Eruvadhril

Actually, no! And since several people have replied asked for my script for negotiating lower rent, I’m gonna share that below, as well as the philosophy behind it. Full disclosure that I’m not a leasing office person or a realtor or god forbid, a landlord—I’m just someone who has been a renter for 10+ years across different states, and I know for a fact that I have saved myself thousands of dollars by successfully negotiating a lower monthly rent on almost every lease I’ve ever signed. (Also, I’ve only ever rented in the U.S., so this advice may not be as applicable elsewhere.)

THIS!!! Exactly this. I didn’t mention it above because I just couldn’t fit it neatly anywhere, but once while negotiating a lease renewal, I got as far as receiving their counteroffer, which was basically “price firm :(”, but then life happened, so I forgot to respond and accept. The email sat in my inbox for a week. And then, completely unprompted, they magically replied again saying, “actually, nvm, how’s $[number that is lower than our opening offer] sound?”

To them, it looked like I was staring them down cold as ice like

"But the creator was pressured into changing their vision for the worse!" Sometimes this is wishful thinking. Sometimes it is demonstrably true. Sometimes it's ambiguous. If there are documented issues affecting the production of a work of art, you can and should absolutely talk about those as part of your analysis! But 'the creator's vision' isn't real. The version that was actually made and actually exists is. Once I commented that I disliked how an asexual character had been handled in a book, and the person I was talking to said, "Oh, I bet it's their editor's fault." But even if that were true . . . the book is published. I was responding to the portrayal in the published book. I can't analyze a text based on what the other person in the conversation imagined the author's intent might have been. Even when we know for sure that a story would have been very different without certain pressures (an editor who nixed an author's original ending, an executive producer who vetoed all mentions of queer characters, a show that was cancelled prematurely and had to wrap up its plot in a couple of episodes instead of another full season), we can talk about those pressures and we can talk about things we know were cut and we can talk about how the bad pacing of those final episodes were significantly influenced by the circumstances under which they were made. But we can't talk about the platonic ideal of the piece of media, the version that would have existed if the circumstances were perfect, because it's not real. Every person is going to have their own idea on how it would have turned out and these will be wildly divergent from person to person. It's not helpful or productive to get mad at people for criticizing or otherwise engaging with the actual piece of art instead of the version you made up in your head.

"But I understand this character better than the author! They would never have done X!" Look, we've all been there. Do whatever you want with your own personal interpretation. But it's just that: an interpretation. The character isn't real, and there isn't a secret better version of the text waiting to be freed from the tyranny of the person who's actually writing it. You can write an AU, or talk about how, for example, a character in an episodic TV show with many different writers suffers from a lack of consistent characterization, or make a post about how you think X plot point was badly handled or poorly written. And you can absolutely give the character the storylines and development that you want them to have! In this case, you're creating your own text, and it exists, and it can be analyzed either on its own or in relation to the source material. But you can't expect everyone to agree with you, and you can't believe that your interpretation of a character is more real than anyone else's—and especially not that it's more real than how the character is actually written in the text. I see this very often with people who want their favorite characters to be more progressive than they are. Yes, maybe the author's sexism is part of why this character acted sexist. But if you are rejecting part of the text you are rejecting part of the text. Other people will choose not to do this, and you can't blame them for analyzing a character or society as they are actually presented.

the TL:DR:

Christmas special cancelled

Russell T Davies and his production company are leaving the show

RTD has confirmed on Instagram that there was never a script or proper plan for the Christmas special

The show is going out to competitive tender.

For anyone who is confused as to what 'competitive tender' means:

the best case scenario here is that the BBC find a new contractor who can make an acceptable version of Doctor Who for less money and in a few years time we get a whole new version of the show with a new Doctor etc.

Classic Who (pick a Doctor and just start, it's paced differently but trust me it's so good!) - All on Internet Archive (as of posting this)

The Big Finish Audios - Potential Starting Points: - Eighth Doctor - helpful resource with starting points and listen orders - Thirteenth or Ninth Doctor Adventures - still currently releasing bi-monthly so you can hop in with your fav NuWho Doctor! (they've also announced a Tenth Doctor series upcoming) - Classic Doctors, New Monsters - these boxsets are so much fun and were where I started with Big Finish so if you're unsure of the audio format, this is where I started - Sixth Doctor Main Range - starts with The Marian Conspiracy

The Novels - so many ranges to choose from, get stuck in there! - Generally split into Virgin New Adventures (VNA) featuring the Seventh Doctor after the end of classic, Virgin Missing Adventures (VMA) / Past Doctor Adventures (PDA) featuring other Classic Doctors, Eighth Doctor Adventures (EDA), and the New Series Adventures featuring nuwho doctors - Pick a Doctor or Companion you want to hear more from and maybe consult Tardis Guide.

