#uglywizardhat

[utilitycaster]

if you're looking for any reason to write and/or procrastinate, i'd love to hear your alluded-to thoughts on people trying to shove already-extant blorbos into a ttrpg space? it's something i've tried to Strongly Discourage (if not outright ban) at my table and i've struggled putting into words why i dislike it so much. like obviously as a dm doing homebrew world stuff it's super discouraging to feel like your players don't want to engage with it, but even beyond that it feels like it doesn't Work and i'd love to hear if you have thoughts on Why That Is

Absolutely! The biggest reason is in fact the one you say: it's really discouraging as a DM, who is doing a lot more work than anyone else, to have someone not want to build a character informed by your world. This is collaborative storytelling, and they are not collaborating. Which isn't to say that player's preferences for the type of story shouldn't be considered, but there is something very different between, for example, Erika Ishii saying "hey Brennan, I would love to play a witch" in a setting everyone in the cast committed to building collaboratively, vs. coming to your table as a DM saying "hey, this is a world I've created, it is inspired by Norse mythology" and saying "cool this is my weird west cowboy OC, why isn't there a cowboy class."

I think the other reason, and here's where I might be guessing, but I think people can get uniquely rigid and protective of pre-existing OCs. I mean...I had a vague set of OCs inspired by a lot of the fantasy stories I read as a kid for literal years, and setting aside that they don't fit in neatly to a D&D system anyway, the thought of playing one and having them die at level 2 against some will-o-the-wisps is really not something I'm open to! When it comes to a lot of the games that have character progression and start relatively weak, like D&D, most people are thinking of a cool powerful mage, not a squishy L1 wizard with 2 spell slots! I think people are precious and impatient and rigid about a lot of their OCs, so they won't take the big swings that you need to make in order to have a good time in a TTRPG because they're too afraid of losing the character before they reach their final form - and, they have a final form in mind that they might be reluctant to deviate from. Sure, some people can get past this; but many people can't. They already have too much of a story in mind and aren't open to the one being told together at the table. They won't kill their darlings and so they're going to freak out every time Darling has to make a death save.

Finally: I personally think character creation is necessarily collaborative, in that party composition is important. To give an example: I have an idea of an Eldritch Knight who learned her magic from the eccentric wizard she guarded, who then died in a locked room mystery, and she was exonerated but considered suspect (and also felt guilty) and so is in need of employment and could easily fall into adventuring. This is a pretty flexible concept in most D&D settings because a lot of the specifics aren't at all filled in. However: let's say my friend says "hey, um, one of our players had a family emergency and needs to leave our game long-term. Do you want to join?" and I say "yes, absolutely" and they say "great, they were playing a bard and were our only healer, though we do have a warlock who can be the party face," I should not play the eldritch knight with no healing! It is in fact my responsibility to roll up with, say, a cleric!

So that's really why: you can and should bring vague concepts you want to explore to a table, but you really shouldn't pick from a fully fleshed out OC because that doesn't engage with the setting nor what the party needs.

[renefitzgeraldgreen]

this is what journalism is supposed to be

but it reads like a fantasy

and in fact, there was no follow up (only the part Aaron Rupar reported was said):

starts at 26:24

i did not call this out myself (in fact, i was taken in, hoped and believed that this exchange had actually taken place)

both abalisk and uglywizardhat pointed this out in the notes

Thiiiiiis is what journalism is supposed to be. The media shrugs at GOP hypocrisy every fucking day, good for this reporter for calling it out instead.

[flashhwing]

hey i literally had JUST submitted a bug report about the march 15th jump thing lmao im glad it's not just me. i've also gotten valentine's day a few times? it seems to be An Actual Bug

that's so funny. tumblr what is Up

[cranesofibycus]

What's wrong with glasses!Imogen?

I have answered this question before and all of my feelings on it as well as a very good addition by @uglywizardhat can be found here.

[utilitycaster]

different mechanical question vis a vis rezzing FCG (I also don't think it's going to happen BUT this is haunting me). since reincarnate requires "a piece" of the dead humanoid...would the tongue even work?? I assume it's as much a piece "of them" as the rest of their parts, but like. it must have come from someone else. (also consider: sams new character is a reincarnation of whoever the tongue originally belonged to. 98% a joke but...imagine)

I think a tongue does count for Reincarnate, but personally I believe Sam should play a mortal being who has a mechanical tongue.

