u/Pyropeace

Science: Group Dynamics: The study of how people communicate and work together towards common goals.

Scope: Used for predicting and understanding the behavior of groups (Human Perception for groups), making plans and identifying solutions to problems that affect groups (Deduction for groups), and negotiating between groups (Persuasion for groups).

Limitations: For our purposes, a "group" consists of a minimum of 10 people. The party doesn't count (unless you have a really big table).

Skill ratings: At base 10, you have a basic understanding of social pack dynamics and how to manipulate them in groups of 10-20 people. At base 14, you can organize and lead groups of up to 100 people and make effective long-term strategic decisions. At base 18, you have an intimate understanding of such dynamical processes as the rise and fall of empires, population booms and busts, and the spread and disappearance of religions. Your shrewdness and ingenuity could reshape the world--if a corp doesn't recruit or kill you first.

So I've been a player for a long time and have struggled to find the right table. Others have told me that my skillset may be more befitting of a GM, but I don't have any experience with it. A GM friend has agreed to help me run a one-shot in a system I'm familiar with, but now I need to find a one-shot to run (I feel like starting from scratch would take too much out of us at this point). As a player, I really like high-roleplay stories that involve solving complex problems with conflicting priorities and limited resources ("how can we best use this piece of land? Should the money fund a school or a hospital?"), as well as bringing together diverse factions together to accomplish results that they couldn’t achieve alone--in other words, I like the Building Better Worlds side of things more than bug hunts and whatnot. Are there any prewritten one-shots that cater to this desire? Let me know in the comments!

Probably is more about the horrible working conditions and general hypercapitalism but I have brainrot so I immediately thought of Spec Ops

So I'm playing a pre-war character (she's technically a super mutant, but only in regards to being green and having a long lifespan, no other benefits/drawbacks) who basically spent the last two centuries years studying the rise and fall of post-apocalyptic settlements. I picture her being a walking Wasteland Survival Guide, skilled not only in surviving the wastes but also understanding settlements and solving problems related to rebuilding society (namely negotiation and various types of resource management). The problem is, the campaign I'm about to join is only level 4, and I'm struggling to find a way to reflect her 200+ years of experience within my means. What skills/stats should I prioritize? How can I balance the need to be a badass survivor with the need to be a face/strategist? Any advice is appreciated!

I'm developing a Fallout 2d20 character concept similar to Point Lookout's Desmond Lockheart: a pre-war ghoul (or other form of pre-war survivor) who worked as some sort of secret agent and is now pursuing secrets from the past (though probably much less of an asshole than Desmond, lol). I'm open to them being from any country, but obviously pre-war america has the most information to use. I'm hoping there's an agency or government position in the lore that could conceivably provide a person with training that would be specifically useful in surviving and rebuilding after the apocalypse; something that combines extensive combat and survival training with topics like leadership, organizational sciences, and resource management. Most likely, this would entail starting as a field agent but eventually being promoted to an admin-level position. It looks like the DIA is the most frequently-featured american intel group in the franchise, but there doesn't seem to be much information on the kinds of positions or roles that exist in the fallout version of the organization. I can make things up if I need to, but if the lore has an answer, I'd like to hear it. Thanks in advance!

If I invest in the Abandoned BOS Bunker, will that effectively put the Sierra Madre's tech (specifically the vending machines) in the hands of my chosen faction? Or is that aspect not acknowledged in-game?
EDIT: Used the Skip Dead Money mod and a spare save slot to get a sneak-peak. It does mention studying the sierra madre's tech, but mentions that a full expedition is "not possible at the moment". That being said, the BOS bunker does have a vending machine iirc, so that's good enough for me, if a bit anti-climactic.

The conversation in this post has sorta become about the merits of FC5 as a game, so I decided to make a new post covering my thoughts on it.

So the Far Cry series likes making the player the bad guy. In Far Cry 3, the player was a douchebag dudebro who was manipulated by the Rakyat using his white savior complex, and the game was a satire of the white savior trope in general. Far Cry 4 is a commentary on geopolitics and the complexities of a revolution, where no faction can be considered good. Far Cry 5 is... what, exactly? You spend the entire game stopping an objectively evil cult only to learn that they were somehow in the right? That doesn't make sense to me. If there's some kind of moral lesson to this game, then I fail to see what it is. What was your takeaway, if any?

