made some stuff

Nov. 25th, 2025 01:16 am
stepnix: Nanoko from Wish Upon the Pleiades (magical girl)
[personal profile] stepnix

I contributed to the Fabula Ultima Jamloween 2025! behold my will o' wisp and zeta gundam reference

I also got an article in Odysssey issue #2, a brief overview of several magical girl TTRPGs

I think I want to get posting here more regularly. Let's see if that can happen

genre fandom vs music fandom

Nov. 22nd, 2025 12:22 pm
stepnix: chibi Shin Godzilla (Default)
[personal profile] stepnix

my current hobby of being eaten by horses has brought my attention to overlap between pop music fandom, especially idol fandom, and fiction fandoms memetically descended from sci-fi/fantasy fandom. One Direction RPF shares sites with Supernatural slash, terms from "stan twitter" get imported into manga discussion, and so on. Obviously they don't have a shared origin they diverged from, Lord of the Rings fans weren't the primary fanbase for the Beatles. i think. So I'm curious how this eventual fusion, or at least coexistence happened. Maybe it's as simple as demographic overlap teaching patterns of fandom and fans applying it to their other interests.

idk, save me dreamwidth people

flavoring thoughts

Nov. 22nd, 2025 11:44 am
stepnix: Hyaku Shiki mecha (mecha)
[personal profile] stepnix

Now and then I run into the take in ttrpg spaces that giant robot tactical combat rpg Lancer is particularly difficult to reflavor, which is interesting to me because that has not been my experience. My feeling is generally that as long as you're in giant robots, you can port the system pretty easily into other settings or write your own, and even if you're doing like, werewolves in grid combat, you're basically fine. But I don't want to just dismiss this other tendency, I want to understand what in particular poses an obstacle.

"Flavor is free" is a popular piece of TTRPG advice bordering on a truisim: if a bit of fictional description is inconsequential, you can replace it with something else (with "inconsequential" typically defined as "easy to replace," so you see how this gets circular). Its popularity can obscure that this is actually a pretty distinct reading strategy: a player who goes into a game assuming that not everything locked into the overall network of mechanics can be homebrewed into something else is going to have a very different experience than one who takes every description as part of the presented scenario.

Back to Lancer. There are a few elements of the setting very closely associated with the mechanics: The mech manufacturer factions, the licenses they provide, and the "printers" that let players repair or recreate their mechs. Major parts of the progression and resource economies have specific in-universe justifications. I think this is where my reading starts to differ: I feel like the in-universe elements exist to enable the desired gameplay, so changing the setting doesn't "matter" as long as you keep the progression and resource economy working like normal. The manufacturers can be rethemed or be completely reduced to upgrade trees without affecting "this changes my mech's numbers."

But if you're seeing the primary goal of the mechanics as expressing a specific setting's assumptions, then that just won't follow. You can't change the manufacturers without coming up with a new set of mechanics to reflect those assumptions, you can't change what the license rules represent without drastically changing the resource economy, etc. This is a much more restrictive reading, which might be part of why I disprefer it.

I have reason to believe Lancer was written with "flavor is free" and the capability to change the setting for your own table as a base assumption of the writers, closer to my own reading. But it turns out that doesn't come through to every reader. funky.

Profile

tutufans: (Default)
tutufans

October 2016

S M T W T F S
      1
23 45678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags