Vondy

I decided to wait to respond to this and think about what to say. The reason is: you and I aren't having the same conversation. We also, very clearly, have different cultural and political priorities. I am not talking about policy goals. Those are trivial. I could not care less. I'm talking about something higher up the mountain than that. I'm talking about political values. 
 
When I said our traditional definitions of left and right were no longer useful because both parties were, above the finite policy level, pursuing mirrored (and selfish) tracks, you immediately started making partisan arguments and saying "well that guy is worse than my guy." So what? Again, I could not care less. We aren't even having the same conversation.
 
You are playing a finite game based on interests and short-term political gains and beating the other side rather than an infinite game based on values. That is also what both parties are doing, too. And, its bad game theory. A finite player who takes on an infinite player invariably loses. They run out of resources and quit the game. 
 
You want to debate me? Change your game. Become an infinite player. If you don't, pursuing this is a waste of my time. I don't care if the republicans started it or the democrats started it. I don't care if the republicans are really really mean while the democrats are merely really really petty. Who cares? Pointing the person who started it doesn't change the result. 
 
If the dems are so smart and moral and wise, why are they playing the same finite game? When you make your decisions based on finite interests you are not predictable and, from a cultural, diplomatic, economic, and military perspective that has serious negative consequences. Namely, you destroy the well of trust required to make cooperation possible. 
 
If you play the interests game friendliness and goodwill, respect and honor, go by the wayside. One party may win, but the entire nation loses in the long run because cooperation - E PLURBIUS UNUM - becomes impossible. How do we survive? We come together and cooperate. How do we prosper? We come together and cooperate. If the parties aren't doing that, why do you think taking a side will save you?
 
For me, America is not a finite game. It is not about the interests of individual parties and groups. It is not about specific pet policy decisions for special interest groups (or voting blocs). I will not play your game. For me, America is about life, liberty, and the freedom to pursue one's security and happiness. I know my political values. I stated them. You responded with partisan policy complaints. That is the root of the problem this nation is facing.
 
I have zero patience for either party. Neither represent me or my political values. Neither represent the values our nation was founded on. They represent a hungry and intrusive administrative state. Both are pursuing their own short-term finite partisan interests. When they play to win on that level the people lose. I want a party that is running on the values its for rather than the people and policies it is against.
 
The GOP ran on "Not Obama. Not Clinton." They won. Now the Dems are running on "Not Trump." Maybe they'll win. But, that is valueless finite drivel. And that is the problem with Washington. They have lost sight of our most basic and traditional of values. The ones found in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The aspirational glue that forms the WE in "We The People." And, so has the media. And so have stridently partisan voters.
 
I choose to play an infinite game aimed at maximizing personal liberty and opportunity and prosperity for every single American. Its infinite because its value based.
 
Democrats good! Republicans bad!
Republicans good! Democrats bad!
 
Utter tosh. Petty finite interest driven nonsense. Both are playing against the very values this nation was founded to aspire towards.  You can choose to play that game if you want. I won't be joining you.

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. It was a visual feast and had some intriguing ideas for aliens and future-tech. Yet, this is 100% a popcorn film. Enjoyable if you sit back and just take it as a spectacle, but the plot is way thin, the dialog is boilerplate, and the acting is unremarkable (neither inspired nor cringe-worthy). There is stuff to steal of a space opera game, if one were looking.

This is such a basic soft skill (socially) that my mind boggles at the notion while at the same time finding myself  teaching younger co-workers how to be professional in the office.
 
Gaming is just like having a work meeting and the same expectations apply: be on time, wear clean clothes, smell nice, put your phone on vibrate and leave it in your pocket, chat with the people who are in the room with you before and after the meeting. You make contacts and build teams and trust that way.
 
NO PHONES AT THE TABLE. FULL STOP.
 
Its discourteous and says "I'd rather be doing something else" than participate in your boring game. Call it out and don't budge. Its bad behavior stemming from dopamine addiction. If their kids or SO or work must be able to call them in event of emergency they can set a unique ring tone and leave it in their pocket forsaking all others. If they are there to play they owe every person at the table their undivided attention and active partcipation.

This is such a basic soft skill (socially) that my mind boggles at the notion while at the same time finding myself  teaching younger co-workers how to be professional in the office.
 
Gaming is just like having a work meeting and the same expectations apply: be on time, wear clean clothes, smell nice, put your phone on vibrate and leave it in your pocket, chat with the people who are in the room with you before and after the meeting. You make contacts and build teams and trust that way.
 
NO PHONES AT THE TABLE. FULL STOP.
 
Its discourteous and says "I'd rather be doing something else" than participate in your boring game. Call it out and don't budge. Its bad behavior stemming from dopamine addiction. If their kids or SO or work must be able to call them in event of emergency they can set a unique ring tone and leave it in their pocket forsaking all others. If they are there to play they owe every person at the table their undivided attention and active partcipation.

That doesn't mean we then paint those same people with a broad brush. Also, I think an intelligent person who is familiar with what those people are on record with, can intuit when their counsel is forcing him to rethink, backtrack, and stand there ironically saying "I really meant this other thing all along!"
 
Obviously, based on his hair-trigger and vulgarian bombast Trump ends up backtracking based on trusted counsel instead of avoiding the minefields altogether. Most of his wounds are 100% self-inflicted, but a lot of what he says is, to the meanest understanding, intended to be tactical. 

For instance, Trump went from (position one) wanting us out of NATO to (position two) grappling for leverage over NATO with threats to (position three) saying how important NATO is. Listen to what Mattis says about NATO in that video. Trumps lands on his position.
 
Same thing with Russia. Trump says Putin is coming until his Dan Coats makes a wry quip amounting to "Oh Really?" on national television. Suddenly the trip is on hold. Listen to what Mattis, Pompeo, and Coats are saying about our Russia policies, not Trump.
 
My point is: Trump is a bombastic, off-the-cuff, erratic, drama-seeking, reality star pretending to be President. He's an amateur and a liability not just for America, but the entire free world. He sells everything in big, unrealistic, manic terms. He is the poster boy for "unreliable narrator."
 
Its sophomoric stuff - the kind of trash talk you expect on a football field. Its not presidential. But, what makes me really sad, is that it works. Our media keeps falling for it and going off on his designated tangents instead of focusing on what his other hand is doing. Important information goes unreported or left without depth and context.
 
Don't get me wrong. I'm not a trumpvershterer, but I do understand the man. He's constantly grappling for leverage in negotiations and seeking to dominate the news cycle. The latter, which is sphincter-clenchingly cringe-worthy, is something he really excels at. The former, however, works way better in business than politics.
 
If you want to know what our policies actually are, what we are actually doing, and what the actual thinking is behind it you don't listen to Trump or the media. You dig for your own facts, read between the lines, and listen to key people around Trump. Which is why I posted the video.
 
Does he always listen to them? I sincerely doubt it. He has too much ego. Does he undermine them? I bet he does on occasion. But there are a handful of people who do seem to be influencing him behind the scenes and are probably the reason we aren't doing everything wrong.
 
My prayer is that he's too busy preening in the mirror and fund-raising and campaigning until 2020 to seriously disrupt the work and plans of his smarter cabinet members. Is that a long shot? Maybe. But, if it weren't, I wouldn't be using the word "prayer" to begin with, would I?
 
 
 
 
 

Those are all the kinds of things I expect career generals trying to bolster their troops bravado and courage before going into a combat theater, or combat itself, to say. They do not disturb me. What would disturb me was, when he was wearing those stars, he didn't have warlike ferocity and bravado. Context and role do matter. Intelligent and educated people, of which he is both, are able to adapt their decision making to the role they fill and I believe, if you actually watch the video and listen to what he has to say you will find he is talking like a civilian leader who is concerned about the world beyond the military's foxhole due to the responsibilities he now carries. 

Not quite. I see it as more:
Democrats: If even one person was eligible to vote, but didn't because of undue costs or bureaucracy, that is unacceptable.
Republicans: If even one person was ineligible to vote, but did because of inadequate bureaucracy, that is unacceptable.
 
I promise, Republicans do not want minorities out of voting. But Republicans don't see a problem with requiring ID, because who can't do that? Everyone they know has to get an ID, just to drive or go drinking. Democrats do know people who have a harder time getting ID, for a number of reasons. They know that kind of situation can happen to any kind of person, but also that it happens more among minorities.
 
So, this is more a problem of differing perceptual frameworks than unvarnished racism.
 
Again, this isn't so simple.
 
A Republican would point out what they've done in the name of religious freedom that Democrats don't like. Democrats don't think Religious freedom should let businesses discriminate against homosexuals, or refuse to pay for contraception for women.
 
