Christian Hendriks

Christian Hendriks

@cerhendriks.bsky.social

Work & volunteering: box office/ticketing coordinator, museum collections. Education: MLIS, English lit MA. General: Ontarian, Anglican, autistic, leftist, TTRPG hobbyist, he/him/his. Opinions are never wholly one's own, but I'm responsible for mine.

277 followers429 following2.6K posts

Pinned

Replying to @cerhendriks.bsky.social

I have not often been asked what I meant by the things I've written, but you can quote me if you like: I meant all the metaphors I intended and several of the ones I didn't.

Back on Twitter, after watching THE SHIPPING NEWS, I mused that CanLit has enough overlap with folk horror that you could do a hybrid very easily, in something that resembles an Alistair MacLeod short story but horror. Well, I'm watching BELOW, and they've finally done it.

In THE GOD DELUSION (2006), Dawkins likened Muslim children to "deluded parrots," called Christian feminists "hysterical," and said the problem with Muslim women wearing the veil is that they deprive British men on the street of their beauty. His bigotry has been evident for 20 years.

Ironic that Richard Dawkins has spent most of the last thirty years denouncing Christians as backwards and barbaric and then comes out as a vicious transphobe; way way way to the right of most Church of England clergy

View full thread

Look: I'm plenty aware that the list of Christians who have said comparable things is very long indeed. This is not, in any way, to say, "Oh, see, they're just as bad!" Not at all. My point is only to clarify the timeline: Dawkins's bigotry was subtle but evident as early as 2006.

In THE GOD DELUSION (2006), Dawkins likened Muslim children to "deluded parrots," called Christian feminists "hysterical," and said the problem with Muslim women wearing the veil is that they deprive British men on the street of their beauty. His bigotry has been evident for 20 years.

Ironic that Richard Dawkins has spent most of the last thirty years denouncing Christians as backwards and barbaric and then comes out as a vicious transphobe; way way way to the right of most Church of England clergy

(re: the Muslim children: at least as far as I noticed, he never called Christian children at prayer either "deluded" or "parrots." In the work of his that I read, Dawkins was plenty critical of Christians, but he saved the animalizing and the really over-the-top ableist language for Muslims.)

Christian Hendriks reposted

Replying to @cerhendriks.bsky.social

This is what strikes me about the bizarre US Presidential trend of alleging to change the names of things by fiat. It implies a view of politics in which one simply foists one's views of things onto the world without the mediation of practical engagement with the world.

View full thread

To be clear, this is neither a pro-public-order-by-state post nor an anti-public-order-by-state post. Purely descriptively, vigilantism is a threat to the kind of public order that can be promised by a state. A state that endorses vigilantism is not creating public order.

Imagine if The Odyssey ended with Athena saying, "From now on I want you to continue doing what you've been doing with the blood vendettas. In fact, I want you to do it more often."

In a sense I suspect all politics involves living in someone else's psychodrama, but at the very least some practical policy also winds up being discussed. What's frustrating about the present moment is that "other people's psychodramas" seems to be all there is.

OK, I think if I ever make my own class-based system, a core design choice will be that your class gives you things you can do consistently and your subclass gives you cool moves you can do situationally. Every subclass would be like that, so it wouldn't be a problem for any one subclass to do it.

Christian Hendriks@cerhendriks.bsky.social

Your class should give you something unique in every combat encounter. That's what your class is for! Your subclass, meanwhile, is where things can get a bit weird ... right? Well, maybe not if you want many people to play it?

I was talking to my brother about MtG yesterday and one of the disconnects between different sorts of players; specifically, how you might find some exciting mechanic and tell the Internet about it, only for people to tell you it isn't very good because the chances you'll pull it off are quite slim.

View full thread

Your class should give you something unique in every combat encounter. That's what your class is for! Your subclass, meanwhile, is where things can get a bit weird ... right? Well, maybe not if you want many people to play it?

