Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Zorajit

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Illinois, United States
  1. The idea that any piece of media is "just that" is the exact sort of privileged nonsense that reinforces oppression. Everything has to be evaluated and held to the absolute highest standard. A work of media wherein the ostensible protagonists are committing crime portrays those protagonists in a specific way. Especially a genre work where there is less inherent artistic value than a literary work that disassembles an immoral protagonist. Your comments, however, make it clear that non sociohegemonic persons have no place in your hobby; so I'm not surprised to see you go to these lengths. I have never identified myself as a "he" and reject the implications and assertion of such. Criminal protagonists are not admirable under any circumstances and they reflect poorly on the identities to which those characters belong. The designers should not be engaging in rote genre formulas when they are capable of creating a work with artistic merit. There are existing tabletop games which succeed at this, such as Monsterhearts and Train. The designers should show only positive portrayals of their characters, and if they fail to do so; then they should acknowledge this and be called out for it. It's lazy, low-brow writing which denigrates the persons being portrayed. We are on the same side of this debate, I would encourage you to acknowledge that I am merely holding the designers to a higher standard than you are comfortable with; and encourage you to join me in calling for greater awareness of the problematic aspects of A:NR.
  2. If you don't like it then get out? You really want to fall back on this argument, the last refuge of reactionaries. I am not afraid of you. I will not be forced out because I want media to be inclusive.
  3. I think we've reached the extent of this discussion as you're prepared to have. The point of deconstruction is to identify and critique problematic depictions in media and I've done that. You've chosen to be an apologist for them and to defend negative portrayals as being acceptable. I don't have to offer an out, it's not my property to design. I will continue to hold the designers to the highest possible standards of inclusion and justice. If, ultimately, this means that their property will always remain problematic and some level then it is for the fanbase to be informed about. Hypothetically, it could be suggested that Netrunner should have been left retired and the rules be repurposed to theme a game about coming to emotional understanding. Take for example the success of games like Monsterhearts in repurposing violent, power fantasies like Dungeons & Dragons into a story game of relationships and discovery. Robin, I won't be responding to your inquiry here. Star Wars is rife with exclusionary tropes and problematic portrayals, but this is unrelated to the topic at hand. I would encourage you to demand justice from that franchise's auteurs.
  4. Part of the goal of holding a work of media accountable is that everything should be addressed and taken to task. This is one of the inherent flaws of genre works that they will almost invariably be reliant on conflict rather than collaboration. So, yes, if a greater percentage of characters were socio-hegemonic I would critique that. The goal is to deconstruct the work, apologizing for it neither furthers the dialogue nor advances justice. To your credit, you have provided an honest rebuttal and I respect that. I would first note that the asterick after trans is found offensive by some communities (it can be seen as symbolic of vulgarity.) But I digress, Further, I would note that Silhouette is not identified (to my knowledge) as American and it may be presumptive to say so. But these are quibbles for the sake of completeness. I didn't address Veteran's Program (or any cybernetics) in my original post for fear of being called pedantic. Further, I simply didn't have the time to critique every card and interaction. But rather than damage my case, this is supportive of it. These are issues that the develops should acknowledge and address, and that the fan community should be made aware of before supporting a property that can at times be exclusivist and potentially hateful. A:NR is a game that glorifies illegal and immoral activity. The characters presented as being involved are descriptive of its designers cultural norms. Critiquing the game does not need to present solvency for its content.
  5. I'm a fan of Android: Netrunner. I think the cyberpunk genre is one of the most relevant subsets of speculative fiction, especially with works like Blade Runner and The Windup Girl. Fantasy Flight has done an exemplary job of representation with the various characters that inhabit the setting. Further, I respect that a significant amount of A:NRs storytelling comes from epistolary bits gleaned from card's flavor so an individual character's personality, motives, and identities may be largely in a sort of quantum state of unknowability and projection. It cannot be ignored, however, that the work is also a product of its time and the mindset of its developers. The decision to portray a character in a particular way is quite intentional. I applaud the developers, for example, for not cheapening the game by portraying Andromeda as a poorly characterized "use heteronormative sexual appeal to assist me in my goals," she is as intelligent and skilled as any other character in the game. However, given that the game is by its basic conceit a game about committing, exposing, and hiding crime there is an inherent negative aspect to every character. No runner can be clearly said to be morally upstanding. Even the most benevolent corp decks have problematic aspects of otherization. Mental Health Clinic, for example, is presumably a for-profit institution and plays on stereotypes of the "evil insane asylum" if not up front, then as a means of unethical research. This is inherent with dystopian fiction. Particular characters are also worthy of questioning. The ethnicities of Gabriel Santiago and Nasir Meidan play on Western European stereotypes of "thieving foreigners." Additionally, Nasir Median can be interpreted to be Muslim; or the increasingly common "reformed future Islam" trope (per Order of Sol) seen also in such products as Dropzone -- suggesting something is wrong with current West-Central Asian norms. Lastly is the gender identity of Ji 'Noise' Reilly, peripheral information identifies Noise as being a transman, possibly against Noise's will. The portrayal then of being a violent, or at least destructive, criminal plays into hateful otherization. Before it is said, I do not believe I am "reading too much into" anything. I expect more of the products I choose to support. I hold their auteurs to the highest possible standard. I seek to open dialogue and urge less negative portrayals of non-sociohegemonic individuals. Thank you.
