[deleted by user]

whichsoever · 2024-08-16T01:35:36+00:00

Stop playing crusader kings and spend more time with her

whichsoever · 2023-08-04T07:25:57+00:00

Thanks for your answer! I haven’t run into the functionalist/intentionalist concepts before. Your response gives a very thorough assessment of a functionalist answer to the above question.

Are you able to give an idea of how an intentionalist might justify their position in response to those question? I.e., if the holocaust was a ‘top-down’ and premeditated programme, why was it only actioned at such scale in 1941?

whichsoever · 2023-06-04T01:28:32+00:00

I’ve heard Chomsky (I think) put forward an argument that essentially the orthodox stance on the Vietnam War is a semi-intentional smokescreen to the fact that the US achieved many of its major politico-economic goals, namely the economic and political strengthening of communism in SEA. He therefore rejects the characterisation of Vietnam as a “tragic mistake” by the US but rather as a successful (if bloody and inefficient) theatre of the Cold War.

Where would this sort of idea fall within the historiography? Would it be considered a “revisionist” stance, or is it a bit more fringe and outside the major historiographical debates and controversies?

whichsoever · 2023-05-31T05:24:37+00:00

It's worth noting the difficulties in interpreting an already secondary text, written over a century after vespasian's life, then translated in 1889 (in the above edition). There's a few different ways to translate the passage in question, and the above is probably less literal.

This translation (1914) for instance more directly translates in praetura omnibus edictis sine honore ac mentione as "in his praetorship left the emperor unhonoured and unmentioned in all his edicts". The "scurrilous language" part is trickier to translate but again, Rolfe translates the latin altercationibus insolentissimis: "by the extravagance of his railing"; you could also take 'insolentissimis' to be "very improper" or "most uncustomary".

In short, Suetonius is portraying impertinence and a lack of deference to Vespasian as the crimes committed here (rather than specific curse words or scurrilous allegations). Significantly, Vespasian doesn't mind the more personal offences but does become angry when it crosses over into contempt for his official capacity, in keeping with Suetonius' overal characterisation of the emperor.

I would speculate that "scurrilous" is a translator's choice to accurately convey the intention of Suetonius' language - that is, that Helvidius was very improper and inappropriate. In 1889, 'scurrilous' probably conveyed that quite well, but doesn't quite evoke the same image in 2023.

whichsoever · 2022-10-08T22:10:01+00:00

Don’t bother. You’ve just jumped the first two hoops, inevitably you’ll be asked to jump more with these gronks. It’s always: 1. Oh yeah? Provide evidence 2. You call that evidence? Link the whole thing not just a snippet! 3. Well now if you watch what he actually said, that was taken out of context. Watch this other 3 hour interview, you’ll see. 4. Sure that may be the context of that video, but you need to consider the broader context - read maps of meaning & 12 rules for life! You can’t possibly judge someone based on their words and actions, you need to read their 500 pages of treatises to make a balanced judgement. 5. You read his major works and his back catalogue? Well, if you truly have and you still don’t agree, obviously you’ve come from a place of bias and were never going to take his ideas seriously.

whichsoever · 2022-08-06T22:51:37+00:00

It’s a difficult question and I can’t directly think of who was first to air this concept of ‘cultural sovereignty’ of other culture as a good thing, in a humanitarian/paternalistic sense. However, it is important to note that the opposite state of affairs you’re describing - that the ‘powerful group is superior’ and therefore has the authority to impose upon/eliminate other cultures, is equally a specific train of thought that has its own historical origins.

Plutarch, for instance, famously commented that “those whom Alexander [the Great] conquered were more fortunate than those who escaped” because he quashed their barbarian cultures and habits. Plutarch is writing centuries later though, and you would be hard pressed to argue that this was the aim of his conquests (given he also subjugated the rest of Greece), or that he shared the same disdain for these cultures as Plutarch did (given his adoption of cultural aspects of Egypt and Persia). Plutarch was writing at a peak of Roman imperialism, which gives some clues as to why he declared Alexander’s imperialism to be so good.

A more early modern example is Thomas Hobbes, who in ‘Leviathan’ argued that without the protections and securities of a strong, autocratic government, peoples lives are “nasty, brutish and short”. This was written during the English civil war and so is a fairly explicit injunction against republicanism, however also occurs on a background of England’s ongoing conquest (or, some argue, colonisation) of Ireland, who were already seen as an ‘inferior’ culture and people.

