That list is super helpful. So many games to avoid. Although, I was somewhat surprised by the number of Denuvo removed I’ve gotten through Humble.

I’m still hung up on you “economically viable”…

So, because no one would be allowed to exploit the people for profit, it’s not worth making the world a better place?

Even in the current capitalist society we have, a co-op can make money, (which is then shared equally with workers).

If every company and business were, by law, a co-op, without changing any other factor of society, you’d see all of that excess wealth that’s normally hoarded by the few reinvested into making the economy stronger.

Because right now, under capitalism, we’re always on the brink of a massive recession/depression. This is by design. See, the super rich can’t buy up everything on the cheap, if they don’t crash the economy every few years.

And that’s your economically viable. Working more hours for less pay so that a rich asshole can buy yet another vacation home.

I don’t particularly care if one employee doesn’t work as hard as the others, as long as they do their job. Co-opts have already figured out how to fire people for non-performance. It’s a real job, with real responsibilities.

There’s also more than enough abundance produced worldwide, to where everyone could have a comfortable life, regardless of how hard they work. And with more and more automation, work itself need not ever apply again.

As to how broken governments are, the reason why is right wingers working for the last half century in a coordinated manner to actively break government. They call it “starving the beast” when “the beast” was just making sure roads were built and rivers didn’t randomly catch fire.

Ah yes, the lie of “you don’t own things under communism”

I mean, come on, that’s fucking stupid.

No, the only people who would have any property seized are the super rich, and most of them are lucky if they don’t get the guillotine for their crimes.

You cannot have gross excess under communism, because you’ll never be able to exploit your fellows in order to steal what should be shared.

The workers seize the means of production, and then produce. Then the factory shares the wealth created by the factory. You know, like a co-op.

That’s small scale communism. Everyone chips in to work, and everyone gets a piece of the profit because everyone owns a slice of the company.

Anyway Marx and Engels thought that after reaching that point, the government would sort of wither away and everyone would live in fantasy land utopia.

The other way seems better, a one world government where every single person on earth has a vote, because there are some issues where everyone on earth should have a voice.

But that would require a massive change to, well, human nature to start. Making people less tribal or giving the vast majority of the population the ability to sit and consider what’s good for the Earth, five, ten, or even a hundred years in the future, is a bit beyond me. Not something I’m every going to be capable of doing.

I’ve just not had the excuse to look yet, my life is currently a bit too chaotic for a regular game, let alone one in another new system…

I am working on an open game setting over at https://ttrpg.network/c/Canyonlands but don’t have anything like a plan for actually running a game.

They think that when the revolution hits, they can use Peter Theil’s spy tech to crush it, and then they will go full mask off.

Racist woman saying that because Kanye West has adopted what are basically Nazi talking points, Jewish people can use a specific racial slur.

And skis before skates.

I need to read up on Pathfinder 2e.

I know the “joke” was that 1e was basically D&D 3.75… which was a bit too powergamey for my tastes, so I never even looked at 2e…

I’m not denying that Finn and Poe had an interesting chemistry, I just think that Poe should have stayed dead.

The lingering question of what could have been would have been a way to deepen Finn’s character.

And if you want to keep the actor, well. When Poe comes in to land after rescuing Finn and the group, his first words to Poe are “why are you wearing my brother’s coat?”

And now you have another interesting character dynamic to explore.

Let’s break down your idea of the “right” because it does need to be analyzed.

You say “more freedom”, but you never actually specify who gets more freedom except in a backhanded way of contrasting your idea of the left, who limit the freedoms of companies.

This is an important point. The Right gives companies and the rich, more freedoms, which in historical context has always meant more freedoms to exploit, or even kill their workers in the name of profit. This conversely means less freedoms for actual people who don’t want to die or be poisoned by some rich asshole who wants to make a buck.

You also say Traditional culture, which has always meant more rights to rich white men and fewer rights to minorities and women. Or maybe you want to couch it by saying a push for more religion, which then means less protections for the people who practice the wrong religion.