[murderbot-real]

@uglywizardhat

[bananonbinary]

@uglywizardhat: it's definitely Weird and i think copyright OVERALL isn't quite the argument people are going for - it's more of a licensing thing than just 'this is theft.' like when something is under creative commons, you can SPECIFY whether something is available so long as there's attribution, whether it's share-alike, etc. but there's no way to enforce that with AI-generated art! which already inherently kind of sucks and sure your work may only be .00001% of what the algorithm is processing to make it, but like. it's still there. the harm is immeasurably small, but it's immeasurably small to every artist whose shit has been scraped. and those works' contribution to the machine learning pool are important enough that these ai companies are throwing tantrums about being forced to respect licensing, which i feel like is significant. it's definitely not as cut-and-dry as IP theft tho yea

ok i replied in the tags to the first part before you replied with the second part, so here's both of my replies, not particularly joined together:

(part 1)

i dont think i understand what you're saying here. i dont think the license matters at all, because the ai is not actually showing the art it's trained on to anybody. it just sort of…has it. somewhere. it's basically the same as downloading an image to your desktop. no one is materially harmed by this unless it reproduces that art in a meaningful way somewhere, so the moral argument just seems very….shaky to me.

(part 2)

we are fundamentally disagreeing on the definition of "harm" here. you are asserting that ANY piece of an artwork being reproduced, no matter how tiny, is causing harm. like, if i took the five pixels in the corner of your icon without permission, that would be harming you. i don't understand how having like, .000001% of your work reproduced (which isn't quite how ai works but for the sake of simplicity let's say it is) is harmful. have you lost reputation? money? any material object? it's generally agreed that a small enough sample of something doesn't need attribution, because it's so far removed from the original at that point that no one is really connecting the two anymore. i don't think the harm is "immeasurably small" at that point, i think it's just...not harm.

again, this strikes me as a very metaphysical view of "art," where the thing being taken isnt really anything that can be measured, but some sort of ill-defined concept. and i don't think that's a very useful base for a moral or legal framework.

gonna kick the beehive here but i really don't understand the plagerism argument against ai. the chain of logic seems to be

it has my art somewhere ->i dont want that->thats stealing->stealing is bad

but. i dont actually agree with some of those steps? traditionally, having a copyrighted thing stored somewhere isnt stealing in and of itself. if it was, then home recordings of tv shows and burned CDs would be illegal (and oh, the corporations would dearly love to make them illegal). the harm caused is in the *reproduction* of the IP. you can dvr a tv movie, chop and screw it all you want, but you cannot show it to other people. the crime is declared when actual harm is done to the victim (in this case, monetary harm from loss of sales).

so like, when people talk about not wanting ai to be trained on their publicly-viewable artwork, i don't really think that's IP theft in any meaningful way? i mean, i'm sorry your art is being looked at or even stored by people you don't want, and i do sympathize on a data privacy level, but...it's not reproducing anything. there is no measurable harm on a copyright level. you can make an argument maybe that it'd be more polite to ask first, but the argument that it should be ILLEGAL is just begging corporations to do what they've been wanting for decades, and completely destroy the concept of being able to "own" copyrighted material.

(also "ai is stealing jobs" is a different and more complicated argument, this post is about the validity of a copyright argument specifically)

[horseboneologist]

@uglywizardhat the third painting is a very loose version of Cain Killing Abel by Daniele Crespi. Thank you for the ID!!

Also HOW did you recognize the other two, I am amazed

Oh to be a mild-mannered Victorian gentleman on an exciting business trip abroad 🥰🥰

[the-sloane-ranger]

@uglywizardhat

" im gonna get better at art I'm gonna improve I'm gonna get better ''

[lesbian-knights]

@uglywizardhat

why have i been disgraced

[anomyn]

[ID by @uglywizardhat​: a screenshot of oracle peoplesoft, a database-management user interface that looks like it hasn't been updated since the early 2000s and is incredibly user-unfriendly. Most of the page is blank white space. There is a small blue window off to the left that contains links referencing things like "Academic Planning," "Enrollment," "Campus Finances" - this is a portal for a student. /end ID]

colleges will brag about their computer science program then have a website that looks like this

[quantum-lesbian]

@uglywizardhat

i love plushies of Less Huggable Animals like fish & bugs & shit especially the really specific ones u find at like museum/zoo gift shops theyre so so good & important to our ecosystem i would die for my sturgeon plush

[horseboneologist]