Realistically, the fact that the U.S doesn't completely Waco the peggies can be seen as a glaring plot hole. However, what if the government, knowing nuclear war was coming, covertly supported the cult? Admittedly, it would make more sense to simply publicly prepare (or at least to get high-level officials into their own bunkers, depending on how IRL-accurate/scummy the Far Cry United States is). But maybe they wanted to avoid mass panic or something? Idk, probably not the first one to think of this but comments are appreciated.

Don't get me wrong: Eddington definitely retains the tension and psychological horror that Ari Aster does well. But the way that it seemed to make fun of both sides of the political spectrum felt kind of mean-spirited. It's been a bit since I watched it, but here are some of the things I remember that bothered me:

>!-The brief dinner table scene where the one kid brings up "abolishing whiteness", to which the father replies "Are you *r-slur*? You're white!". The joke is obviously that the kid is parroting his friends mindlessly, which is a problem no matter what side of the political spectrum you're on, but the father's response in particular felt like the movie was saying the idea itself was ridiculous, which it isn't--"abolishing whiteness" is just a way of saying that we should get rid of the social privileges associated with race, not literally removing all light-skinned people from existence. The scene felt like it was mocking that position.!<
>!-The constant refrain of "I shouldn't be the one saying this!" seems to further make light of racial disparity. It could be drawing attention to the absence of POC voices to highlight the pretentiousness of the white activist characters, but it's not like there aren't people of color irl who are advocating for themselves. !<

I think that there are plenty of pretentious, uptight leftists out there, and it's right to criticize them. But I don't think Eddington did that very well--instead, it painted leftism as an idea as pretentious. Maybe I'm missing a deeper commentary, but as of right now, Eddington is the weakest of the Ari Aster movies that I've watched. Let me know if you took away something different.

So I just now rewatched Midsommar and I have to say, while I enjoy the themes, I don't understand why Dani finds comfort and acceptance in a murderous cult. Yes, she's on drugs and is heavily traumatized by the end of the movie, but if she's going to snap out of her trip and regret everything, I feel like that takes away from the substance of the movie. Pele talks about "feeling held" and rejecting the isolating selfishness of global capitalist society, but they don't really show these values in practice except for weird ritual stuff. There are a few moments of tenderness, but honestly, it would take a lot more than a nice drawing and a hug to sell me on literal human sacrifice. If they only murdered outsiders, then I could maybe see it, but they also sacrifice their own, which means that being a member of that community is not safe in a very literal sense. I suppose that, if Dani is used to being perceived as a burden due to her mental health situation, the simple act of being included in the rituals could be appealing to her. But you have to connect a lot of dots to get there, so it doesn't really "click" for me--they could've done a better job at being more explicit about this. Also, what happened to that lady she was on the phone with at the beginning? She seemed like an actually decent, supportive friend, which means Dani wasn't entirely isolated.

Idk. Those are just my thoughts. If anyone has a different interpretation of why Dani likes the Harga so much, I'm happy to hear it!

So I recently got a tooth extraction and after 4 days of recovery I just now felt something pop out of my socket. When I got it out of my mouth, it was a small brown lump with some white mixed in. I'm not in any pain, and when I called the dentist they said it wasn't an indicator of dry socket, but I can't think of what else it could be other than the blood clot. I've been sticking to soft foods, not using straws, and taking my prescribed meds. Apparently. dry socket pain doesn't start immediately--should I be worried? Thanks in advance.

So I struggle a lot with depression, not in the sense that I'm sad all the time, but in the sense that I struggle to feel emotional "highs" like most people do. Where other people feel joy, connection, or exhilaration, I feel nothing. I struggle to feel content with the present moment, always thinking (usually worrying) about something else. In social situations, I struggle a lot with monachopsis ("the subtle but persistent feeling of being out of place, as maladapted to your surroundings as a seal on a beach, lumbering and clumsy, huddled in the company of other misfits, dreaming of life in your natural habitat, a place where you’d be fluidly, brilliantly, effortlessly at home"). I take medications and see a therapist for these issues.

I have had moments where I've felt good things; I enjoy good food and other physical pleasures, and I really enjoy certain video games and tabletop RPGs (though those require very specific conditions to keep me engaged). But there's one feeling that I prize most of all. I associate it with the beauty of nature and my childhood. As Shaun Tan, my favorite author, put it; And for the briefest of moments, we did not ask why. The chatter in our heads fell silent, the endless ticker tape of voice over narrative, always prying things apart for cause and effect, sign and symbol, some kind of useful meaning or value or portent--it all just stopped. It's like relaxing a muscle I didn't know I had, like I'm seeing the world for the first time. I'm unsure what exactly is required to trigger this feeling, and it is both rare to experience and fleeting when it happens. I know that I can't expect positive emotions to last forever, but I just wish they would happen more often and more consistently.

I've tried various forms of meditation, and I almost always find it extremely frustrating. It's impossible to keep my mind from wandering, and even when I try to go easy on myself, it feels like an uphill battle. I don't know a lot about Buddhism, but based on what I do know, I wonder if my attachment to these emotions is the problem--maybe I need to stop seeking them out and instead let myself experience whatever I experience. But that thought process scares me, because if I let go of those emotions, I'd have no reason to keep going. If I don't have joy, if I don't have connection, I have nothing. So what should I do? How do I regain my ability to experience contentment and bliss?

DISCLAIMER: I AM AN AMATEUR IN BOTH SUBJECTS PRESENTED IN THIS POST.

So Buddhism would likely be considered a spook in an egoist framework, but I've been thinking lately about the concept of Anatta, or "no-self". On the surface, the idea that there isn't a fundamental self may seem incompatible with egoism as well. But some secular Buddhists consider this to mean that there is no *permanent* self, that "who we are" is a construct affected by things like our environment and even deliberate efforts to train ourselves--a conclusion that is supported by neuroscientific evidence. So under this framework, while there's no permanence to our identity, we can still be motivated by our desires (either descriptively or prescriptively), and furthermore, we can change ourselves to better fit our own desires. This, to me, is reflective of a Stirner quote;

“I am not nothing in the sense of emptiness, but I am the creative nothing, the nothing out of which I myself as creator create everything.”

In (my understanding of) Buddhism, people are led astray by the stories we tell about ourselves--our identity, our attachment to which we must overcome. In an egoist framework, people are also led astray by stories--or rather, justifications for why we do what we do. To me, this implies the Buddhist notion of Anatta is compatible with egoism--one might suggest that identity itself is a spook! And meditation as a practical exercise for psychological and physical benefits is almost certainly compatible as well. What are your thoughts?

Like would a typical expert gymnast or ballerina be extremely socially inhibited? Are clumsy people uninhibited? If not, why does alcohol affect both these traits?

Like would a typical expert gymnast or ballerina be extremely socially inhibited? Are clumsy people uninhibited?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my understanding, NHPs are pseudo-AI constructs that each have a unique origin and lore. What I want to know is where I can find this lore, which NHP is the most interesting lore-wise, and how to acquire said NHP. Any info is helpful, as I am just delving into Lancer today.

I'm a neurodivergent transfemme doing some worldbuilding around a fictional society that ended up having a very unique governance structure in the modern era; money and markets are abolished, with production being managed through on-demand manufacturing (like 3d printing) and using the same principles as capitalist warehouse management (see: People's Republic of Walmart). I could go on and on about how this society is set up, but the important thing is that, historically, it was matriarchal, and I'm wondering if that could be a possible influence on its essentially communist economy. I've read on other posts that matriarchal societies aren't the equal opposite of patriarchy (men aren't oppressed per se), which tells me that women-led societies have qualitative differences from male-led ones. Wondering if this applies to the economic side of things as well. Obviously, in a society where women have more power, control of property will favor women. But beyond that, do matriarchal societies tend to operate differently in regards to systems of property rights? Or are they mostly otherwise similar to more familiar systems of property after the advent of agriculture? Thanks in advance!

So we know that hierarchy doesn't prevent mob rule/popularity contests, it only makes them worse. But anarchy by itself doesn't seem to have an answer for how to make space for minority groups. Yes, free association helps a bit with this, but the cost of effectively starting over can be high, especially for disabled people. So what kind of solutions can anarchists come up with for preventing informal majoritarianism?

AFAIK, Kane never had any personal experience with these things; he's not even from Dallas, according to wikipedia. So what about these particular IRL references made him decide to use them? Is there something about how things went down IRL that contributed to the narrative of accepting impermanence? If he just wanted to make something about nostalgia, why did he choose Valley View and not something he had personal experience with? Very curious about the decision-making process here.