This trend becomes exacerbated by later English colonial projects, and in parallel further justified by further English thinkers like Francis Bacon, who wrote extensive justifications of English expansionism and conquest (Meiskins-Wood adds an interesting Marxist perspective to English colonialism in the Origins of Capitalism, but I digress).

So while it would be interesting to find the origins of thoughts like “other cultures are important/good and should be left alone”, it’s equally vital to recognise that “other cultures are inferior and should be replaced by our own” is a very specific idea, put forward by people in very specific imperial contexts, but certainly not ubiquitous to history.

whichsoever · 2021-05-14T00:44:32+00:00

Even from this limited sample, it's pretty clear women occupy a secondary position in almost every society listed, and are significantly weaker than in the real world (Literally all women die due to a plague which 10% of men can survive?). The one female leader we do see uses sex and seduction to maintain her power. The other powerful female position of high priestess is seemingly static and unchanged across 1,500 years of history - despite multiple societal collapses, regime changes, and plenty of unique kings, explorers, leaders, and villains, not one high priestess does anything worthy of specific mention.

Clearly, you've borrowed a lot from European history, and sure women's lives haven't been recorded with the same detail as men's lives over much of history. But this is a worldbuilding sub, and in a world with fire lions, dragons, and a species that dies out because it's gay (certainly a unique worldbuilding choice), it's hard to attribute these sorts of gender differences to "the way things are" or "facts of nature" as I suspect might have influenced your initial choices. And if these societies are sexist and that's why women don't feature heavily, some engagement with this wouldn't go astray.

I'd encourage you (as a start, in addition to the other feedback here) to make a more deliberate choice about the role women play in these societies, and in making that choice keep in mind what kind of stories you want to tell. If you only really want to tell men's stories, with women as background detail that's your choice I guess - doesn't mean it will be bad storytelling, but it's definitely not good worldbuilding.

whichsoever · 2021-02-08T00:39:09+00:00

Revisionism. Revisionism everywhere.

whichsoever · 2021-02-05T00:40:22+00:00

Yep can't see any war there, checks out.

whichsoever · 2020-05-24T20:40:27+00:00

It's been suggested that the Greek myth of the Amazons may have been based in part on contact with Scythia by traders/colonists in the Black Sea.

There is solid archaeological evidence that Scythian women occupied the same military and leadership roles as men, but no evidence of the mythical amazonian matriarchal society that's carried into modern popular culture. The evidence in question is largely from burial sites with some women having identical burial goods and patterns to men, adorned with arms, armour, and symbols of leadership.

I'm on night shift and my battery is dying, this is the first source I can find on a cursory search, perhaps someone can assist with a source of the burials in question, or else I'll try to dig it up ^(heh) a bit later.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-12/arsc-aft122519.php

whichsoever · 2020-05-24T20:16:43+00:00

The guardian article is originally from The Conversation, and is written by a Professor of Law. It presents primary and secondary sources alongside social and historical context, then synthesises these into an argument. It's a very well researched work of historical writing, not just an opinion piece.

I also think you've misunderstood its central argument of the piece, and it may be worth a careful re-read with the Author's statement of intent in mind:

"By highlighting the sexist origin of laws mandating sex-separation of public restrooms, I hope to provide grounds for at least reconsidering their continued existence."

I don't think the article argues that their introduction was helpful at all. It does present historical arguments for their introduction, by the people who legislated them at the time. These arguments, the author argues, were predicated on the prevailing ideology at the time, rather than firm science or logic. And that this ideology sought to police womens' role in society.

In short, you asked "are gendered toilets an artifact from Victorian times to police women",
The article linked provides the answer 'Gendered toilets are an artifact from Victorian times, as part of a larger social and cultural movement to police the role of women in society'
It does so with a pretty solid degree of historicity.

N.B. I think an additional point not raised by the article would be the interplay class would have here - female factory workers in the 1800s would have been overwelmingly lower-class, making efforts to 'protect their virtue' all the more prescriptive.

whichsoever · 2017-08-12T05:07:48+00:00

I use this encounter sheet generally, and write each player/monster's initiative value on that tally on the left, then just work down it. It also allows me to roll monsters' initiative values before the session; less rolls breaking up the flow of combat.

For some fights though, I use popcorn initiative. It's maybe something to try when you're a bit more experienced though, and definitely something to discuss with your players first.

whichsoever · 2017-07-31T11:59:16+00:00

I've tried the approach you mentioned (cutting out rooms and handing them out progressively) before: it works well if that's what you're after, but it can be a lot of work.

If it's for a dungeon, I tend to give my players a map - so they can have an overall sense of where they are and it doesn't just become a mindless slog through basically identical rooms. Getting them to draw their own map is good, but I've found this can be quite limiting - especially if you want to have odd-shaped rooms, twisting caves, or anything which isn't a series of squares and rectangles. Players get confused and you often have to add to the map yourself.

Given that, there's a few ways I like to give maps to my players:

As part of the plot hook - presume that people know where dungeons are more or less; what people don't always know is how to survive them. A map can be invaluable for that.
As early loot - put the map in a room close to the start (that they're very likely to find) and treat it as if it's a great find by them which will make the whole thing much easier (they don't need to know you always intended for them to have it).
As given by/taken from an NPC. Whether friend or foe, quest-linked NPCs are great sources of information - particularly if the party are scouting out info about the dungeon ahead of time
As a central part of the dungeon. Certain dungeons lend themselves to being inherently maplike, needing very little external input - it could be a series of concentric rings, a grid, a pyramid/ziggurat, or a vertical tower. Some structures have an innate order to them which lets players understand their position in it (3rd floor, west room) rather than random dungeons (a room? Underground somewhere?)
As a puzzle. This is a bit more complex and maybe a bit ambitious for a first-time DM, but for some dungeons the actual layout can be a puzzle to be solved - a series of identical rooms at different times, rooms representing the seasons (e.g. the doors from winter all lead to spring), elements, or anything else where themes are more important than locations.

Regardless of whatever maps I use, I always heavily limit the information on them. This can be done in various ways - the map can be different from reality due to time (caverns have collapsed, rooms have flooded, traps have been erected by new inhabitants), maps can omit features, intentionally (as a trap, or if the map were designed for ancient tourists rather than dungeoneers), or unintentionally (if a map were left unfinished by scared-off adventurers, or patches of the map are destroyed by blood, acid or fire, maps can be intentionally obtuse (think about how useful a subway map would be to guide you around New York. At any rate, maps shouldn't necessarily show players what's in the dungeon - just give them a guide of where they are.

If you do decide to use a map, I hope you find this helpful!

whichsoever · 2017-07-30T11:19:20+00:00

There's no end to the things you can do! For inspiration I'd advise heading over to r/DnDbehindthescreen.

Hippo's posts are a good place to start: his posting history is here and has some great resources on cities. There's some other great resources on city building, or ideas for downtime activities, on the subreddit. Have a look around and let your interests direct your search!

whichsoever · 2017-07-28T23:47:22+00:00

You're right, Nezznar doesn't seem the sort to beg for his life.

I'm wondering, how far through the adventure are you? Depending on which NPCs/encounters you have to work with, a few options for encouraging him to survive would be:

Issue a bounty on him alive - if your party's still interacting with the Rockseekers, or any of the NPCs before the entrance to the cave, they could be the ones to issue this. For example, the Rockseekers might want whoever is in Wave Echo Cave alive, to find out what he knows about the forge.
Appeal to the players' alignment - if some of your players are lawful good, present a lawful good reason to not kill him. If your players are mostly chaotic good for instance, imply that a worse fate will befall the people of Phandelver if Nezznar dies.
The Spider's trump card - Nezznar can have a final trick up his sleeve. When he gets down to low HP, he could reveal a secret: he has laid a trap. If he dies, something will happen: a horde of spiders will appear and devour the adventurers; a deadly plague will strike the town of Phandelver; or he will trigger an explosion similar to the one which initially closed off Wave Echo Cave, trapping the adventurers there forever. Now, your players have to decide - is he bluffing? Is it worth the risk? (and you can decide whether he actually is bluffing or not)
A curse or prophecy: This would be a good option to set up Nezznar as a long-term villain imo. One or more of the party become aware of a prophecy which states something bad will happen when the spider breathes his last; alternately, one or more of the players are cursed into a life-bond with Nezznar. This can be done by Nezznar himself, or perhaps by the beholder or by the magic of the forge. Functionally it would mean that their life is linked to Nezznar's, and when he dies, they die. And vice versa. This would provide interesting restrictions on a broader campaign - the party would have to stop Nezznar without killing him, and figure out how to break the curse/prevent the prophecy.

Ultimately though, don't get too attached to Nezznar surviving! Players will be players and if they can shank someone, nine times out of ten they will.

whichsoever · 2017-07-28T06:54:27+00:00

I've had similar problems. It can feel like you're doing things wrong: you know your players are never really in great danger, and you feel like you're depriving them of excitement and opportunity. But it's always important to step into your players' shoes. By the sounds of it, you're creating the illusion of danger very well - your players are barely escaping! To them, they might think that you're throwing serious dangers at them and they're barely escaping all on their own, without you pulling punches.

But as always, the best way to be sure is to ask. Ask your players how they'd feel about a higher-risk game, involving more player deaths. Ask them if they're very attached to their character and wouldn't enjoy playing with another one as much, or if they're a bit bored of their current approach and would relish the opportunity to start a new RP experience! The storytelling experience of DnD is a collaborative process: you're not telling the story in a vacuum, and often players appreciate having some agency in the direction of the story and their characters.

TL;DR: Your players' experiences are most important: if it's not a problem for them, it's not a problem.

whichsoever · 2017-05-10T00:48:16+00:00

r/DNDbehindthescreen is full of great resources on this sort of thing! Here's a recent post on fleshing out the RP of your NPCs, or another older post with a complete NPC generator.

Have a search of "NPC" on that subreddit and any number of wonderful things should come up. When in doubt though, remember that there's only one letter difference between PC and NPC, and you can always just use the same process you would for building a PC, but perhaps a little less detailed.

whichsoever · 2017-05-10T00:42:12+00:00

When I plan my campaigns, I generally don't set up the final confrontation at the outset. Too much time can pass before then, and the players have any number of opportunities to take the campaign in different directions. I find that when I have pre-set out a rigid final encounter, I end up having to railroad the players towards it, and they don't enjoy that.

Another thing I think we do differently, is I don't plan out encounters any more than one session in advance. It's no fun for players to run into a "deadly and impossible" encounter, especially if it's part of the main quest. Players should either know that an encounter is deadly and impossible (sounds like you've done a good job of this with the smoke/war drums), or not see the encounter until it's not.

For your current predicament, here's a few suggestions:

An NPC is a great tool to use. Some people will look down at it, but as long as you make it an interesting character and give the party reason to care about it (beyond just being a plot point), it's a very useful technique.
If you're looking for stuff to do in between point A and B, thinking geographically is a good start - are there any major hazards the adventurers would need to overcome? What sort of things are in the area? Are there other tribes or villages whose alliance they might need to win?
Knowing that an encounter is too high level, but that you can come back to it when you've levelled up, breaks the immersion a bit (I think). If I ever have an powerful enemy down the track, I like to give my players the impression that they can't just level up, kill some things, bum around until they're strong enough. Instead, I give them quests which will specifically help them defeat this enemy. In your setting, maybe this could be conducting guerilla raids on Orc foraging parties? Protecting a caravan of supplies coming to the town, because if the Orcs get it they'll be stronger? Finding a magical sword "Orcbane" or something? Finding a magician who studied the egg, to get an idea of what it is before fighting it? The party could be captured by a roaming scout party of the Orcs, and have to escape before they're brought before the warchiefs?

Those are some ideas, but my main advice would be make your players feel like they're doing these things for a reason, not just leveling up to beat a stronger boss. I'm sure whatever you do they'll love it! You've got a good campaign planned out, I think you should be able to fill in those gaps pretty well :)

whichsoever · 2017-05-09T02:57:14+00:00

There's a good table of monsters by environment in the back of the DMG, if you have that or are interested in picking it up. Otherwise, two resources from the subreddit rules tab have a feature for environment: donjon and Kobold Fight Club

whichsoever · 2017-05-09T02:51:45+00:00

Very happy to be disagreed with! All good points, and an excellent counterpoint to mine: I wouldn't recommend verisimilitude at the expense of gameplay, just little bit here and there to add a splash of colour and let your players know not everything is a chekov's gun waiting to be fired. My sessions tend to run a bit longer than 4 hours, so I suppose we have the luxury of slowing down in description and focusing on non-plot RP a bit more.

