|  | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
grandpa
Registered
Entrenched Oldbie
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:22 am |  |
| Shy wrote: |
| Matt wrote: |
| I was going to post about the whole strength of the sexes thing as I'm an amateur practitioner of Olympic/power lifting buuuuut figured it'd just offend people. There's no reason why women shouldn't be able to be as strong as men IG as it happens IRL. Just not very common at all. If we're talking about super jacked dudes benching 400 that probably wouldn't happen in Rust anyway. Unless the persons able to eat 6000 calories a day and lift multiple times a day. Which is no one in Rust. |
Okay, guys...seriously? There would be some kick-butt women...but in a gender to gender comparison? Just in Olympic clean and jerk? How about in Cage fighting or boxing? SOME women could best SOME men. But - seriously, there is a reason females do not play professional football against men.
But, if you want to go with the idea that these humanoids have physically evolved to be more equal? Think...black widow spider... More power to you and go RP! |
It's funny to see you quoting a post that literally argues against you.
Dietary limitations means that this is a hard-scrabble world where strength is lean and scrawny rather than hulking and based around an incredible exercise regimen/a lifetime of what amounts to prizefighting.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
Holmes
Dictator in Absentia
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:30 am | |
| Quote: |
| In this game and setting, there is no difference whatsoever with regard to the limits of their physical capabilities. It's nothing to do with how people choose to RP it. It's simple fact. |
This is the truth by admin fiat.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:50 am | |
You can be badass as fuck and still be female, ESPECIALLY in PRPI.
Being weak and demanding male protection should not be a female trait that is treasured in this society, honestly. Ain't nobody got time for that. If some people choose to make that their defining trait, I guess more power to you? But don't be surprised if the good RP passes you by. Do what you do, don't be surprised if I don't choose play with you.
I've played plenty of females who went toe to toe with men in power, authority, skill, and sheer damage. They were rude, crude, forthright, and still vulnerable in their own ways. Because they were human, and complex. If you're making flat Mary Sues, you might want to rethink your strategy and the reason you're RPing. There's other games better suited to those sorts of one-dimensional characters.
As for chicks not being as hardcore as dudes on tha moon? Two words: Stripper Patrol. Hot pants, guns, swords, and authority. Motherfuckers know better than to mess with the stripper patrol.
Everyone's being really polite and not using the term we're all thinking, and I respect that. I hope the admins don't think I'm baiting, cause I just want it out there. If your character is 'an fme', you're in the wrong game.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:25 am | |
I suspect damsels-in-distress are over-represented in public due to the more self-sufficient female PCs being too busy to hang out at Bjork's on a normal basis (or wherever this is happening), and not drawing negative attention to themselves during runs or other public events.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
wilde
Administrator
Over Emote-tional
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:29 am | |
| shy wrote: |
| But - seriously, there is a reason females do not play professional football against men. |
I had a conversation about this with somebody recently. I personally think that the main reason women don't play professional sports against men is that...women aren't allowed to play professional sports against men.
Over here in the UK, for example, football (soccer for some of you) is a huge sport. For men. Sadly, women's football is really considered something of a joke. It doesn't have the financial backing of men's football, isn't shown much on TV and when it is, it's not unheard of for the (usually male) commentators to laugh. They get in shit for it, but I've heard it happen.
Hell, just to make that division even more massive, football for men is just called 'football' and football for women is women's football'. That might not seem like a big deal, but it is. Growing up (and a complete tomboy), I didn't want to play 'women's football', I just wanted to play.
I consider this to be a real chicken and the egg issue. People (generalising here, forgive me), seem to think that girls aren't as interested in sports. It's probably even true, but when you look at the exposure of young girls to sports in which women play at a professional level equal to men, it's not hard to see why. What girl in her right mind would possibly want to be a football player when professional football for women doesn't even seem to exist?
So that's a vast oversimplification. I know there are professional sportswomen etc etc, I know there are girls who like sports. I know that some people will truly believe that it's 'not fair' to pit men and women against each other.
Then think about something like horse racing. I feel the need to point out at this time that I'm not a fan, but just for argument's sake: in horse racing, handicaps (the weight the horse carries) vary and so, generally jockeys are tiny little men, who have to eat a restricted diet to keep their damn weight down. There are female jockeys, but even a sport where being smaller and lighter is an advantage is (over here at least) still dominated by men.
As a random side note, the equestrian sports at the 2012 Olympics were the only events where men and women competed directly against each other.
