Has tabletop ever helped you find love?

>Communism
>Good

Once a few years back actually. I almost ended up married because of it (though things didn't end well for various reasons).

I first met my wife playing D&D through a mutual friend. We didn't really start talking or dating until later, and I likely would have met her at some point afterwards, but I remember helping her fill out her first character sheet.

That's kinda how mine went actually (up until the part several months after I proposed she decided it would be best to tell me she wanted to end things over FB)

playing dnd was one of the way i got to know my current gf

And I fucking forgot to remove my name from that quest I was a part of T_T

how's the liberal arts college treating you?

No, but it did teach me that love can bloom

>That's kinda how mine went actually (up until the part several months after I proposed she decided it would be best to tell me she wanted to end things over FB)

My condolences. We've been married 5 years, had been dating for 4 or 5 years and my wife admitted that she was seriously entertaining the idea of proposing to me before I finally popped the question.

Its fine man. This was 3-4 years ago. Besides, me and her were only engaged for a few months when it happened, and I got my family heirloom back without any hassle

>be me
>sapiophile
>find qt grill
>sapiophile 2
It happens, it works. Board games are nice because it's more stimulating than TV or movies (for the most part)

There's nothing wrong with being dumb, or wanting a dumb girlfriend

nope, but larping did helped

My boyfriend claims that it was during a game of the Dresden Files RPG (I was the GM) that he slowly fell in love with me. (We were also in a Pathfinder game and a weekly boardgames club at the time.) I had been interested for a while, and I finally asked him out after one of the sessions (after he dropped a couple of subtle-as-a-brick hints). Three years and an international move later, we're still together.

I met my exgf on a RP forum
Our relationship didn't survive to her going in college and having to work a ton to graduate
I'm planning to get her back this summer

I actually started playing tabletop because of a girl I liked, and I had the first relationship I really cared about with her. She left, but the roleplaying stayed

Yes, I regularly look under chairs for dice. I occasionally find a love or two.

Flipping that chart on it's side has some pretty interesting effects.
>Anarchism-Good
Sort of makes sense for a "Good" society. When the majority of the population is "good," you can afford to have anarchy. If the average person in that society will act in the best interests of each other and the group that kind of freedom is easily afforded.
>Fascist-Evil
Similarly in a society were everyone is actively trying to fuck each other over, only strict government control will do. The people cannot be afforded a voice because they will immediately abuse it.
>Democracy-Neutral
People may be self-centred but most of them want things to work, for themselves and to an extent their community. They probably won't take initiative to do good but respect the consequences of evil enough to stay out of trouble. They won't manage themselves without governance but can be trusted with limited say in how the governing body operates.

And of course Communism becomes Law
>Everyone work for the community
and Captialism becomes Chaos
>Work for yourself and the rest will sort itself out

Not entirely accurate by any means but a ___fun___ way of looking at it.

>this thread

It didn't help me 'find' it but it did confirm it; I remember a memorable night in bed together laughing over the Book of Erotic Fantasy.

Funfact: Communism is more inherently good than capitalism is

...interesting argument. I guess I'd agree? In practice capitalism makes more good, but in theory communism is better and more noble?

Fun fact, communism has led to more deaths in the 20th century than Capitalism has.

But hey, it's still better, right?

Well, the idea behind both of them is good, but nobody can deny that the dog-eat-dog mentality that inevitably takes root in capitalism is the textbook definition of evil. The principal of capitalism is that people compete with each other to bring the society as a whole to greatness, but in reality it just becomes "Fuck you, I've got mine"

On the other hand, Communism runs on an innately more selfless ideal, but is unfortunately prone to corruption due to the fact you still currently need people in place to run it.

So really, when it comes down to it, the real problem of evil in society is that people just refuse to get the fucking shit together and stop being fuckups.

>she
So, you really didn't notice that he referred to his significant other as "they"?

He's a dude, and his fiancee is either a dude or some form of trans.

Actually, the deaths under the likes of Russia wasn't due to the presence of a Communist system but due to the sociopathic ambition of the dictators who ended up in charge of those systems.
So lets correct your statement a bit, shall we.

Fun fact: Dictatorships have led to more deaths in the 20th century than Democracy has.

The best part is that in theory a dictatorship can be a much better system than any democracy, but it requires the dictator and his government to be completely incorruptible and genuinely want the best for ALL their people, not just themselves/their buddies. This applies either in the case of a capitalist society, where they are an authority that makes sure the system doesn't crush those at the bottom and stops the wealth stopping at the top, usually through taxation, or in a communist system where they make sure the resource pool is genuinely fairly spread.

