Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 105
- 3
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Ok, part 2 of my response.
This post over at Blues News spoke to my curmudgeonly soul.
I don't think BG3 has any overtly woke current year nonsense. However, I am getting the impression BG3 has a very progressive design aesthetic towards excessive accessibility, blank slatism, and against conventionally attractive women/"male gaze".
There are verbal components. Almost no spells can be cast if silenced unless you have a special perk iirc only available to sorcerers and even to them it's more taxing.
More options
Context Copy link
Imo untrue.
25% of the reason I enjoy this game is that you have story-related reasons for using basic spells to mask the homelier party members as inhumanly beautiful dark elves.
More options
Context Copy link
Those rule change points are all autistic nitpicks. Spell don't have verbal, somatic, or material components? Those barely come up in actual tabletop unless a spellcaster is tied up or something. This reads like someone who's only RPG is D&D 5e, the rules of which are holy writ. I played Neverwinter Nights, and that played fast-and-loose with the tabletop rules too, and I didn't have a shitfit over the "parry" skill.
And the game is full of conventionally attractive women. Unless you mean that the female dwarf faces are way hotter than the human ones.
I mean... maybe. But when I bought Baldur's Gate 1, it basically had an abridged version of the D&D rules as it's game manual. It prided itself on how autistically it adhered to the AD&D 2e ruleset. They made some technical concessions, but they weren't "streamlining" things willy nilly.
This Baldur's Gate 3, I'm just not seeing it as the sort of spiritual successor in the same vein that Doom 2016 was. I don't intend to invest $60 and 200 hours into it so I can definitively make that claim. But what I'm seeing says this is not a game for the sort of grognard who liked the first two Baldur's Gates. It's for a modern, more laid back, more casual audience. They seem to be doing very well with their new audience. Good for them I guess.
Compared to other modern RPGs, BG3 is very UNforgiving. You can easily get in over your head and wind up having to re-load an earlier save. The game plays for keeps, there's no take-back-sies apart from save-scumming. I wouldn't call it dumbed down to appeal to casuals, that sounds like boilerplate criticism of all modern games, because all modern games are beset by the scourges of feminism, anti-westernism, anti-whiteness, and appealing to filthy casuals. Or something.
BG3 ADDED weapon-intrinsic short-rest maneuvers, too, shit that isn't in 5e at all, and even the 5.5 playtest has those as always-on, not limited resources. And it has new conditions that don't work the way 5e conditions work, and there's no grappling. 2/10, elbows too pointy.
You can almost always go back to camp and for 500 gold re-roll and re-spec your entire party for the current encounter.
That's not unforgiving.
Underrail is. 15 hours in you're forced to go into a garbage dump full of landmines, acid-spitting mutant pitbulls, traps, sentry turrets and more traps and more acid pibbles and people who try to have a jack-of-all trades character suffer impressively.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Compare Owlcat’s implementation of Pathfinder. The rules customization for that game is incredible. Tooltips are pretty damn good, too, as far as I recall.
I can defend a few of the changes. Streamlining is a dangerous line to walk. Cutting material components, probably good, definitely in line with the house rules for most tables. Verbal and somatic, eh, were they going to have any mechanical impact outside of Silence? On the other hand, spell swapping is a pretty silly way to fight the fifteen-minute adventuring day.
Others make more sense as part of an ongoing debate within D&D. Racial bonuses, for example, work like this in the next playtest. They’re not just a nod to blank-slatism, but a point of conflict between the Gamists and the Narrativists. Between the kind of people who pick Dwarf to optimize their saves and those who pick it because they read The Hobbit too recently. It’s a conflict as old as roleplaying, and flattening it out is yet another attempt at synchronizing the experience between players. Even though it means a bit of dumbing down.
They actually work like this currently in 5E, at least for any playable races published in or after The Wild Beyond The Witchlight; Monsters Of The Multiverse reprinted (and rebalanced) a bunch of racial options as well, and all of them use the floating modifiers method rather than set race-specific ASI bonuses. Your larger point stands, I just wanted to point out that on this particular point, BG3 is actually in-line with the state of the current edition.
If every race gives the same stat modifiers, why not just give everyone more points for ability scores during character creation? Apart from killing another sacred cow, except that at this point all the sacred cows are animated undead skeletons with skin draped over them.
For all intents and purposes, that is what has been done. The “racial stat bonus” has been replaced entirely by a pool of a +2 and a +1 which can be freely assigned to any two stats after the initial array of ability scores has been determined by rolling or by using the point buy or standard array method. You end up with numerically the same total available scores as before, you just have more flexibility in how you distribute them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link