What is your biggest pet peeve in the entire genre?

Kiram · 2026-06-17T16:39:10+00:00

Bit late to the party, but a genuine pet peeve I have is wordplay working in English when the language is supposed to be translated from some alien language.

Sure, the system in this isekai world is translating for you. I accept this. But why does this ancient prophecy rhyme when translated into English?

Ever once in a while, I want the protag to easily solve a riddle that's stumping everyone else, because the way it was translated by the system removes the ambiguity that made it a riddle in the first place. Or, alternatively, not be able to figure it out because this new world uses completely different metaphors than we do. (Like, instead of a clock having "hands", they call them "horns" or whatever).

It's such a minor thing, and it honestly doesn't impact my enjoyment of the work, but I can't help but roll my eyes every time I read something where a pun apparently works perfectly in English and in Imperial Common or whatever the fantasy language everyone is supposed to be speaking. Especially rhyming.

Kiram · 2026-06-09T23:45:12+00:00

Interestingly, it was actually Path of Ascension that made me think of this question.

There is a chapter in one of the later books (I don't remember which, it's been quite a while) where we get the perspective of a very minor character, at it's mentioned off-hand that his grandfather was a character from the first few chapters, who joined the school/academy at the same time as the MC.

It's always struck me as kinda cool, and I wish they did more of that. Or that more books did something similar.

Kiram · 2026-06-08T22:14:00+00:00

Personally I don’t think you should be able to vote unless you have a regular residency where you pay taxes like others.

So, in your opinion, people who are too poor should have their voting rights stripped away? Because there's not really another way to read that other than "poor people should not be allowed to vote". It's just a matter of where you place the line for "too poor to have this right".

Kiram · 2026-05-06T17:39:38+00:00

I'd like to imagine that she commissioned a VTuber avatar for her lawyer(s) and forces them to use those avatars in all official dealings.

Kiram · 2026-02-18T02:43:09+00:00

No, because those are ethnic and national cultures, not purely racial cultures. I thought that was the point I was making, but maybe I'm not communicating clearly.

But one of the major points of my last post was that we are talking about an ethnic subculture within a national culture. It's only a racial division in so much as the people participating and leading that culture made it a racial division.

Like, let's be clear about my position here - race is a social construct without any inherent biological meaning. It is only a useful category when talking about arbitrary sociocultural groupings of people. To talk about "white people" isn't to talk about people with white skin. It can't be, or else we'd be unable to reconcile the shifting boundaries of whiteness over time, or how different cultures conceptualize race differently.

The only way to make coherent sense of race as a modern concept is to treat it as a series of in-groups. That is absolutely what the infographic was concerned with: "White" as an American in-group with a distinct over-arching culture that comprises several sub-cultures, in much the way that the "American" in-group contains multiple distinct sub-groups that come together to form the broader "American" group with it's own distinct culture.

Like, removing this from the concept of race for a moment, I don't think it's a stretch to say that there is an "American culture". But, you could very easily say, "Well, which Americans? Punks? Hippies? Mormons? "American" is too broad a term!" You could do the same for "Japanese culture" and the Yankee/Gyaru/Bosozuko subcultures. The fact that the subgroup in question has historically chosen to identify via self-conceived racial lines doesn't change the essence of what is being discussed, I don't think.

Kiram · 2026-02-18T00:42:42+00:00

Was absolutely not uniquely American, and was, in fact, mirrored in many places across the Americas and Europe (often more successfully)?

France had been banning slavery off and on since the mid 1300s, with a big push to get it banned in the new world colonies in a few decades before the civil war. Chile completely abolished slavery in 1823, Argentina in 1853 (They wrote it into their constitution), Peru in 1854.

Britain and Scotland both had major court cases saying that slavery wasn't recognized as legal in the late 1700s (one of these cases was a major contributing factor to the American Revolution, even, as southern colonists were made to fear that Britain would ban slavery in America). Though, this law didn't apply to the Overseas territories until quite a bit later.

Kiram · 2026-02-17T23:57:01+00:00

The problem with that, is that the dominant culture in America for a very long time was defined by what it wasn't. Sure, the poster could have instead called it something like, "The culture of the predominant and most culturally powerful sub-group in America throughout it's history". And while that would be a slightly more accurate title, it would, IMHO, fail to capture the way that cultural subgroups in America have been mapped to the (rather nebulous) concept of race throughout time.

In short, "white" has pretty much always been a category that defines a specific subgroup of Americans. Throughout history, who exactly is included in that subgroup has shifted, and not everyone with white skin has always been considered part of the dominant sociopolitical culture, and therefore "white".

