![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Since apparently left-handed in-character letters are just something I do.
( Correspondence behind the cut )
( Correspondence behind the cut )
Well, that's over with
23 March 2010 09:30 amWe ratified the constitution last night. Or rather, they ratified the constitution, because Yansing was very unhappy with it and did not ratify. And I'm so pleased that the class is over.
Don't get me wrong. I love reacting, and that was a marvelous game, and I had lots of fun.
But at the same time, it's also a lot of work, and that was a hard game. Yansing may, in fact, have been the hardest role I've ever had. In some ways he was simple. I felt like I got a good grasp on who he was and what he wanted in the first game, and kept it pretty easily the whole way through (aside from the second paper, for which I couldn't seem to find any sources or come up with compelling arguments, and which was generally really hard to write). But being in character isn't the only part of reacting. I spent this entire semester so far having unpopular opinions, fighting battles I knew I wouldn't win. I was frequently one of only two people on my side of the argument. Sometimes it was just me, arguing alone. I'm sure the nationalists felt like there was lots of division within their side, and like they weren't getting what they wanted. But when it came to things I wanted, they usually stood firm - at least as far as Not What Yansing Wants, so I was usually defending my views against at least 2/3 of the group. I've been unpopular before; Louis XVI was not everyone's favorite person, but the way the French game is set up, I at least had the clergy and the nobility, plus![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
tigerlofu, on my side.
I think that there were also more strong players in this game than any other I've ever played. Strong players are good for a game, but it can be rough when you're fighting with them. Maybe people are only attacking your character's views, but one of the strengths of Reacting is that you really care about those views - and that means that these discussions can feel like a personal attack.
And that's not even mentioning the social element where I couldn't talk to ANY of my friends in the game about the game, but had to watch them chatting happily about it, because we shared no common goals, and furthermore half of mine were Top Secret. But that's a chat for another day.
Don't get me wrong. I love reacting, and that was a marvelous game, and I had lots of fun.
But at the same time, it's also a lot of work, and that was a hard game. Yansing may, in fact, have been the hardest role I've ever had. In some ways he was simple. I felt like I got a good grasp on who he was and what he wanted in the first game, and kept it pretty easily the whole way through (aside from the second paper, for which I couldn't seem to find any sources or come up with compelling arguments, and which was generally really hard to write). But being in character isn't the only part of reacting. I spent this entire semester so far having unpopular opinions, fighting battles I knew I wouldn't win. I was frequently one of only two people on my side of the argument. Sometimes it was just me, arguing alone. I'm sure the nationalists felt like there was lots of division within their side, and like they weren't getting what they wanted. But when it came to things I wanted, they usually stood firm - at least as far as Not What Yansing Wants, so I was usually defending my views against at least 2/3 of the group. I've been unpopular before; Louis XVI was not everyone's favorite person, but the way the French game is set up, I at least had the clergy and the nobility, plus
tigerlofu, on my side.I think that there were also more strong players in this game than any other I've ever played. Strong players are good for a game, but it can be rough when you're fighting with them. Maybe people are only attacking your character's views, but one of the strengths of Reacting is that you really care about those views - and that means that these discussions can feel like a personal attack.
And that's not even mentioning the social element where I couldn't talk to ANY of my friends in the game about the game, but had to watch them chatting happily about it, because we shared no common goals, and furthermore half of mine were Top Secret. But that's a chat for another day.
There is a one-day reacting game on Saturday the 12th from 8am-3pm. It's about math (but don't freak out; it's about math in the same way that Henry VIII is about religion, more or less). It'll be fun, and we could use more players. The game is set in 1870; costumes are always good for getting in character.
Besides, you totally want to watch me flail as assistant gm or whatever I wind up doing, right?
If you're interested, e-mail Jim Henle at jhenle [at] math [dot] smith [dot] edu . (Do it now - you're already at the computer.)
Edited to add: There are also walk-in roles if you don't want to commit to the whole time or don't feel like having an actual character. Talk to Jim Henle about that, too.
Besides, you totally want to watch me flail as assistant gm or whatever I wind up doing, right?
If you're interested, e-mail Jim Henle at jhenle [at] math [dot] smith [dot] edu . (Do it now - you're already at the computer.)
Edited to add: There are also walk-in roles if you don't want to commit to the whole time or don't feel like having an actual character. Talk to Jim Henle about that, too.
And I just had to mention,
16 September 2008 03:02 pmI was browing the list of legal book and movie and music downloads helpfully provided by ITS, and on one of the book places, under subject: Fantasy games, I found this:
A Christian Response to Dungeons & Dragons
The Catechism of the New Age
They want our children.
They want our future.
With remarkable evangelistic zeal, the advocates of New Age thinking have captured the hearts and minds of thousands of kids through ingenious cartoons and movies, comics and toys, books and music. Featuring monsters, magic, violence, and sensuality, our children's popular culture has been transformed into a kind of "catechism of the New Age" -an introduction to occultism.
One of the chief weapons used in this spiritual raid on our children is a game-just a simple game. It is called Dungeons & Dragons and has sold millions of copies to youngsters all over America.
In this revealing booklet, authors Peter Leithart and George Grant show just exactly what this phenomenal game is, how it works, and why it is so popular. They also provide a Biblical critique of the game so that Christians can know how to respond.
If you've been looking for a short, concise, and accurate assessment of the current barrage of New Age ideas on our children and our future, look no more-you've found it.
It's 18 pages long, from 1987. The bold text is original.
I may just have to read it.
So, do you folks feel indoctrinated?
A Christian Response to Dungeons & Dragons
The Catechism of the New Age
They want our children.
They want our future.
With remarkable evangelistic zeal, the advocates of New Age thinking have captured the hearts and minds of thousands of kids through ingenious cartoons and movies, comics and toys, books and music. Featuring monsters, magic, violence, and sensuality, our children's popular culture has been transformed into a kind of "catechism of the New Age" -an introduction to occultism.
One of the chief weapons used in this spiritual raid on our children is a game-just a simple game. It is called Dungeons & Dragons and has sold millions of copies to youngsters all over America.
In this revealing booklet, authors Peter Leithart and George Grant show just exactly what this phenomenal game is, how it works, and why it is so popular. They also provide a Biblical critique of the game so that Christians can know how to respond.
If you've been looking for a short, concise, and accurate assessment of the current barrage of New Age ideas on our children and our future, look no more-you've found it.
It's 18 pages long, from 1987. The bold text is original.
I may just have to read it.
So, do you folks feel indoctrinated?
From the pen of Jaclyn
27 July 2008 06:44 pmThis one is worse; I think that she either ran out of the paper she got from Edith, or her paper got wet somehow. Or both. At any rate, I'll add the text of the letters in the alternate text.
( Jaclyn's correspondence )
( Jaclyn's correspondence )