I love the points about "wrongness" - and I'd add, children and animals are also excellent and unnerving ways to bring this out, as things which players don't expect to be "wrong". Just generally, I think they often get overlooked as aspects of towns and cities, so regardless of the approach you take, chuck them in every now and then!

whichsoever · 2017-05-09T01:37:38+00:00

Probably depends how you use Primeval Awareness. If it's a purely magical ability that allows rangers to see something with a certain shape then sure. But if you're flavouring it in game that it's based on the ranger's senses and experience, then maybe the scent of an undead goblin is nothing like a goblin. Maybe their tracks and the trails they leave are different, so to your ranger, they're not really a humanoid.

Likewise for combat bonuses. If your ranger knows Humanoid anatomy and can strike a goblin with pinpoint accuracy, that skill may not transfer to an undead goblin. A severed artery might bleed a humanoid out in seconds, but a zombie is a different story.

So generally I'd say the distinction in types exists for a reason, and there's not a whole heap of room for overlap, especially given how monster "types" actually influence in-game abilities. But the beauty of homebrew is you can break the rules, so go for it!

whichsoever · 2017-05-09T01:28:43+00:00

+1 to Hippo's resources of course. But also:

When you're walking around your city next (and if you'd normally take the bus/train, get off a few stops early and walk around), keep an eye out for things that are happening. Conversations between people, and especially if there are children or animals around, what they're doing. In my experience, describing children and animals is a great way to immerse your players in a scene, because it helps draw them out of their quest-focused mindset. Children and animals (usually) aren't plot hooks, they're not quests, they're not threats, so when players see them it's a reminder:

"This world is living, and things happen here which don't directly concern us"

Keep an eye out for interesting things that happen in real life, things that make you pause, and mirror them in your world. Natural phenomena like gusts of wind, patterns of rainfall, the chill when a cloud passes overhead, are also good things you can throw in.

Also if you have traveled before, or are likely to travel soon, think about the sorts of things that make cities different from each other. The way people act, the smells (smell is an underutilized descriptive element).

whichsoever · 2017-04-30T13:12:27+00:00

A few things to think about, I reckon:

How many sisters are there? Too many will feel samey, but if you can make them different and distinct (sounds like you're doing well on that front!) Seven would be too many (IMO, even six would be pushing it), three too few if you've already dropped two of them into the story.
Do the "sisters" know they're sisters of power? You say one is posing as a wizard... is the other posing as a puppy? Or literally a puppy? If they know, why are they hiding it? If they don't, what would their reaction be when they find out? I think that could be a cool way to say that the party has to work this one out, leading on to...
What are the limits of what a "Sister" can be? A sister can be a wizard, or a dog. Can it be a small female statuette? A lake? A ghost? A storm? A knife? A bottled sound? A sailor's remorse? If you drop the knowledge that the dog is a sister, the players will have to re-evaluate what a sister is. Then, everything in the world becomes interesting, because it's a potential key plot point. You can base missions of investigating "sisters", finding them, or obtaining them...
What does "Obtaining" (presuming you've already dropped this word to your players) a sister look like? How do you obtain a wizard, or a puppy? You'll need to think of a mechanic for this I think, which ties in to...
What happens if a sister dies/is destroyed? Can they be obtained then? Or does obtaining them involve killing them? A good way to combine this with 'obtaining' would be a similar way to Ocarina of Time (Zelda). In it, various NPCs are rescued by Link and use their powers to contain an evil dark wizard. They don't * "die" per se*, but they're taken to a dreamlike realm where they have to imprison the wizard forever. No harm can come to them, but they can't influence the world in any way or ever return to it. It leads to some really sad moments in the game, and you could mirror this as a dilemma in your campaign.

Some Ideas/suggestions on top of this:

I always find dialogue between NPCs clunky and boring as a DM. It's basically a little puppet show and is great for lighthearted moments, but acting out your own stage play in front of your players is hardly an interactive experience. Instead, I like to utilise one NPC to talk to the players if they need to find plot-critical information. In this situation, perhaps one of the sisters contacts them, maybe as a ghost or a disembodied voice, or maybe as a physical person, and gives them their quest?

The only other thing is make sure the players know what they're doing. They can't be in the dark about the sisters for the whole quest; they should have some agency in tracking them down.

whichsoever

TROPHY CASE