But you see how every single point goes back to more power for some people at the expense of everyone else.

This is not a bug, this is a feature. Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre both wrote about how this was the desired outcome, and how democracy was a threat to “traditional values” and how the idea of equality was, in their words, repugnant.

There is a direct through-line from those two bastards to every single conservative thought leader of today, and many of them use the exact same talking points.

Every time I try to come up with a different metric, it usually boils down to, “where does the ultimate power lie”.

In an ideal democracy, that power comes from the consent of the governed, i.e. the people and their direct vote. But that’s usually untenable on larger scales, so thus power is concentrated. The how of that concentration can lead to all sorts of axis on a chart, but in the end, the other side of the chart is usually some form of direct democracy, i.e. returning power to the people.

The point I’m making is that the trough line has always been, Right-wing concentrated power, Left-wing distributed power.

The fact that certain dictators have pretended to be left-wing, and right-wing jackasses have gone along with it, is where the deliberate confusion was introduced.

Communism as proposed by Marx is a true leftwing ideology, the Totalitarian dictatorship created by Lenin was communist in name only, it had more in common with Feudalism than communism. Mao was just as bad. An out of touch dictator who told farmers to plant their seeds several feet underground, and when that obviously failed, feasted while they starved.

That doesn’t seem anything like what Marx wrote about, or rather it was disturbingly similar to what Marx wrote about capitalism.

But again, right-wingers love to confuse the issue, because it turns out kings are not popular, so you have to lie to get people to bow before one.

Reagan actively courted the Religious Right, which as everyone knows, was a bad idea for democracy.

Those fuckers do not compromise, because they want theocracy.

Now, the fact that there was a religious right in the first place is a whole other cn of worms.

Actually, going back to the origins of Left and Right, that fateful vote in the French Assembly just before the Revolution, those on the Right of the Speaker’s podium were in favor of the Monarchy, those on the Left Democracy.

Using the terms correctly, you cannot have Authoritarian Left.

The problem was Lenin, who lied about being of the people when he lost the election. He seized power and then murdered the actual political Left of Russia.

It’s just like the Nazis lied about being socialist. They murdered the socialists first.

Horseshoe theory completely ignores the actual origins of the terms Left and Right in order to push a false narrative that they’re somehow the same.

It’s very simple. The terms Left and Right come from a vote held in the French Assembly just before the Revolution.

The vote was, “should the King have an absolute veto over laws passed by the Assembly?” Those sitting to the Left of the Speaker’s podium said No, those to the Right said Yes.

Knowing the true origin of the terms makes defining them easy, if you are in favor of more power to the people, then you are on the left, if you think power should be concentrated to the few, you’re on the right.

This can apply to social issues as well. If you think minorities deserve protection and representation then you are on the left, if not you’re a horrible person.

The economy, if you think everyone should have a truly fair shake, you’re on the left, if you think money makes some people better than others, you’re on the right.

See how easy that is? Which is why the right wing invented Horseshoe theory. To confuse people.

That and some dictators flat out lied about what they were doing and claimed to be Communist.

Because Lenin betrayed the Revolution after losing the only free and fair election that Russia has ever had.

Maybe. We don’t actually know, because most of our information about the skeptics and stoics come from their detractors. Very little of their actual beliefs made it into writing that survived the years.

Is the leader alive or not? Alive is likely a cult, dead is usually religion.

The next question is how isolated from friends and family or society at large are the members. More isolated is more likely to be a cult.

Other than that, there’s not much difference.

The usual setup is a cult is formed and then the second or third leader opens things up a bit and transitions it into just another religion… But sometimes a cult can be born from a religion as a small group breaks off to follow a charismatic leader.

Wait you turn to attack the protagonist. A nice orderly line for one attack and one counter.

Then there was the guy who straight up dropped his weapon before his turn, but pretended he didn’t.

Some good news, ulcers can usually be treated with a simple round of antibiotics.

I will refrain from finishing this thought in order to keep it good news