Brainstorming brainstorming brainstorming!

[brat_inslayage]

Yep, it's that time again. No, not the one where we go "holy crap, how is the month half over already?"

Okay, it might be that one too. But it's also brainstorming-post time. Don't forget, all previous ideas are available for you to look over too.

Watch me not even try to one-up willbedone on coming up with a cohesive witty theme for this post.

[[ocd achieved, so go to it!]]

Comments

Re: General Ideas

[justwantsquiet.livejournal.com]

I just want to make a quick note that 'telepaths' isn't an exclusive (or at least, mostly exclusive) group, and neither do fighters/researchers/magic users tend to be, you know? In the venn diagram of those groups, most characters tend to overlap at least two. We're singling out those with psionic/telepathic/et al abilities the way we'd be like "And this affects everyone with super-strength!" and I'm not sure that's fair to do, since I think nearly all our telepathy types have at least one secondary ability (if not a tertiary one, and so on) and thus can also be fighters/researchers/healers/etc.

So really, there's no reason the telepaths - or those with psychic sensitivity - can't be affected by this and not save the day, because odds are that those guys have been part of (or could conceivably have been part of in the past) the rescueeeee! because they're also researchers, fighters, healers, magic users, etc.

I have no idea if that makes sense, but I guess what I'm saying is that odds are even as far as making them the most affected group/the least affected group, as far as fairness goes. And I say that as someone who thinks putting Sook in either group sounds awesome.

Re: General Ideas

[apples-n-poetry.livejournal.com]

And many of our fighters can heal/use magic, etc etc etc.

I still do not believe it is wrong to consider and suggest doing a plot that focuses more on one group than another in some facet of the planning.

Because, honestly, from my point of view: nothing is fair anyway. Which is not particularly a happy thing to say but speaking as someone who is used to their ideas getting shot down and who is used to being disagreed with and who is used to having their character passed over because someone else can do yadda-yadda-yadda better? I fully admit that I am not being entirely fair either.

But then, I honestly haven't noticed people being fair back in my direction. Which is my two honest cents that people probably don't want to hear about anyway. (Which is not meant as bitter and/or disruptive or anything else, merely fact-as-I-see which may or may not be fact-as-it-is, but we all have our own biases.)

And besides, this is all suggestion anyway, so I'm--kinda hurt that you felt the need to spell that all out to me like I didn't already know it because it seems very--'let's say something for the sake of it' and that's kinda mehy.

Re: General Ideas

[justwantsquiet.livejournal.com]

Fairness or not of the prior situation aside, I'd venture that it isn't very fair to assign intention to someone else's comment, and that I don't know that yours is particularly constructive. I had a longer comment, but at this point, I feel like anything I say is going to run the risk of having intent assigned to it no matter what I say.

So I'll just say I'm honestly sorry you read my comment that way, and that's not how I meant it to come across.

Re: General Ideas

[trigons_child]

Your comment is kinda coming across as a passive-aggressive "Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, I'm gonna go eat worms."

And *that* is unfair.

Re: General Ideas

[apples-n-poetry.livejournal.com]

Erin and I settled our discussion about this on AIM.

Thank you for your input.