The Comics - again, pick a doctor and eat good

Other helpful resources:

Tardis Wiki (better than the Fandom one)

Tardis Guide (help keep track of stories and where you're going and discover new stories - plus a great community)

Image of Steven Taylor (for comfort in these trying times)

I hope this helps someone <3

After the brutal rape and murder of Jane Woods, two suspects were immediately arrested, Dan "Killer" Douglas, whom Jane had a restraining order against and had left her multiple threatening voice mails, and Amy McDonald, a woman.

Obviously that schema fell out of favour, but the recent return to challenge game/story game categorisation makes me wonder why a binary slider is a more useful tool of analysis than a trinary spectrum like RBG/HSL for colors.

Since you're the closest thing to my dash's resident RPG philosopher, would you mind weighing in? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Please & thank you :)

I don't think challenge/story game is necessarily a useful binary either because even most "story" games will end up engaging primarily with the language of challenge (due to the outsized influence of D&D, a game primarily concerned with challenge) even though they don't realize it. This is something I have touched upon multiple times in the past: most PbtA games tend to cast the player characters as a Group of Heroes whose aim is to Overcome Adversity even though that type of framing is nowhere in the text of Apocalypse World and in fact Apocalypse World is not a good game at all for adventure gaming. A lot of people who think they are making "story-focused" games, whatever that means, still end up making various iterations of D&D.

Like, I don't think we should think about games through a binary slider of story vs. challenge and if that's the impression you've gotten then that might be due to lack of clarity on my part. When I speak of challenge games I primarily speak of a mode of play that largely concerns itself with players putting their characters in adversity and seeking to overcome that adversity, often via knowing how to manipulate the rules and developing system mastery. It's not necessarily indicative of design philosophy.

Like, for example: Daggerheart is, at the end of the day, a challenge game. It might also be a "story" game. Whatever, but it's undoubtedly still very much a challenge or adventure game. The point isn't to create a false binary of story vs. challenge, but to illustrate a blind spot most TTRPG designers have: that TTRPGs tend to be largely about overcoming challenge even when designers think they are bucking the trend.

liveplay ttrpg shows are not 'professional gaming', that's the whole problem I'm talking about. they're entertainment products which make format, content and form choices that would be nonsensical or obstructive at an ordinary table. it's not just "oh if only 'hobbyist' gaming groups (🤮) could pay for all that kit and lighting and professional writers and voice actors".

liveplay production involves story meetings aimed at making the narrative maximally entertaining to a watching audience (not the players, who are also professionals who are there to entertain that audience!). It involves editing (trimming out downtime, uninteresting mistakes, technical issues, moments where the vibe is wrong or there's friction in the room). it involves a room full of production crew watching every move the GM and players make, sensitive to wastage of their time and effort if things don't go to plan. and not for nothing, it involves an entire team of people who need to keep game publishers happy by playing and displaying their products correctly and certainly never criticising them or openly adapting around their shortcomings for the sake of the group's enjoyment.

I've played at tables where we've been lucky enough to have fun props and miniatures and printed maps and sound systems and even a bit of lighting, and where everyone in the group was a seasoned player with writing and performance backgrounds, and the experience was still full of normal natural constructive frictions that are largely if not completely absent from entertainment liveplay shows. player disagreement is normal. stopping mid flow to argue about a rule and look it up and help each other with system technicalities is normal. the music just not working today is normal. the party choosing a direction the GM didn't prepare for and having to adjust their in-character choices a little and tolerate some hastily cobbled together fluff to meet them halfway is so normal it's a running joke. someone finding a scene a little too much and asking for a break or redirection is normal. someone saying something a little ill judged in the moment and having to walk it back with as much grace as possible is normal. storylines not going to plan and petering out without major dramatic resolution, or npcs being ignored and cast off with a shrug is normal. all this shit and more is normal because a normal table is structured around the organic decision-making of a bunch of players who are primarily in it for their own fun and sense of transport, not for an invisible imaginary fandom slash consumer market. which are all the things that make ttrpg play inherently a pretty bad vehicle for storytelling, incidentally!

And sometimes, you have a string of fandoms that are Actually Pretty Good. And the danger of this—the very great danger—is that when you have a string of Actually Pretty Good and even Actually Amazing obsessions, you start to believe that maybe you have taste. Perhaps you are now immune to the indignities of losing it over something mostly bad.

And frankly, it’s starting to really get on my nerves when people read “I think this thing is good. I wouldn’t change a thing about it and frankly I don’t even think there should be more canon added to it, but I am still going to write thousands of words of fic, make a cosplay, and draw fanart” and then completely misunderstand and respond with “yes I agree—I like things that are good too. But I never feel the transformative/creative fandom instinct for them because they are too good.”

compelling worldbuilding (invites interaction with the setting)

interesting gimmick (see: daemons, drift compatibility. subcategory of compelling worldbuilding)

shipping bait (duh)

original character bait (in-universe categories/factions and design elements that make it fun for people to create their own characters)

compelling narrative (invites interaction and tweaks to the storyline: AUs and fixits and so on)

basically anything that invites interaction and recombination. but fandom also has a sort of multiplying effect: the larger the interactive audience of fandom is, the more likely it is to generate ideas and works that draw in more participants. so: