modern perception impairment

[BobTheCoward]

Whenever I had a RIFTS game my problem was always justifying certain elements. Now while at it's heart there is a sense of heroics and pulp adventure, Americans (me) seem intent on bringing in a lot of modern thoughts and ideals where it may be innappropriate. Here are just some ideas I had to generate debate.

1. Players are grave robbers. Have you ever thought about how disgusting of an act it would be to lift weapons and items off a human you just killed? What about cyber-knights? It is a tradition of the RPG to do this but can such a moral character commit such acts?

2. I always hear the complaint that RIFTS earth is getting to crowded for a post-apocolyptic society. I recently drove through the U.S. and I recommend it to anybody for perspective. The U.S., even the heartland, is more crowded than I had ever imagined. States are filled with hundreds of small towns. The population in RIFTS is truly post-apocolyptic.

3. Ease of travel: I grew up in the desert where there was little to get in my way. I set a speed of 40 mph as the speed in which the adventurers could cross. However, after driving through the U.S. I noticed it is wall to wall trees from the Oklahoma border to the Atlantic Ocean. Frankly, I don't understand why activists complain so much. Even in New Mexico there are geographical features which would impair speed. How do you East Coast players handle this? Growing up with a modern road system I feel players think too much in straight line travel.

4. In no way am I trying to start a political debate, but the Bush administration has made the Coalition easier to justify. Let's face it, people place an American spin and American ideals on the Coalition when they played. It is like discussing World War I by talking about the assassination of the duke without touching upon the ideas of imperialism and the alliance system.

I have found two awesome ways in which to address this point

A) Taking initial effort with the players to explain that while you will be trotting through names that you know, it is truly a distant and far away land where a seperate moral behavior is acceptable.

B)Whenever someone makes the following statements I am prepared
-"No way would the CS population follow the government so willingly into war with Tolkeen."
-"You did. Even though the government has told you to your face that our reasons for going over there are false. "

-"Concentration camps? What are we, Nazis? Operation Hardball? come on. It's not tactically sound for advanced armies."
-"Well, the base on Cuba, the systimatic prisoner abuses, lawyers for the government saying the modern paradigm makes the Geneva convention obsolete."

-my personal favorite "The CS is invading Tolkeen? Who would do that? Why not FOM who is an actual threat."
-"Well, considering the U.S. invaded a country that it admits posed no immediate threat to the U.S. while ceasing major efforts to pursue a man who has attacked the U.S. directly on a number of occasions and the government just announced is currently planning further attacks."

[Dustin Fireblade]

Welcome to the boards first off. Brought up some interesting stuff.

1. "Grave Robbing" I see as simply a way of life in a the post-apocolyptic world. Though my players and I normally call it "salvaging." A more scrupulous player would, I think, only limit himself to weapons and e-clips laying around and not take any personal items.

2. On getting crowded. Well its a matter of taste I suppose.

3. Travel. It's never easy in my games. My group are well-versed in wilderness travel and this carries over to our games.

4. Non-factor in my games. Though I'll enjoy the debate from everyone.

[Nekira Sudacne]

1. Players are grave robbers. Have you ever thought about how disgusting of an act it would be to lift weapons and items off a human you just killed? What about cyber-knights? It is a tradition of the RPG to do this but can such a moral character commit such acts?

sure.

ummm. . . can I ask something? what's COULD be so immoral and disgusting about it? I really don't understand In Real Life what everyone's problem is. the dead don't bother me at all.

2. I always hear the complaint that RIFTS earth is getting to crowded for a post-apocolyptic society. I recently drove through the U.S. and I recommend it to anybody for perspective. The U.S., even the heartland, is more crowded than I had ever imagined. States are filled with hundreds of small towns. The population in RIFTS is truly post-apocolyptic.

I never heard that complaint. . . ah well, I think that's just a matter of opinion.

3. Ease of travel: I grew up in the desert where there was little to get in my way. I set a speed of 40 mph as the speed in which the adventurers could cross. However, after driving through the U.S. I noticed it is wall to wall trees from the Oklahoma border to the Atlantic Ocean. Frankly, I don't understand why activists complain so much. Even in New Mexico there are geographical features which would impair speed. How do you East Coast players handle this? Growing up with a modern road system I feel players think too much in straight line travel.

it's designed to be easy ot get from point A to B quickly so the plot can advance. it's not supposed to reflect reality, except where extrodinary conditions may be.