In a vague attempt to stay on topic and tie this into the original thread, I personally believe that a lot of it comes down to exposure and role models and the situation with that on Rust is obviously very different. And er...people are exposed to shredders and lagatos and role models wielding swords, not racquets.
| Bartleby wrote: |
| also loved wilde's post (humphumphump). |
I was playing devil's advocate, somewhat. It surprised the hell out of me, but...there you go. This is actually a massively important issue to me, but the original post raised other issues which I also wanted to address.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:44 am | |
Alright. I'll toss in one cent, at least.
I think it's sorta depressing the theme of this thread seems to define power solely as the ability to kick ass with a weapon. It's a crude definition, and rather insulting, to men and women alike. And, not at all true.
Take a look at almost any post-apoc setting, from story or movie or game. While yes, the badass fighter certainly has its place. But, the physically weak, yet brave doctor, willing to risk their life to jump in and wrap up a bleeder, or the clever and skilled leader, who uses their wits instead of their gun... these are all just important to the group survival dynamic.
In the end, this setting is "survival", yes? Survival, by any means necessary. If a girl bats her lashes to get someone to guard her on a hunt, isn't that a legitimate means of survival? If she's clever enough to wheel and deal and manipulate to gain an advantage, to keep alive, isn't that a legitimate means of survival?
Wits, wisdom, brains, experience, and ability to manipulate and deceive, these are -all- just as legitimate a means of survival in a post apoc setting as is being able to swing a sword really well.
Really ain't much difference from any other "fierce" setting. Be it from a mafia family, to a prison scene, to the Plate of the Apes. It takes all sort for a society, even a gritty, living-by-the-skin-of-their-teeth, post-moon-war society. They're all (dis)functional machines. And machines need a variety of parts to work.
*edited to complete sentenced never finished due to sleepiness, content the same*
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:05 am | |
| kel wrote: |
Alright. I'll toss in one cent, at least.
I think it's sorta depressing the theme of this thread seems to define power solely as the ability to kick ass with a weapon. It's a crude definition, and rather insulting, to men and women alike. And, not at all true.
Take a look at almost any post-apoc setting, from story or movie or game. While yes, the badass fighter certainly has its place. But, the physically weak, yet brave doctor, willing to risk their life to jump in and wrap up a bleeder, or the clever and skilled leader, who uses their wits instead of their gun.
In the end, this setting is "survival", yes? Survival, by any means necessary. If a girl bats her lashes to get someone to guard her on a hunt, isn't that a legitimate means of survival? If she's clever enough to wheel and deal and manipulate to gain an advantage, to keep alive, isn't that a legitimate means of survival?
Wits, wisdom, brains, experience, and ability to manipulate and deceive, these are -all- just as legitimate a means of survival in a post apoc setting as is being able to swing a sword really well. |
Yessssss, yesssss... this. A thousand times, this. Amazing post.
Rugged powerful sword-swinging survivalists who can make shopping malls out of carved toothpicks are great and all, but that simply isn't the only form of power. There's social power and there's nothing wrong with acquiring it through means other than sticking something sharp through something else's eyeball.
The original post read to me like they wanted 'powerful' women in the most bland form of it (bulging biceps and swinging swords and YAR!), and to be honest, I've done that and it can be fun, but it's hardly the only way for a person - male or female - to be powerful, strong-willed, interactive or fun.
Indeed, I don't think there's a more boring task on this game than scav trips, personally.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:18 am | |
I was knocking some thoughts back and forth with irk. With her permission, this:
11:11:51 ‹Aken› I'd suggest a male PC, I guess?
11:11:59 ‹Aken› or better
11:12:05 ‹Aken› write a regular character concept
11:12:07 ‹Aken› as you would
11:12:14 ‹Aken› then flip the pronouns, and continue
11:12:17 ‹Irkallia› and flip the pronouns. I've been pondering it
11:12:21 ‹Irkallia› but I dunno yet
11:12:28 ‹Irkallia› haven't had a good concept in a while
11:14:27 ‹Aken› intelligent and well-educated, with a useful life skill or two, but bone-idle and well aware of it, and intent on mooching off others to get as much as possible in return for as little effort as possible
11:14:41 ‹Aken› I -know- that would work with a female PC in Rust, because of the playerbase
11:14:47 ‹Aken› I wonder if it would work with a male.
11:15:03 ‹Irkallia› heh, heh, heh....
11:15:09 ‹Irkallia› that makes me want to try it. *snicker*
11:15:16 ‹Irkallia› 'cause it'd be sort of hilarious
11:15:21 ‹Aken› See what I mean?
11:15:29 ‹Irkallia› thing is
11:15:32 ‹Irkallia› I bet you I could pull it off
11:15:39 ‹Irkallia› but
11:15:45 ‹Irkallia› I shouldn't be able to
11:15:53 ‹Aken› with which gender, though?