I was talking to my brother about MtG yesterday and one of the disconnects between different sorts of players; specifically, how you might find some exciting mechanic and tell the Internet about it, only for people to tell you it isn't very good because the chances you'll pull it off are quite slim.

My response is always, "But when you *do* get to pull it off, it will be so cool!" This is not a novel insight. What is new is that I think this is why I often struggle when making subclasses for D&D.

The general attitude seems to be that a subclass should offer something unique in nearly every combat encounter. I don't automatically think like that. I want to give subclasses niche things that will be *so cool* in their moment. Sure, it won't come up most of the time ... but when it does, wow!

I'm imagining a love letter like Darcy's to Elizabeth: "Here are all the reasons I shouldn't love you but I do anyway." Or a love letter like an admiral's to the pirate captain he loves: "I love you and when we next meet, one of us will have to die."

This post is unavailable.

Sometimes I look over my Bluesky posting and feel a bit embarrassed about how shallow I seem to have become: it's almost all about games, and nothing any more about philosophy, religion, or politics. Then I remember how those conversations tended to go on here and I stop worrying about it.

As with Based and Superstructured, I'm not quite sure what "games that shaped who I am" means. However, I could explain to you how each of these games changed how I related to games or what I thought games can be, which is probably good enough. These are in no particular order.

This post is unavailable.

Christian Hendriks reposted

The ag lobby really, really, really, really, really, really, really wants you to think AI is the reason reservoirs are going empty. It's not. It's agriculture.

Kent Lind@camasonian.bsky.social

We have data on this. The blue is all the non-ag human use:

Christian Hendriks reposted

Let's do this right here: Time recording in your TTRPG play: Do you do it / have you done it to any significant extent? I mean everything from "We mark days on an in-world calendar of events" to "Someone notes down what happens during our dungeon crawls (mostly in order)" and beyond. Tell me!

I do like it when there's some kind of implied story in these little bots that you can't quite get the edges of. If so many of the residents are clowned, why is vaudeville banned? Is it because they're soldiers now? There's something there, but I don't know what.

Wasteland Waystops@wastelandwaystops.bsky.social

You come upon an isolated fort made from shipping containers. An unusually high number of residents are clowns. Vaudeville is banned here.

I do like it when there's some kind of implied story in these little bots that you can't quite get the edges of. If so many of the residents are clowned, why is vaudeville banned? Is it because they're soldiers now? There's something there, but I don't know what.

Wasteland Waystops@wastelandwaystops.bsky.social

You come upon an isolated fort made from shipping containers. An unusually high number of residents are clowns. Vaudeville is banned here.

View full thread

The random creation of intelligible relationships appeals to me, of course, but I think the random creation of *almost* intelligible relationships appeals to me more. I want to have to put some work into it.

I do like it when there's some kind of implied story in these little bots that you can't quite get the edges of. If so many of the residents are clowned, why is vaudeville banned? Is it because they're soldiers now? There's something there, but I don't know what.

Wasteland Waystops@wastelandwaystops.bsky.social

You come upon an isolated fort made from shipping containers. An unusually high number of residents are clowns. Vaudeville is banned here.

Contrast it with this one, immediately prior: bsky.app/profile/wast... Two possibilities leap out to explain the ubiquitous nudity: brigands are notoriously licentious; if many of them are clones, they may figure that their bodies aren't anything the others haven't (more-or-less) seen.

Wasteland Waystops@wastelandwaystops.bsky.social

You come upon a beleaguered brigand camp made from adobe bricks and ceramic tiling. An unusually high number of residents are clones. Public nudity is ubiquitous here.

I remember @smrvl.bsky.social kicking around ideas in this neighbourhood (not on here). I do really like the idea of plot armour with a specifically-shaped hole in it; a lot of people seem to think that diminishes the tension but, if you build that hole right, it can ratchet it up!

Kenzie@kenzius.bsky.social

I'm playing with the idea of a system where in any given session, one of the played characters has a pre-specified 'plot armor' effect. This character can still take injuries like normal, but in case of death....doesn't.