  6. This is my spin on the "Fun Police" deck. Caprice and Ash defend a remote, the rest pretty much go down bare. ICE is meant to be taxing and porous, encouraging the runner to waste resources on runs into R&D and HQ that won't net them anything but disappointment or the chance to trash an asset before it gets into play and becomes that much harder to burn. It isn't very good for card draw, though it doesn't really want for acceleration, being more deliberate in style. Interns is alright recurse when its needed, I'd like better if I could afford it, but the influence is pretty well locked down.
  7. Wanted to try this out, played one game with it today. I'm not sure if it's consistent enough to be competitive but I did have a lot of fun with it. The goal is to leverage Calling in Favors to fund Legwork or R&D Interface runs. Ideally, one Dyson Mem Chip and an Underworld Contact should be down first turn, this allows for a rig of each breaker and a pair of Data Suckers. Hostage's first target is Mr. Li, or Kati if he's already available. Tell me what you think: The deck's title is intentionally juvenile and in no ways meant to be shaming of Andromeda. We can all be equal in our pursuit of quasi-illegal cybercrime.
  8. Tenin can place advancement tokens the runner's installed cards, (programs, hardware, and resources) and these are often good Trick of Light batteries for this reason. But it can't place tokens on an ID (either yours or the runner's) as it is not considered to be "installed," likewise, it can't place the token on a card still in your hand or in Archives or Heap (hence no Archive Junebug.)
  9. I want to see a console that's not dismissed for "not being as good as Desperado"
  10. To clarify, you'd be a pretty weird runner to NOT spend your Bad Publicity credits hitting Iress because those credits will be lost at the end of the run while your regular credits will remain. Of course, if you're already involved in a game involving an Iress...
  11. How does Feint interact with Guard? Do I still bypass a second piece of ICE if I break the subroutine on Guard when encountering it first?
  12. I come from a background of competitive Policy debate, as well as hobby gaming. It's considered normal, and even rude to pretend your strategy is secret there. It's not a norm in hobby gaming, but I think it should be. I'll offer to disclose my deck list before a round if my opponent does so, ***-for-tat. There's no points for surprising a player. As above, there's nothing to be gained in surprising an opponent, and only negative sportsmanship in pretending you're deck is super secret and, when not in play, will be kept in a locked case handcuffed to your wrist like a Yu-Gi-Oh villain. If after a couple rounds you don't know what to expect from a reasonably sized play group, you're missing out. I'll just come right out and say it. I won a game because a player didn't spend the recurring credits on her Toolbox. I don't have a good answer for this. Not only are there so few reasons to spend credit pool credits over other options, but also because its so easy to overlook, this gaffe could practically be automatic. It's the sort of thing that an AI opponent, even with rudimentary strategy would likely never miss. I wouldn't, this happens. But it is a rules violation and it seems hypocritical to be permissive of violations that benefit only yourself. Again, this is an actual case that came up. And the player was visibly unnerved when I look across the table dully and said "You bounce off Hive." I let the player take back the Indexing and the move (in truth, I let the player take back the first two Magnum Opus clicks made that turn too, although these were immediately remade anyway.) I won the game anyway, the damage was already done by my Power Shutdown, not my opponent's overlooking of its results.
  13. I was about to start a thread regarding some of the same tourney questions brought up here, so I figure I'll ask here and hope I'm not hijacking. I'd like to get a feel for how super-serious you, personally, play. My local tourney scene has some pretty good people, no one I would call out as being unsportsmanlike so this is just curiosity. At what level of competitiveness, with what frequency, or it what situation would you do the following? 1. Offer to disclose your deck lists to your opponent before play begins. 2. Offer to disclose your deck lists to your opponent after a round concludes. After a tournament concludes? 3. Advise your opponent that they have unspent Bad Publicity or Recurring Credits? 4. Object if, when accessing R&D (normally), a runner declares they are trashing a card that cannot normally be trashed, resulting in it being revealed? 5. Advise a player that they have, or do not have an option that would otherwise cause a notable misplay. For example, a runner has had their Corroder trashed by Power Shutdown, but this turn declares they will use Indexing to make a run against a server protected by a barrier. I'm curious, and in the interests of openness, I'll offer my answers if there are a couple of replies, so as not to unduly influence the zeitgeist. Of course, I'm looking for your honest, reasonable case answers, certainly we've all missed BP credits. I once chose to let a Sworsdman trash my Atman despite having the credits and the Femme Fatale to do otherwise, and my opponent won the game as a result. More often-than-not, I find Netrunner players to be a higher class of nerds. Or something.
  14. I think its a fair point, and I've made deck building decisions based on what cards my identity would field, over what the common wisdom suggests are the "best" option. I.E. Grimoire is explicitly Whizzard's console, Kit is seen using Omni-Drives. A:NR has fantastic flavor across most of its cards, and the emergent narratives can be very good. Consoles are the most obviously flavored to match identities. I'd still like to see NBN have some more advertisement assets, I'm not entirely sure why that mechanic is assigned to HB, although I suppose it is efficient.
  15. I'm legitimately curious how you don't see an issue with a first-order optimal strategy of repeating the same action as many times as possible to not be a design flaw. The devs are big boys, they don't need you to defend them. I'll grant the pro-siphn crowd that there are a fair number of ways to counter it, although I won't grant that "spend all your money lol" is a particularly good one. Further, I'd like to know what sort of power level you would see as needing external correction. What if Account Siphon were a program with [click]: Account Siphon. It seems to follow that, if repeating the play isn't in correction, then a player should have greater access to it. If A.S. allowed the player to take any number of credits from the Corp it would at first seem to be over a threshold, but again, if the corp player must always be prepared for an infinitely recurring account siphon then they should build and play around the prospect that at the end of their turn, the runner will drain their credits and receive 2x more.
  • Create New...