4. In no way am I trying to start a political debate, but the Bush administration has made the Coalition easier to justify. Let's face it, people place an American spin and American ideals on the Coalition when they played. It is like discussing World War I by talking about the assassination of the duke without touching upon the ideas of imperialism and the alliance system.

I never thought the coalition was HARD to justify. propaganda can do a whole lot to people to make them all act like that. look at the Nazi's as the most common exsample.

remember, people as a whole are stupid and easily manipulatied.

[Vrykolas2k]

Whenever I had a RIFTS game my problem was always justifying certain elements. Now while at it's heart there is a sense of heroics and pulp adventure, Americans (me) seem intent on bringing in a lot of modern thoughts and ideals where it may be innappropriate. Here are just some ideas I had to generate debate.

1. Players are grave robbers. Have you ever thought about how disgusting of an act it would be to lift weapons and items off a human you just killed? What about cyber-knights? It is a tradition of the RPG to do this but can such a moral character commit such acts?

Grave robbers? Hardly. Using something that the previous owner no longer needs is hardly ghastly, it is however pragmatic.

2. I always hear the complaint that RIFTS earth is getting to crowded for a post-apocolyptic society. I recently drove through the U.S. and I recommend it to anybody for perspective. The U.S., even the heartland, is more crowded than I had ever imagined. States are filled with hundreds of small towns. The population in RIFTS is truly post-apocolyptic.

Some places might be a little bit too populated but overall I'd say the populations are fine.

3. Ease of travel: I grew up in the desert where there was little to get in my way. I set a speed of 40 mph as the speed in which the adventurers could cross. However, after driving through the U.S. I noticed it is wall to wall trees from the Oklahoma border to the Atlantic Ocean. Frankly, I don't understand why activists complain so much. Even in New Mexico there are geographical features which would impair speed. How do you East Coast players handle this? Growing up with a modern road system I feel players think too much in straight line travel.

Hovercycles, robotic horses, dragondactyls, whatever floats your boat... they get you from point A to B without TOO much hassle I'd say, though that naturally is up to the GM. If ya want to spend a lot of time describing the journey then by all means do so, just try to make it interesting for the players.


4. In no way am I trying to start a political debate, but the Bush administration has made the Coalition easier to justify. Let's face it, people place an American spin and American ideals on the Coalition when they played. It is like discussing World War I by talking about the assassination of the duke without touching upon the ideas of imperialism and the alliance system.

I have found two awesome ways in which to address this point

A) Taking initial effort with the players to explain that while you will be trotting through names that you know, it is truly a distant and far away land where a seperate moral behavior is acceptable.

B)Whenever someone makes the following statements I am prepared
-"No way would the CS population follow the government so willingly into war with Tolkeen."
-"You did. Even though the government has told you to your face that our reasons for going over there are false. "

Reasons for going over where? If you mean Afghanistan, I'd say the reasons were right on... Irag, well, the government had used WMDs on its own people and the Kurds, and were supplying terrorists... why haven't any been found? The desert's a big place, and consisting of more than one country...

-"Concentration camps? What are we, Nazis? Operation Hardball? come on. It's not tactically sound for advanced armies."
-"Well, the base on Cuba, the systimatic prisoner abuses, lawyers for the government saying the modern paradigm makes the Geneva convention obsolete."

We never signed the Geneva convention, though we do follow it more closely than most. Also, the soldiers who "abused" the POWs {who, incidentally have NO Consitutional rights since they're NOT US citizens} have been punished, haven't they? Yes...

-my personal favorite "The CS is invading Tolkeen? Who would do that? Why not FOM who is an actual threat."
-"Well, considering the U.S. invaded a country that it admits posed no immediate threat to the U.S. while ceasing major efforts to pursue a man who has attacked the U.S. directly on a number of occasions and the government just announced is currently planning further attacks."

When did the search for Bin Laden ever stop? It didn't. And if you mean by "immediate threat" were they going to invade us, no... if you mean supporting terrorists, yes. In spite of Michael Moore's little "documentary" {which he is now calling something else entirely}, I think most people are educated enough to do their own research into things and discover the truth rather than follow the fictions of someone's rather demented imagination, placed on film with statements entirely out of context and with dialogue deliberately spoken to mislead the public.

[BobTheCoward]

When did the search for Bin Laden ever stop? It didn't. And if you mean by "immediate threat" were they going to invade us, no... if you mean supporting terrorists, yes.

I am quite upset that the government issued a statement recently saying Bin Laden is planning the next round of terrorist attacks from the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. Maybe if we used all those troops in Iraq in afghanistan instead we would have him instead of half hearted efforts.

I meant Iraq was a threat because my government told me he possessed chemical and biological weapons and was actively pursuing nuclear weapons. Which now they tell me is completely false, but is ok because the world is a safer place. Could you imagine if the government were cops and had to testify in front of courts. "Well, we violated the rules and have nothing pertaining to this investigation but we know he is guilty of other stuff, go ahead and convict him your honor."

It is important in my CS/Tolkeen war analysis because the government was able to make a case for war on evidence that was completely false. The idea that a majority of a nation (It seems like I can include you in the figure) would back it in a world with the free flow of information with the more accurate analysis available does not bode well for a group of dictators even though they are based on the ruins of modern U.S. society.

A) This conversation is innopropriate for the forum now, and should probably relocate. B) Do not bring michael moore into this, I do not like him either. I was part of the original anti-war movement against Iraq (but no the 'blood for oil' morons) two years ago who have been proven correct by a government whose own words have damned themselves.

[Borast]

Whenever I had a RIFTS game my problem was always justifying certain elements. Now while at it's heart there is a sense of heroics and pulp adventure, Americans (me) seem intent on bringing in a lot of modern thoughts and ideals where it may be innappropriate. Here are just some ideas I had to generate debate.

Here's the one and ONLY justification you will ever need...'cause its a game, that that's the way Kevin wrote/edited/approved it!

Sample 1: AD&D 3rd edition. Medeival society where everyone older than 5 years old works 10+ hours a day just to keep food on the table...with 100% universal literacy, when the US, the richest country in the world, can only muster 70-80% literacy rates. Stupid? Damn straight, but that's how the (brain dead) idiots and (space case hopeful) dreamers wrote it.

Sample 2: One of my players (a young mother with three kids, and not a great education) almost created a riot (in character) when she tried to enforce a modern morality when she was all but objecting at sword point over the practice of the farmers around a town we had "inherited" (we were playing with her boyfriend / fiancee as DM) having their kids work the fields for 6-8 hours a day from dawn every day. She was trying to force them to send their kids to school. Oh, we aren't Americans...so be at ease that others do it too!

1. Players are grave robbers. Have you ever thought about how disgusting of an act it would be to lift weapons and items off a human you just killed? What about cyber-knights? It is a tradition of the RPG to do this but can such a moral character commit such acts?

Battlefield scavenging is not grave robbing. However, "good" characters, while they should feel free to take weapons, ammo, food, water, and other necessities, would not stoop to personal effects...except they might. They might, because they might feel compelled to return the precious items to their victim's next of kin - even Aberant characters would not loot the bodies of slain foes for more than what is needed (ie: list earlier in this paragraph).
Unprincipled characters would go further, but would fall under the same basic restrictions a good character would.
Anarchist characters would strip the body bare and leave it nude, selling personal effects as soon as return them for a "reward" to the next-of-kin.
Evil characters (especially miscreant) might even go as far as take body parts or mutilate the bodies for the fun of it.
Personally, for battlefield scavenging the angle is morally neutral. Take weapons, ammo, (usable) armour, food, water, and medical items. I'd personally leave their wallet, dog tags, personal effects, etc... I might even go so far as to do the old battle-field headstone for 'em.

2. I always hear the complaint that RIFTS earth is getting to crowded for a post-apocolyptic society. I recently drove through the U.S. and I recommend it to anybody for perspective. The U.S., even the heartland, is more crowded than I had ever imagined. States are filled with hundreds of small towns. The population in RIFTS is truly post-apocolyptic.

Outside the cities, I've never heard that one.

3. Ease of travel: I grew up in the desert where there was little to get in my way. I set a speed of 40 mph as the speed in which the adventurers could cross. However, after driving through the U.S. I noticed it is wall to wall trees from the Oklahoma border to the Atlantic Ocean. Frankly, I don't understand why activists complain so much. Even in New Mexico there are geographical features which would impair speed. How do you East Coast players handle this? Growing up with a modern road system I feel players think too much in straight line travel.

Hehehehehe...
4 tonne M.D.C. APC running at 60kph.
1.5m diametre S.D.C. tree in the way.
End result: a stopped APC, a (badly) damaged but (still) upright tree, and a crew suffering whiplash, possible broken bones, etc.

Hehehehehe #2...
4 tonne M.D.C. APC running at 60kph.
Small hill with a 40 degree slope.
End result: APC on it's roof after rolling end over end for several seconds, with a badly injured crew.

Hehehehehe #3...
4 tonne M.D.C. APC running at 60kph.
Pothole.
End result: stopped APC, etc...

Y'gotta love terrain!!!

4. In no way am I trying to start a political debate, but the Bush administration has made the Coalition easier to justify. Let's face it, people place an American spin and American ideals on the Coalition when they played. It is like discussing World War I by talking about the assassination of the duke without touching upon the ideas of imperialism and the alliance system.

Aw...bashing the leadership of the US is one of my favourite past times! (Along with 3/4 of the world - including the US). Anyway, no more so than any other administration in the past 100+ years. After all, it was what? Six different administrations that authorised spraying radioactives and chemical and biological warfare agents over American and (with the permission of assorted Canadian Parliaments) Canadian urban centres...

I have found two awesome ways in which to address this point

A) Taking initial effort with the players to explain that while you will be trotting through names that you know, it is truly a distant and far away land where a seperate moral behavior is acceptable.

Sorta like the difference between the Bible belt, New York, Morman country, and California

B)Whenever someone makes the following statements I am prepared
-"No way would the CS population follow the government so willingly into war with Tolkeen."
-"You did. Even though the government has told you to your face that our reasons for going over there are false. "

That sounds like every war I can think of for the last several hundred years...

-"Concentration camps? What are we, Nazis? Operation Hardball? come on. It's not tactically sound for advanced armies."
-"Well, the base on Cuba, the systimatic prisoner abuses, lawyers for the government saying the modern paradigm makes the Geneva convention obsolete."

*turns to the ethnic japanese gamers in the crowd*
Doesn't that sound like an Interment Camp to you? Remember, across Canada and the US, after the Japanese attacked Pearl, citizens of Japanese decent had their properties and possessions confiscated and sold while they were tossed bodily, well, driven / flown / etc, into camps in some of the most inhospitable terrain you can imagine.

-my personal favorite "The CS is invading Tolkeen? Who would do that? Why not FOM who is an actual threat."
-"Well, considering the U.S. invaded a country that it admits posed no immediate threat to the U.S. while ceasing major efforts to pursue a man who has attacked the U.S. directly on a number of occasions and the government just announced is currently planning further attacks."

It's called mis-direction and bad intel...
It's called insanity...Hitler's Germany was doing great - then they opened a second theatre/front, and went from great to so-so. So what did Hitler do? He started a THIRD front!!! Against Russia in winter no less!!!
Stupididty is endemic. Especially in politicians. Something about making all those promises and then not keeping them turns their brains off for the rest of their life! After all, look at GB2, your current idiot on the throne - he supposedly has an MBA from Harvard(?), but apparently has the decision making ability of a 4 year old...anyway, I'm wandering off topic and going into politico bashing, which the author of the line definately didn't want (even though it is fun)!

[Vrykolas2k]

So who were the first and second fronts?

Western Europe and Africa

[Uncle Servo]

1.) As has been mentioned before, there's a difference between looting bodies on the battlefield and actually robbing graves. Even good people in Rifts have to have a certain amount of pragmatism. Of course, it also helps ease the conscience to remember that the dead guy you're looting frequently was the goob who was trying to kill you.

2.) Even with today's population totals you can still go places and not see another soul for miles. Sure there are large numbers around cities -- but as has also been stated before that's the purpose of cities in the first place. Besides, would YOU want to stay out in the wilderness with all those monsters roaming around?

3.) Haven't heard much complaining about how long it takes to get from point A to point B in Rifts... but given that there hasn't been much in the way of highway maintenance in several hundred years it should be pretty easy to figure that it's no longer easy travel (especially east of the MIssissippi).

4.) Back to Sound Off, you !@*(%^ policital hacks!

[Ninjafingers]

4.) Back to Sound Off, you !@*(%^ policital hacks!

Thank you. I was wondering when someone was going to raise this point.

[BobTheCoward]

1.) As has been mentioned before, there's a difference between looting bodies on the battlefield and actually robbing graves. Even good people in Rifts have to have a certain amount of pragmatism. Of course, it also helps ease the conscience to remember that the dead guy you're looting frequently was the goob who was trying to kill you.

3.) Haven't heard much complaining about how long it takes to get from point A to point B in Rifts... but given that there hasn't been much in the way of highway maintenance in several hundred years it should be pretty easy to figure that it's no longer easy travel (especially east of the MIssissippi).

4.) Back to Sound Off, you !@*(%^ policital hacks!

1. Have you ever read Les Miserables? In it there is a character who loots bodies after Waterloo and he is characterized as a lout. (Jokingly) I amazed by you people, players and GMs, have so easily jumped toward "pragmatism." Ever stolen a laser rifle from a fallen enemy? It probably cost tens of thousands of credits, the value of a car. How is it different from killing somebody and then driving away in their own vehicle? [Note, this is 50% serious, 50% devil's advocate]

3. I know travel will be limited, but I'm arguing it would be near impossible in a vehicle and anything small enough to traverse through the forests would take weeks or months. How do you handle it?

[Borast]

4.) Back to Sound Off, you !@*(%^ policital hacks!

All Hail Servo Weilder of the Smackdown Stick

Lynx

Just so long as he's careful around me...I prosecute!

[Svartalf]

1) hey... please remember that battlefield looting went out of fashion only comparatively recently.

Up to the 16th, early 17th centuries, it was standard practice and a major way for fighters (feudal men at arms as well as mercenaries) to upgrade their equipment... heck, at the time, even a good pair of boots was a valuable treasure... so you'll guess about a good sword or dagger or a suit of armor of the right size...

and even from the late 1600s up to the napoleonic wars, when soldiers were 'uniformly' outfitted by their unit, post battle recycling (scavenging for food, water, weapons, powder and ammo...) was still commonplace.

The reason why Hugo depicts Thénardier as a lout is because he loots for plunder and valuables. It's only with the complete modernisation of warfare that looting and scavenging on battlefields went completely out of fashion (or at least stopped being something of which you could freely admit)

So, under the conditions of a post apo world, where every resource is precious, I guess such a practice would be natural. (and even good characters would not hesitate much before relieving fallen enemies of all their valuables... the distinction making them good is that they would not attack people just for that purpose)

[Uncle Servo]

1.) As has been mentioned before, there's a difference between looting bodies on the battlefield and actually robbing graves. Even good people in Rifts have to have a certain amount of pragmatism. Of course, it also helps ease the conscience to remember that the dead guy you're looting frequently was the goob who was trying to kill you.

1. Have you ever read Les Miserables? In it there is a character who loots bodies after Waterloo and he is characterized as a lout. (Jokingly) I amazed by you people, players and GMs, have so easily jumped toward "pragmatism." Ever stolen a laser rifle from a fallen enemy? It probably cost tens of thousands of credits, the value of a car. How is it different from killing somebody and then driving away in their own vehicle? [Note, this is 50% serious, 50% devil's advocate]

And I myself am amazed that you've fallen into your own 'modern perception' snare, even jokingly.

Remember, it's in a post-apocalyptic setting. By this time, 'post battle recycling' has lost its current stigma and has probably become a way of life for combatant and non-combatant alike ("Hey, this dagger should bring enough money to feed me and my family for a couple of days...").

Also, take a look at the post above. Good points there too.

[Borast]

The reason why Hugo depicts Thénardier as a lout is because he loots for plunder and valuables. It's only with the complete modernisation of warfare that looting and scavenging on battlefields went completely out of fashion (or at least stopped being something of which you could freely admit)

That, and the possiblity of being shot as a spy, and incompatable ammo types.

Besides, before you ***** about it too much, look at your grandfathers (and in some cases, fathers) who served in WWII - how many have German weapons and uniform items or the odd Katana taken from enemy dead? A large number of 'em...

[Svartalf]

Yep... but if you ask the person, I bet a large number will tell you they lifted it (or were even given it) off a captive, not a dead man