#OP Your Mind #tma #Moral Ambiguity My Beloved.........Impossible Decisions With Impossible Consequences #i just think the ultimate tragedy of tma isn't The Fears Escaping #it's jon making a decision rooted his own judgement and everything he's gone through #and like it's fucking SELFLESS and i will die on that hill i see occasional takes that are like 'jon didn't want to risk anyone knowing he #released the fears' and i see red #jon starved himself because he was told over and over again #by basira and martin (and the rest of the crew but iirc mostly those two) #that the alternative was monstrous. and he internalized that! #whether or not that's 'true' or 'moral' or whatever is beside the point. #he truly believes that saving yourself through inflicting Fear on others is reprehensible and amoral and that is the logic he applies #to the concept of Releasing The Fears #and he is TRUSTING HIMSELF and his own judgement of that! until. well. #until martin asks him not to #and at the last moment he casts away this last all-important opportunity #rendering all the suffering he's endured moot #like i joke CONSTANTLY about how every decision jon made was not only the most rational but also morally correct one #but when it comes down to it uhhhhhhh i straight up don't care about whether it's rational or morally correct #i care about whether he felt like he was making it with full awareness of the context and consequences. or at least aware enough of them #that he felt he could trust his own judgement #and the one time! the ONE TIME! he's trusting himself #that the death of our reality is worth just the CHANCE of the fears not touching every reality #fully aware that what he's doing is NOT the will of the Web #he turns away at the last moment #anyways hi OP i didn't realize you're also a magnus archives person let alone the person who made this wonderful comic #tldr jon was right

ID: a picture of a cat covered in dirt, getting grabbed by a human hand. The cat looks CAUGHT IN THE ACT! The text is cropped from a tweet and reads "YOU"

@uglywizardhat

YOU UNDERSTAND!!!! YES!!! THIS IS CORRECT!! I know that it's comforting and nice to talk about them getting a Happily Ever After, especially after the characters went through such awful shit for the whole show, but DAMN IT that ending made me so fucking sad!!

Jon spent that whole show being manipulated and tricked and coerced into hurting people, and in all fairness he did participate willingly in some cases, but SO MUCH of his motivation is to reduce harm. Whether that's by sending his assistants home so he can deal with Not!Sasha alone, or taking on the Unknowing and understanding that it'll mean a few deaths, but believing it's worth the sacrifice, but *still* mourning the deaths that is caused, or maiming himself to rescue Daisy from the buried even after she tried to kill him (and saying that if she kills him down there it's no great loss 🥺). I'm not saying he's innocent or perfect, but he really was trapped in a no-win scenario and tried his best. And his whole arc was him fighting against these forces that wanted him to do harm!! And he was forced into doing terrible harm anyways! It's miserable.

Then we get to the end of the show and he's finally FINALLY finally in a position to actively disrupt this horrible spiral, and actively undermine the Web's plans, and take on a horrible (maybe wonderful) mantle and to the awful thing that needs to be done to REDUCE HARM, and it's fucking taken away from him! Again! There is no grand moment where he gets to reclaim his own life and define his role in the world, however awful and imperfect it may be. No, instead he was overruled and later guilt tripped into making yet another decision that put innocent people in horrible danger.

Honestly, I do think Jon's path was the morally correct one, but I agree with you that in the end it doesn't totally matter. From purely a character-appreciation perspective, I feel like the end of his story was maybe the most tragic thing that could have happened. Going full monster would have been sad, but at least he wouldn't have been human enough to feel the horror of it. Taking Jonah's place and starving the fears would have been horrific, but at least he would have had agency and would have protected all those strangers.

For the record, I do like that the other survivors got a vote, and I like that the ending was so painful, but it hurts my heart when the tragedy of his arc is overlooked.

Uhh umm does anyone else think that - maybe - Jon might have a hard time adjusting to life Somewhere Else? 😥

Text pulled / adjusted from ep 199

Hopefully tumblr doesn't scrungle the quality but y'all know how it is. Id below the cut

A three-page digital comic of Jon Sims from the Magnus Archives, done in muddy green and yellow tones.

Page 1:

Panel 1: Jon is sitting on public transport, looking down out the window with a distracted expression. He is a slim, medium-skinned, dark-haired man with slight pockmark scarring on his face and hands. His hair is cut short and has prominent grey streaks. he is wearing a brown calf-length coat, dark turtleneck, and dark pants. He has a dark shoulder bag on the seat next to him.

Panel 2: Jon looks up out the window with an expression like he's trying not to cry.

Panel 3: Jon looks away from the window and down, with an exhausted expression. The text box reads "It's a matter of guilt."

Panel 4: From Jon's pov, looking down at his own hands. His left holds his right and massages the burn scar with a thumb.

Panel 5: A low view of strangers sitting on a bench in the metro car. Only their feet and lower torsos are shown. Under the bench is darkness. One individual has purple shoelaces. The text boxes read: "It's like it was before." "Fear lurking at the edges."

Panel 6: A view from below of a young asian woman holding onto a handrail, with a cup of coffee in her other hand. She has long, pointed nails painted dark green. The text box reads: "It's not like bad stuff wasn't happening already."

Panel 7: Two young people are asleep in their seat. The man is black with bleached short dreads, and he is resting his cheek on his girlfriend's hair. The woman is white with light hair, dyed brighter green at the tips. She has facial piercings. She is leaning fully back on her boyfriend. His arm is around her, holding her in place. The text boxes read: "We can't take responsibility" "For the hypothetical actions" "Of hypothetical people."