A Republican would point out the problems Asians are having getting into elite universities because of the rules Democrats originally put in place to protect other kinds of minorities.
 
These are complicated situations with complicated intersections of freedoms and discriminations. It isn't so simple as a bunch of rich white guys bragging about how hard they discriminate.
 

Pretty much, yeah.
 
Workers of the world, unite!
 
 

The thing is, I don't think our traditional definitions of "Right" and "Left" remain useful. "
The GOP has embraced the administrative state, blank check spending, and conservative social authoritarianism.
From a high-level view,, I don't see our present "right" as being meaningfully different than the radical progressive "left."
Sure, the specific policies and sensibilities differ, but both are all too willing to trample on liberty to legislate their morality while bankrupting us. 

The thing is, I don't think our traditional definitions of "Right" and "Left" remain useful. "
The GOP has embraced the administrative state, blank check spending, and conservative social authoritarianism.
From a high-level view,, I don't see our present "right" as being meaningfully different than the radical progressive "left."
Sure, the specific policies and sensibilities differ, but both are all too willing to trample on liberty to legislate their morality while bankrupting us. 

The thing is, I don't think our traditional definitions of "Right" and "Left" remain useful. "
The GOP has embraced the administrative state, blank check spending, and conservative social authoritarianism.
From a high-level view,, I don't see our present "right" as being meaningfully different than the radical progressive "left."
Sure, the specific policies and sensibilities differ, but both are all too willing to trample on liberty to legislate their morality while bankrupting us. 

So, I've been thinking about it. I believe in:
Small and limited government.. Robust protections for individual liberty. Equal opportunity but not equal outcomes or officially sanctioned favoritism. Fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget. A muscular yet more carefully considered defense.  Free markets and commons with intelligent but circumspect regulation. Friendliness and good faith across the aisle.  If that makes me a philosophical conservative and political dinosaur, so be it. 

Perhaps we are all in this together and need to stop pointing fingers, pull together, roll up our sleeves, and fix it. I understand there are race issues in America, but the balkanized identity politics and blame game is getting us nowhere. Its for weak-minded children who don't want to grow up, take responsibility, and do what can be done.

I'm going to say the unthinkable and impolitic thing: poppycock. Its not as simple as one side holding up progress. What is going on in America today, Mr. Canada, is not a simple black and white equation. There are people on all sides of our race relations doing the right and wrong things. See my other post, which should be above this one. I know far better than you assume how it feels to be disenfranchised, isolated, and robbed of opportunity. I also know learned winning and losing tactics from my own failure. My failure was, ultimately, on me.
 
I know how it feels not to trust the mainstream. I know how it feels when you erroneously assume everyone in the majority doesn't understand or is against you. I know how that leads to self-defeating psychological patterns and doing the exact opposite of what needs to be done. You can be completely right and make all the wrong decisions. You will either do the work or you won't. You will either paint with a broad brush or you won't. You will either reach out to those who are open to you or you won't.  You will choose resilience or you won't. You will pick winning tactics or you won't. Its up to you, not them.  
 
Trust is a choice. It can be a hard choice. It can be a leap of faith. But it is a choice. And its the only choice that leads to any chance of success. And, even if you have zero trust, what choice do you really have if you want there to be progress on the issue at hand? I don't care if we don't really trust one another. What the hell are we supposed to do? Nothing? Bitch about it? A great many white people in America fully acknowledge the history and are well-aware of what the problems are. I understand resentment and mistrust, but no matter how legitimate those feelings are, they won't solve the problem. A great many black people are not so brittle as to be unable to try or take a leap of faith.
 
Acrimony, recrimination, and finger pointing may feel satisfying, but they don't move us forward. Those only create alienation, antipathy, and breed resentment and mistrust in kind. The problems are real. They won't ever be fixed if we keep doing what we are doing. Do you want it fixed or not? I'll let you in on a secret: most of the black people I talk to are a lot more stronger, smarter, and open to crossing lines than the media, our leaders, or activists want to let them be. Many of them are also tired of being condescended to and treated as weak or victims.
 
I was at Monticello this past weekend. In the tour the (white) docent was doubling-down on the fact that Jefferson was a slave holder despite having authored the declaration of dependence and prefaced every single reference to any work done with "by enslaved workers." We probably heard that term 50 times during the tour. Now, leaving over-emphasis aside, there was a black family on that tour and you could tell they were uncomfortable with how neurotic and self-conscious and emphatic the upper middle class white woman was being about the issue. The father asked a lot of questions. Not a one of those questions was about slavery. Not one.
 