11:16:00 ‹Irkallia› male
11:16:13 ‹Aken› mm. Also, yes, you shouldn't be able to
11:16:19 ‹Aken› that shouldn't be how Rust works
11:16:19 ‹Irkallia› definitely could with female, of course. which is the problm.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:42 am | |
| kel wrote: |
Alright. I'll toss in one cent, at least.
I think it's sorta depressing the theme of this thread seems to define power solely as the ability to kick ass with a weapon. It's a crude definition, and rather insulting, to men and women alike. And, not at all true.
Take a look at almost any post-apoc setting, from story or movie or game. While yes, the badass fighter certainly has its place. But, the physically weak, yet brave doctor, willing to risk their life to jump in and wrap up a bleeder, or the clever and skilled leader, who uses their wits instead of their gun... these are all just important to the group survival dynamic.
In the end, this setting is "survival", yes? Survival, by any means necessary. If a girl bats her lashes to get someone to guard her on a hunt, isn't that a legitimate means of survival? If she's clever enough to wheel and deal and manipulate to gain an advantage, to keep alive, isn't that a legitimate means of survival?
Wits, wisdom, brains, experience, and ability to manipulate and deceive, these are -all- just as legitimate a means of survival in a post apoc setting as is being able to swing a sword really well.
Really ain't much difference from any other "fierce" setting. Be it from a mafia family, to a prison scene, to the Plate of the Apes. It takes all sort for a society, even a gritty, living-by-the-skin-of-their-teeth, post-moon-war society. They're all (dis)functional machines. And machines need a variety of parts to work.
*edited to complete sentenced never finished due to sleepiness, content the same* |
That might be how it should be, but it never really has on RPIs unless you go all out and assign people to be near-untouchable by default. An example of this is Armageddon's nobility, and while this model does make it more viable for characters to become influential without coded power, it introduces another host of problems that I don't feel the need to explain in detail (my posts always get too long.)
Atonement - and, by extension, Parallel - has always tried to do the opposite and allow players full reign and freedom to be all they can be. This is phenomenal for the purpose of making characters feel relevant and able to influence the game/story, but it has the unfortunate side-effect of introducing a bit of Might Makes Right. Coded might, in particular. If you're supposed to have power and influence but can't back it up with anything tangible, it becomes easy for people to just ignore you. It becomes hard to assert yourself and actually apply your supposed power. Why should people really follow or obey you if you can't defend them, can't defend yourself, and can't personally hurt them?
I've tried to play non-combatants who were intended to have power and influence, but while it works some of the way, it can never really be taken the full distance. Eventually you happen to be surrounded by people who don't play along, and then that's the end of the road; your power is gone, fizzled out, nobody will do as you say and you can't impose any consequences on them for not doing so. Without coded might, your power only lasts as long as people are willing to play along.
That's not actually all that unrealistic, and it's exactly how it works in the real world. Politicians are only as relevant as they can convince people they are. Fortunately for us Earthlings, the civilized world has reached a point where this usually isn't a problem; the police doesn't just refuse to do as told by the ministry of justice, the army doesn't decide to ignore the president, and so on. They absolutely could, though, and would render powerless those whose power is only intangible. What would the president do if people didn't care what he had to say?
It used to be that way in the world, and probably still is in some places. People used to follow the strongest and fiercest, used to value power and obey those able to make them suffer for not obeying. I think it might actually be entirely reasonable for the Moon to have become that way, because without a centralized government and ostensibly benevolent police force, why would people obey some guy who's merely clever and good at talking? I can certainly envision Rust being a place where people follow those with tangible power, for all the same reasons that people did so in prehistoric tribes. It's part of human nature.
It would definitely be cool if people were able to rise to power and prominence without might and personal martial strength, and I always encourage people to try, but I've never seen it work unless you get staff saying that this is how it is, and I don't necessarily think it's broken if it doesn't work like that. It's a setting that has all the makings of a tribalistic power structure where those who aren't dangerous will at most be valued for their wisdom or useful expertise, never hailed as leaders of the people. I still think it's entirely possible for someone to become influential without the use of weapons, and that has happened before, but I don't think anybody should expect to rise to the top that way. You'll eventually get to the point where you're limited by your dependency on others to enforce your will.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:01 am | |
I don't think it's unreasonable of me to assert that Elizabeth achieved a position of prominence by dint of force of will alone. She did fight, albeit not actually that well, and lead in combat, which are both significant -- except people were willing to follow her just because she said so, rather than due to particular competence. I don't think she'd have done it without being a combatant, however. But she wouldn't be winning any duels, or even scraps with her own people, either.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