Page 2:

Panel 1: A white man sits on a metro seat holding a bottle of dark soda. He is wearing a beanie and large headphones, and a pale jacket with a big furry collar. His wedding ring is purple. The text boxes read: "We all lived with monsters in the shadows" "And just got on with it."

Panel 2: Jon, viewed from the side. He has leaned his head back against the seat and is staring at the ceiling, with his hands in his lap. In this position, a scar is visible across his throat. The text box reads: "Until we didn't."

Panel 3: A young white girl is twisting around in her seat to look back at the viewer, at Jon. The text boxes read: "There has to be a chance" "It won't happen at all," "Right?"

Panel 4: The viewer is now in the pov of the girl, and Jon is staring directly back at her. His expression is distant and unhappy. The text box reads: "There's got to be a chance."

Panel 5: Jon is standing up to get off the train. He has slung his bag over his shoulder. He is still staring at the girl. The text box reads: "That they'll figure out something we didn't."

Panel 6: A view from above with Jon exiting the train. A few people are waiting for him to get off, their faces are not really visible. One man has gotten off before him and walks away. Jon looks up towards the viewer. Extending from a pillar next to the viewer's pov is a security camera, pointed at Jon, with a purple power cord. On the side of the metro traincar is a logo reading "Citi Web Transport" and an icon of an arrow-shaped web design. The border of the logo and the nodes at the web's connections are purple. The text box reads: "You've got to hope."

Page 3:

Panel 1: Jon's feet as he ascends a set of stairs. The text boxes read: "You can't let anyone else feel that." "That helpless, enormous guilt."

Panel 2: Jon leans against a wall outside the subway entrance. His eyes are closed and his hands are drawn up to his mouth to light a cigarette. The entrance to the subway is partially visible, with a tall streetlamp at the corner of the stairwell. The streetlamp has a narrow pole and wide, flat lantern. The lantern's windows are split into 8 segments, and the one nearest to Jon is purple, taking on the vague shape of an eye looking down at him. The text box reads: "You've got to hope."

Panels 3-6 are arranged as four quarters of a square, and have nearly identical images.

Panel 3: A closeup of the bottom of Jon's face and his hands. He has a cigarette in his mouth and is trying and failing to light a green lighter. The cigarette has a purple stylized eye design as the logo. The lighter goes -click- with purple sparks. The text box reads: "You can't"

Panel 4: The background is slightly paler. Jon's face is more in view. His eye is nearly closed and he looks distressed. The lighter goes -click- -click- with more purple sparks. The text box reads: "Let anyone else"

Panel 5: The background is slightly paler. The lighter goes -click- -click- -click- -click- -click- with more purple sparks. The text boxes read: "Feel that helpless-" "Enormous-"

Panel 6: The background is very dark. The lighter has a flame with a small -fssh-. The core of the flame is purple, as is the ember of the cigarette. The text box reads: "You've got to hope."

Panel 7: Four nearly identical images of Jon's hand holding the cigarette. The descend through the panel from top left to bottom right. His skin tone is adjusted to contrast to the background color, which is a swirl of grey-green that is pale in the center and dark at the corners. The cigarette is burning away and ash is building into a longer and longer tail. The ember is purple. The final hand holds a cigarette that is nearly all ash hanging off the end. The text boxes read: "It's a matter of guilt." "You didn't fix it." "You just passed it on."

[nydescynt]

Literal first reply on this post:

Do not reblog political posts without at least glancing at the Replies to look for debunking/ evidence; this is a baseline step you can take to stop the spread of misinformation.

(Actual question in the tweet is asked at approximately 26:30 in this video, the following exchange is- as stated by uglywizardhat- not real.)

Thiiiiiis is what journalism is supposed to be. The media shrugs at GOP hypocrisy every fucking day, good for this reporter for calling it out instead.

[saintrobot]

As @uglywizardhat pointed out in the replies...this interaction added by the tweet replies just straight up didn't happen lmao. The beginning of the first tweet starts at 00:26:25. Unfortunately, he was never challenged in such a manner throughout the whole news conference.

Thiiiiiis is what journalism is supposed to be. The media shrugs at GOP hypocrisy every fucking day, good for this reporter for calling it out instead.

[agenderdanvers]

The rest of this conversation did not happen, only the initial question and response. The question is around 26 minutes in. Thank you to @uglywizardhat pointing it out in the replies.

https://www.c-span.org/program/news-conference/house-republican-leadership-news-conference/655366

Thiiiiiis is what journalism is supposed to be. The media shrugs at GOP hypocrisy every fucking day, good for this reporter for calling it out instead.