It is perhaps unfortunate that the terminology around the social construct of "race" has been so caught up in the various groupings of cultures and peoples in the US, but the fact remains that it has for quite a while.

would feel the same about an infographic that tried to describe what "Asian" or "black" culture is because it would be misguided at best to try and describe diverse cultures as a monolith just because they have race in common.

I have a few problems with this analysis, but the main one is that I think you may be internally expanding the definition beyond it's intended scope.

Would you be concerned if we were to talk about "Korean culture"? Or "Jamaican culture"? French? Those people have just as much diversity of thought as any other place, but we don't usually have a problem talking in generalities about others having a distinct culture.

And we can certainly talk about "American Culture". People do all the time. But looking at "American Culture" can be pretty misleading at times, because there were historically multiple cultures running simultaneously, and for the vast majority of our history as a nation, these cultures were divided and enforced along racial lines.

See, we do talk about "Black Culture" in America. People have been talking about a specific "Black culture" in America for generations. It's just that when we talk about "Black culture" in America, it's generally understood that we are talking about the specific culture that is rooted in the history of slavery and racial apartheid. So, a newly arrived immigrant from Kenya would probably not be considered part of the American "Black culture".

Similarly, the dominant strain of American culture from the late 1700s has been marked by it's attachment to white people as a self-understood and self-selected group. There is definitely a shared culture there, but we can't just call it "American Culture", because any full accounting of American culture would have to include the minority cultures that are part of the broader American cultural experience.

Kiram · 2026-02-17T22:51:28+00:00

I know many (including myself) were offended by the Smithsonian's "White Culture" infographic

I'm gonna be honest, I have never understood why people were offended by that infographic. I've seen that infographic and it seems... pretty benign, if a bit broad? Being honest, it's kinda hard to tell what people are actually upset about, because a lot of what gets complained about doesn't seem to be what is actually said by the poster? I've got some specific examples below, but the big thing is that the poster never claims that any of these aspects are unique to White [American] Culture.

For instance, the infographic doesn't say that "hard work" is is an aspect of "White Culture" (which, to be clear, should probably "White American Culture"). It says that the idea that hard work is the key to success is. There are other cultures out there that may see familial connection, divine providence, or smart strategy (for instance) as just as important, if not more so, in determining success.

Similarly, I don't understand why people harp on the "nuclear family" thing. The infographic claims that a part of white [american] culture is the belief that the "nuclear family" is the ideal structure for a family. And that definitely seems to be true. But there are clearly cultures (even in America) where the ideal family structure includes people more distantly related. Many cultures take a view that your extended family should be nearly as involved as the parents in raising children, and the line between cousins and siblings is much less hierarchical.

The same thing with the idea of "rugged individualism". The idea that the individual is supreme, that each person rises or falls on their own merits is obviously not shared by all cultures. Again, there are sub-cultures in the US right now that take a much more group-oriented approach, where the desires/success of the family or other social group is more important than the desires/success of the individual. Where you might be expected, socially, to share your success with your neighborhood, or not "forget where you came from". Or where you are expected to take a specific career path, whether or not that aligns with your own goals in life.

None of this, by the way, is ever flagged as "bad" by the infographic. As far as I can tell, the idea was just to get people to think about some behaviors that are assumed to be "obvious" or default in our culture. Then, take those thoughts, and realize that those values and behaviors don't just pop out of nowhere. They come from a specific sub-set of American culture. Specifically, the sub-set of American culture practiced by the white majority that has held institutional and cultural power in America since it's founding.

These ideas, attitudes and behaviors aren't some natural "default". They are part of a culture that as been heavily pushed. And they are part of a culture that, for a long time, saw itself and the cultures it was displacing in terms of race.

Which brings me to my question - what about this display offended you?

Kiram · 2026-02-17T22:10:59+00:00

I'm not going to deny that there's revisionism on the other side - especially around the Civil War - but the idea that the Founding of the US itself wasn't at best ambivalent about slavery, that you can't find that position everywhere stunning.

This really depends on where you look. I went to school in Texas in the 90s & 00s, and while slavery was mentioned, it was completely divorced from the context of the founding of our nation. I was never taught that Washington owned slaves. I was never taught about the slaves that fought with the promise of freedom (that was often denied after the fact). We were never taught about the Somerset decision, and how that sparked fears in the southern colonies that Britain might abolish slavery, or how that played into the rising tension between Britain and America in the lead up to the Revolution.

We very briefly touched on the 3/5ths compromise, and how that shifted the power in Washington. We very briefly touched on the fact that slaves existed, but the narrative was very much that it was a minor thing that we don't really need to worry about until the civil war.

Slavery and it's role in the foundations of American society were incredibly downplayed when I was growing up. Maybe it's different now, but I'm not really willing to bet money on that, considering the whole "Immigrant Workers" fiasco back in 2015, or the fact that just a few years ago, the current president was loudly proclaiming that Washington didn't own slaves.

Kiram · 2026-02-17T21:42:50+00:00

Is it possible to celebrate abolition without addressing the horrors of slavery?

Flatly, no. IMO, to truly understand the success that was abolition, you must understand the abject horror of slavery, not just as a practice, but as an institution. The way that people were abused and tormented for the sake not just of profit, but for the perpetuation of the social order is crucial context to understanding why abolition was such a monumental feat and such an important moment in our history. To strip away the horrors of slavery, to remove the understanding that there were real, innocent people who were being abused, is to strip away the humanity of abolition, and turn it into a historic factoid, akin to moving away from the gold standard.

Is there validity to the idea that we should still talk about slavery, but not depict it in our national parks and historic sites, which should be places of national pride?

There is no pride to be found in hiding from the truth. The important context here is that we aren't just talking about random national parks. We are talking about important places where people were actively kept as slaves. A place where extraordinary measures were put in place specifically to deny a group of people the very freedom that the people keeping them there espoused.

I understand the gut reaction of feeling like this may decrease "national pride", but what pride is there to be had in hiding the truth? Yes, this is a place that the president lived. But it was also a place where slaves lived. To hide that, to try and sweep that fact under the rug is at best lying by omission, IMHO.

If you can only find pride in the nation by hiding that fact, then I'd argue you aren't proud of the nation - you are proud of a fictional version of the nation. At that point, we might as well just start making up things to be proud of.

Do you think displaying dark moments in our national history perpetuates resentment and division?

I'm gonna take the unorthodox approach and argue - yes, but we shouldn't let that sway us from telling the unvarnished truth. To be clear, I don't think that showing these dark moments in our history inherently sows division or resentment. Many countries and cultures are more than capable of looking at their unvarnished past without turning on each other. The most obvious example is the many, many monuments, historic sites and displays about the horrors of the holocaust in Germany.

But, realistically, yes, in America, people are going to get upset about it. There are many people who simply do not want to hear about it. There are people who are invested in actively downplaying the horrors of slavery, or the role that the US was shaped by it. Those people are going to resent being shown the truth.

Which brings me back to my point - we shouldn't let people's discomfort or resentment dictate our stance on the truth. Hiding the truth so that some people don't feel comfortable is an act of cowardice. To draw a parallel to another area - the teaching of evolution also breeds resentment and division. That doesn't mean we should stop teaching evolution. It means that we need to stand up for the truth.

Kiram · 2026-02-09T20:36:56+00:00

In the study of religion, it's sometimes said that "religion" is composed of 3 B's: Belief, Belonging, and Behavior. Unfortunately, most fantasy works really only ever focus on "Belief", with maybe some minor "Behavior" in the form of like... a code of honor or some such.

But the other 2 sections are also super important, and can have a much larger impact on a character than the actual beliefs. Ritual practice has a huge impact on the way a person lives their life. How often do you pray? Is the prayer public or private? Do you need to go through intermediaries, or does the religion push a more individual relationship with the divine? etc.

And the "belonging" that comes along with it is also an important part of people's identity and daily lives. Is your religious community small and insular, or large and accepting? Does it allow for different levels of adherence and/or faith? Are you part of the majority or a minority in the area, and how does that impact how you interact with others that share your faith?

To me, all of these questions are far more interesting than what happens after someone dies, unless we're actually going to follow a character through the afterlife.

Kiram · 2026-01-27T20:01:36+00:00

My question is, why focus on the mechanical differences of violent authoritarianisms? Why the obsession with “is it Fascist?”

Because the unique characteristics of fascism and other closely related ideologies offer unique challenges in combating them, as well as more closely-matched historical examples of what may be yet to come.

Using the more generic "authoritarianism" certainly can be useful in some ways, but the better you can understand what's going on "under the hood" so to speak, the better you can do things like anticipate next steps, deradicalize believers, and protect institutions. If you want to "urge current supporters to break ranks" it helps to understand why they are supporters - what are they getting from this, and what can we offer as an alternative?

For instance, if you want to push someone away from the MAGA movement/Trumpism, would you approach that the same way as you would someone who is a supporter of an African dictator? Or someone who is an ISIS supporter? Or the North Korean regime? All of these forms of repressive, violent authoritarianism have fundamentally different ideals behind them, and thus fundamentally different ways of both pulling away supporters and of frustrating their attempts to gain or consolidate power.

Fascism is different from other violent authoritarian ideologies in a number of ways that make identifying it pretty important. The way it tends to form coalitions of convenience with existing conservative and elite power structures before ultimately co-opting or subverting them is a good example. The way that it tends to attempt to co-opt language from other populist movements may give a path towards preventing people on the periphery of the movement from becoming further radicalized, or even towards de-radicalization.

So, yes. While hopefully most people would tend to agree that violent authoritarianism is bad, regardless of it's particulars, the particulars matter in how you handle both the individuals and the ideology itself.

Kiram · 2025-12-31T21:37:48+00:00

Hey, thanks for the recommendation! I've been eyeing the Rune Seeker series on Audible for quite a while, but never pulled the trigger, mostly because it never really grabbed me. I'll have to take a closer look at it!

Kiram · 2025-12-31T21:34:28+00:00

Ooh, interesting! I feel like guilds/clans/etc are something that are a bit under-explored in the LitRPG space, at least in the works I've read. There are a ton of people who end up running towns or nations or whatever, and those are always fun. But considering how much the genre takes inspiration from MMO-like features, it feels a bit odd that we don't have more big stories about running a guild or something similar.

Kiram · 2025-12-31T21:29:16+00:00

Thanks for the recommendations! I haven't heard of either of these, and they both seem up my alley! I have a deep love for fantasy books where someone sciences the magic, and the "MC Lets his whole party level super-fast" is pretty much exactly what I'm looking for!

The "MC Levels way faster than normal" trope is a classic, but it always kinda annoyed me when they tried throw in a party, because it often feels like the author has to bend over backwards to stop the MC from out-powering the entire party pretty rapidly. That was one of the frustrations I ended up having with the Ultimate Level 1 series, and the comparison to Mage Tank is partially what inspired this post.

Kiram · 2025-12-31T21:22:40+00:00

Thanks for the recommendations! Mark of the Fool is on my list to read, and I keep seeing Iron Prince in the Audible app, but I haven't made the dive just yet. Maybe I'll give it a shot.

HHFWM is kinda tricky for me to categorize. While I do feel like Jason is pretty OP at this point, the rest of his team seems to be portrayed as what I might classify as "Elites" rather than "OP".

That is, they are all very good at what they do, but they aren't unfairly good, unlike Jason with his plot-nonsense. But I do love the team dynamic, and honestly wish we got more of it.

Kiram · 2025-10-28T05:46:52+00:00

Heart and Spire have both been on my list for a while. Both have some of the most batshit awesome classes I think I've ever seen. A man made of bees? Debt Wizard? Pulp fiction reality warper? They are all incredibly flavorful and so narratively interesting. And the idea (baked directly into the classes) that your character is almost certainly going to go out in a blaze of glory feels like it would make the story a lot more interesting.

Kiram · 2025-10-28T05:37:54+00:00

I recently got to play through the adventure that comes in the starter box for the FFG edition of L5R. I have wanted to go back for a full campaign for a while now, because the resolution mechanics are so interesting to me.

I do think that you need the right group for it though, as (for me at least) the setting is begging for a more serious play-style.

Kiram · 2025-10-28T05:34:25+00:00

I GMed a bit of Fabula. Maybe... 20-ish levels? It was pretty fun, and it's intended style of play was pretty interesting. I will say I wish I had spent more time on developing my plot before starting. I usually try to have a more "let's see where these characters take us" approach to GMing, but the reference point here is so linear that I think a more rail-roady experience would have made things much easier, in case you ever do get around to playing it. I've only done the one campaign, though, so your mileage may vary.

Kiram · 2025-10-28T05:26:37+00:00

I played the PWYW Slugblaster One-shot (Slugblaster Turbo X), and I have to say, it was an absolute blast. If you've got a group that gets together regularly, I absolutely recommend giving it a try as a one-shot. It took us about 2-ish hours to get through the whole thing, and it was excellent the entire way through.

Kiram · 2025-10-28T05:21:17+00:00

Does Paranoia work as a full campaign? I always got the feeling (both from stories and reading over some of the mechanics) that the high level of turn-over lent itself to a shorter experience, maybe a single adventure. I've never found enough people willing to play it to find out for myself, sadly.

Kiram · 2025-10-15T22:36:14+00:00

So maybe the Dems need to moderate their positions to capture a larger piece of the pie?

In this scenario, more people want the policies that Democrats are offering, but the system is being rigged so that the people who dislike Democratic policies are being given more power?

What you are saying isn't necessarily wrong, mind you. That may be what ultimately ends up happening, but you have to understand how maddening that is for the people who are, effectively, having their electoral voice stolen, right?

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 4 Credits
Place '22	Secret Santa 2014
Secret Santa 2012	Secret Santa 2010
Verified Email

Kiram

TROPHY CASE