topic was brought up in the race selection thread, and I actually got a few people commenting on how my mentality of being a rough bitch visually is refreshing to see.
This thread was created as an offshoot of another discussion, and this in no way implies that anyone is absolutely inferior. Not even kind of.
So, no dice here, unless you're looking to make a fight where there isn't any.
(06-24-2013, 10:05 PM)ForestGuardian Wrote: "I personally feel that it shouldn't be that foreign of a concept."
("More people should be rough.")
"I personally feel-"
I mean, the preamble here is enough to destroy this particular point. Again, the only juncture where this becomes an attack is when you're making an effort to misunderstand what's being said.
Two for two so far.
(06-24-2013, 10:05 PM)ForestGuardian Wrote: "Pretty characters in a rough world just come off as very unrealistic to me."
(Needs no explanation... Saying an entire group of characters are less realistic than yours.)
This is crazy on two counts:
1. It's agreed that idealized characters are less than realistic. By extension, characters that are not so idealized are agreed to be more realistic. That's not some dark secret, that's pretty common knowledge, and the line of thought that any sensible individual would follow. Not so for someone looking to create a problem, though!
2. Again, the author of the post states "to me". It's a statement of a personal opinion, not a denouncement of an individual or group of individuals. Unless...are we seeing a pattern here?
(06-24-2013, 10:05 PM)ForestGuardian Wrote: "...looking fresh faced and bug eyed just doesn't seem to fit the world..."
(Final Fantasy's worlds are some of the worlds where it DOES fit.)
1. You're out of context. Again. Because you've already framed your entire argument on the premise of an intentional misunderstanding. Rest of the sentence:
Beatric Reid Wrote:But, looking fresh faced and bug eyed just doesn't seem to fit the world, unless they're absolutely new to the world of doing any kind of work.
This sentence even gives an out. No semblance of an attack so far.
2. I guess you gave up here? You didn't even attempt to mark this as hostile, you must mentioned that some worlds in the Final Fantasy franchise support hyper-idealized characters. Ok? That's not...really...anything.
Basically, unless you're looking to fly your war-flag, and willing to invent a cause to fly it for, there's no attack in that opening post.
Ask yourself this: Would you bother with this kind of giant leap of logic if the person you thought was being "attacked" (and they aren't, and have no room to believe they are) didn't agree with you? Because I don't think you would.
(06-24-2013, 10:46 PM)ArmachiA Wrote: I think Rhostel is right, it really sounds to me like the poster had a bad experience in other games and doesn't want one here for playing a "pretty" character.
Yeah, but that's not our fault, not our baggage to carry, and not our issue to heal. That's his issue. Which he brought to the forefront.
(06-24-2013, 11:00 PM)Rhostel Wrote: And that line about remorse was directed at the one person who agitated this whole matter into a drama fest. That person is not you.
Don't be passive-aggressive. It helps nothing and nobody anywhere, or at anytime.
Back toward the topic, I'd like to pose a pair of related questions:
What is it that players who play pretty characters do to mark experiences?
Follow up: Why do you prefer this method?
On the flip: Same question to those of us who prefer to mess our dudes up a bunch.
I'll even start.
How I mark experiences: Honestly, it depends on the scenario. A terse argument isn't going to leave much more than a funk for a few days if it's from a source that matters to the character, but a fight where knives are drawn tends to leave a mark. Aside from that, I like to take time and climate into account. Have they been somewhere dry for a long time? What kind of sun does it get? How intense are the storms?
All of these things impact skin and hair, almost as much as biological parents and regional culture. Add to that, they tend to do so to the point where you can kind of tell where someone's been by looking at them. Faces that tell stories are wonderful points for interaction.
Why I prefer this method: Otherwise, the whole of the character's travels seems trivialized to me. It's kind of like how you can put Superman up against whatever, and you know for a fact that he's going to come out on top. If it's a physical threat? He will punch it until it is no longer a threat. If it isn't something punchable? Still doesn't matter, he's incorruptable. The story only has one ending, and that bores the ever-loving shit out of me.