He was there to learn about Jefferson the man. He asked about influences on the declaration, his relationship with Madison, items in the house, and questions about things were done, or worked. He was the one who pointed out that Jefferson believed slavery was a great evil that was ruinous to white character and would destroy the republic if not dealt with. He, not the docent, referred to the words of the declaration as aspirational.   Afterwards my mother and I were commenting that it would have made more sense for the docent to address it once, in no uncertain and unvarnished terms at the beginning of the tour (because it very much should be called out) and then cover a broader array of interesting information about the man.
 
The mother from the black family overheard us and opened up. She said, "We all know Mr. Jefferson owned slaves. We came so our children would see that he gave them so much more than that." Guess what happened? We had a wonderful conversation about race, slavery, America, and our shared values. The docent failed those parents by overdoing it. I would argue that the media, activists, and leaders are also failing not only them, but my family too, in the exact same way. Maybe the answer is, having acknowledged it, to not be so damned neurotic about it. We have work to do. The ninny's should step aside and let us do it. 

I'm going to say the unthinkable and impolitic thing: poppycock. Its not as simple as one side holding up progress. What is going on in America today, Mr. Canada, is not a simple black and white equation. There are people on all sides of our race relations doing the right and wrong things. See my other post, which should be above this one. I know far better than you assume how it feels to be disenfranchised, isolated, and robbed of opportunity. I also know learned winning and losing tactics from my own failure. My failure was, ultimately, on me.
 
I know how it feels not to trust the mainstream. I know how it feels when you erroneously assume everyone in the majority doesn't understand or is against you. I know how that leads to self-defeating psychological patterns and doing the exact opposite of what needs to be done. You can be completely right and make all the wrong decisions. You will either do the work or you won't. You will either paint with a broad brush or you won't. You will either reach out to those who are open to you or you won't.  You will choose resilience or you won't. You will pick winning tactics or you won't. Its up to you, not them.  
 
Trust is a choice. It can be a hard choice. It can be a leap of faith. But it is a choice. And its the only choice that leads to any chance of success. And, even if you have zero trust, what choice do you really have if you want there to be progress on the issue at hand? I don't care if we don't really trust one another. What the hell are we supposed to do? Nothing? Bitch about it? A great many white people in America fully acknowledge the history and are well-aware of what the problems are. I understand resentment and mistrust, but no matter how legitimate those feelings are, they won't solve the problem. A great many black people are not so brittle as to be unable to try or take a leap of faith.
 
Acrimony, recrimination, and finger pointing may feel satisfying, but they don't move us forward. Those only create alienation, antipathy, and breed resentment and mistrust in kind. The problems are real. They won't ever be fixed if we keep doing what we are doing. Do you want it fixed or not? I'll let you in on a secret: most of the black people I talk to are a lot more stronger, smarter, and open to crossing lines than the media, our leaders, or activists want to let them be. Many of them are also tired of being condescended to and treated as weak or victims.
 
I was at Monticello this past weekend. In the tour the (white) docent was doubling-down on the fact that Jefferson was a slave holder despite having authored the declaration of dependence and prefaced every single reference to any work done with "by enslaved workers." We probably heard that term 50 times during the tour. Now, leaving over-emphasis aside, there was a black family on that tour and you could tell they were uncomfortable with how neurotic and self-conscious and emphatic the upper middle class white woman was being about the issue. The father asked a lot of questions. Not a one of those questions was about slavery. Not one.
 
He was there to learn about Jefferson the man. He asked about influences on the declaration, his relationship with Madison, items in the house, and questions about things were done, or worked. He was the one who pointed out that Jefferson believed slavery was a great evil that was ruinous to white character and would destroy the republic if not dealt with. He, not the docent, referred to the words of the declaration as aspirational.   Afterwards my mother and I were commenting that it would have made more sense for the docent to address it once, in no uncertain and unvarnished terms at the beginning of the tour (because it very much should be called out) and then cover a broader array of interesting information about the man.
 
The mother from the black family overheard us and opened up. She said, "We all know Mr. Jefferson owned slaves. We came so our children would see that he gave them so much more than that." Guess what happened? We had a wonderful conversation about race, slavery, America, and our shared values. The docent failed those parents by overdoing it. I would argue that the media, activists, and leaders are also failing not only them, but my family too, in the exact same way. Maybe the answer is, having acknowledged it, to not be so damned neurotic about it. We have work to do. The ninny's should step aside and let us do it. 

Perhaps we are all in this together and need to stop pointing fingers, pull together, roll up our sleeves, and fix it. I understand there are race issues in America, but the balkanized identity politics and blame game is getting us nowhere. Its for weak-minded children who don't want to grow up, take responsibility, and do what can be done.

All of my characters tend to be street-smart, old-fashioned tough, and competent investigators. There have been intentional exceptions, but that's the norm. I've always been into hard-boiled pulps and noir cinema more than other genres. 
 
In a superhero game I prefer a flying brick or super-soldier with useful skills.
 
In a modern game I prefer a two-fisted private eye (e.g., Spade) or criminal anti-hero (e.g., Parker). I've played a lot of cops and feds, too, but those were in games that focused on "police procedural" or "weird and classified investigations."
 
In a fantasy game, I prefer a sword-wielding wizard. The first character I ever played was a Basic D&D elf who could, by design, do both. Our early AD&D games allowed elven wizards to use "elvish weapons" and wear "elfin chain." Over time that morphed into, "just let the wizard have a sword and mail." We never found it unbalancing. They still had worse to hit scores, attack sequences, melee damage output, and hit points than the fighters.
 
My oldest and most enduring fantasy character is a 20th level (1st Ed!) wizard with mostly divination and mind-affecting magic. He lives in a semi-permanent room in a rowdy inn / brothel and lives and thinks more like a debauched and libertine Sam Spade than Gandalf. He always does the right thing in the end, but he is often drawn into capers, political intrigue, and the seamy side of "the great city." He is a competent swordsman. His friends and ladies call him "Ritz."
 
For Champions, its Anthem, a flying brick who is the leader of a federal superhero team that works under the aegis of a joint task force akin to the Fringe Division from Fringe. In our game there is no PRIMUS. Instead, the avengers, iron guard, etc, are all Marshall's. Stronghold is run by the Bureau of Prisons, etc.
 

4th edition Dark Champions and its attendant supplements were indisputably intended for street-level superheroes. It nonetheless included a large amount of useful information about real world law enforcement, organized crime, and firearms as those are major elements in such a game. As a result, it could easily be used for non-superheroic modern action games. 5th edition Dark Champions was produced with the active decision to expand the scope to include all manner of modern action stories. Both books are very well done, but I prefer the 4th edition version. I would prefer a strongly thematic Dark Champions with CU tie-ins and a completely separate Action Hero.

That fits into a single year?

That fits into a single year?

4th edition Dark Champions and its attendant supplements were indisputably intended for street-level superheroes. It nonetheless included a large amount of useful information about real world law enforcement, organized crime, and firearms as those are major elements in such a game. As a result, it could easily be used for non-superheroic modern action games. 5th edition Dark Champions was produced with the active decision to expand the scope to include all manner of modern action stories. Both books are very well done, but I prefer the 4th edition version. I would prefer a strongly thematic Dark Champions with CU tie-ins and a completely separate Action Hero.

4th edition Dark Champions and its attendant supplements were indisputably intended for street-level superheroes. It nonetheless included a large amount of useful information about real world law enforcement, organized crime, and firearms as those are major elements in such a game. As a result, it could easily be used for non-superheroic modern action games. 5th edition Dark Champions was produced with the active decision to expand the scope to include all manner of modern action stories. Both books are very well done, but I prefer the 4th edition version. I would prefer a strongly thematic Dark Champions with CU tie-ins and a completely separate Action Hero.

Creating characters with the Hero System was never "black and white". 6e is not special in this regard. The only difference is that the 6e build culture is obsessed with minutiae to a degree not seen prior to 5e.

I prefer fewer [mechanical] options and firmly believe it leads to better characters. If you focus on rules to differentiate characters you aren't focusing on their actual character. I have played in single-class / single-species parties composed of highly memorable and distinct characters. The focus wasn't on how to build the character, but how to play them. Their backgrounds, personalities, aesthetics, and exploits made them who they were. Those kinds of parties are also much easier to root in their milieu and create compelling stories for. 

Angry, Angry Space Triangles.
 
Its like Hungry Hungry Hippos, but better.