Capitalism at least does result in competition between corporations at the very least, which typically has great benefits for the consumers at large.

but if the government is completely incorruptible and genuinely want the best for ALL then isn't democracy just as good?

Communism can't work above the tribal level without a dictatorship.

But again, the problem here is the tendency for people to be dicks to each other and the unfortunate trend of most dictators being power-hungry warlords who got their power through a military coup of some kind.
As such, when these already corrupt dictators get drawn to communism it isn't because they want to have everyone to have an equal share, but because they just want a system which means they have more power over stuff.

We cannot really judge the intrinsic merits of communism over capitalism until we see the system operating in a democratic society as well as a dictatorship, so we can observe it like we can capitalism (no, China does not count because in function it is neither democratic or communist)

How would you call a communist society but with no working class because robots and AI do all the jobs?

Technocratic socialism.

That it does, for no system is without merit, but it also leads to a massive wealth imbalance and as much as many would like to think, it really needs slapping back down every now and again before it leads to the 1% scenario.

Indeed it is, but one merit the benevolent dictatorship has is an ability to have a coherent plan well in advance and not having to worry about the plan being scrapped by the next party if they don't get voted in next time. Also democracy has a constant changing flow of people in charge, which while good in the sense that it allows new ideas to keep coming in and a good supply of fresh viewpoints, does increase the odds of corruption sneaking in, especially from those who can influence the voters (case in point; Rupert Murdock)

Well, in theory it can, but it is a lot more difficult to keep running smoothly for the reasons stated above.

Skynetsooncracy is what I think I'd call that

>Indeed it is, but one merit the benevolent dictatorship has is an ability to have a coherent plan well in advance and not having to worry about the plan being scrapped by the next party if they don't get voted in next time. Also democracy has a constant changing flow of people in charge, which while good in the sense that it allows new ideas to keep coming in and a good supply of fresh viewpoints, does increase the odds of corruption sneaking in, especially from those who can influence the voters (case in point; Rupert Murdock)
yes but we started from a ideal point where every memeber of the government is ideal.
Technically if a democracy works well it has more "failsafes" so the corruption cannot spread. Dictatorships have less of that.

Then again this is in an ideal scenario which frankly will never exists

Nuh-uh, she's gonna be my wife.

True. Once you somehow reach the point to truly benevolent government the system used is a case of swings and roundabouts.

Which only serves to demonstrate humanity's talent for bringing out the worst in every system of government we can find.
God dammit, humanity, you could have had it so damn good.

but would be a benevolent government in reality always beneficial to everyone? it's conflict that drives us forward

Met my GF after I moved and started a new Call of Cthulhu group. Even got her to dm

Humanity does actually progress without conflict, but it would definitely be a much slower and more gradual progression, rather than the sudden and often violent jumps forward we can often point towards in history.

Nothing wrong with that though. I'm a dude, and I met my boyfriend similarly.

No. But I found plenty of hate. I sustain it fondly.

Unfortunately, yes.

A male fiance only has one e.

The difference is more subtle when spoken rather than written.

>They
So you're dating a tranniy, eh?

The only person who ever had a remote interest romantically in me was a guy I met while playing Magical Burst. He was really kind and actually funny, but I'm not gay and I had to leave the group after the game for reasons unfortunately. I guess love does show up on tabletops, but it's like in anywhere else... You have to learn to keep it if you want it that badly.

Not necessarily, because in a democracy the government is beholden to the people. If society at large doesn't like a policy for whatever reason a democracy isn't going to pass that policy, no matter how useful or effective it may be.

A benevolent dictatorship requires that the ones in charge want to do good and understand how to accomplish it.
A benevolent democracy requires that the ones in charge want to do good, know how to accomplish it, and can convince the majority of their constituents that their plan will do so.

It also requires that most of the population of the county also be benevolent and intelligent, otherwise the parties they elect aren't going to keep being benevolent.

>Dictatorships have less of that.
Actually they have the strongest failsafe of all: a benevolent dictator's orders. While even the most well-designed democratic process leaves gaps, even ones as simple as "run a really good PR campaign and get your crony elected legitimately", a dictatorship is as airtight as it's leader is attentive.

Or it's a girl dating either or.

>a benevolent dictator's orders
I don't actually trust a shitload of aphorisms, but the bit about power and corruption holds true wherever. Why, just look around you.

>It also requires that most of the population of the county also be benevolent and intelligent
I think that's your key statement there. People are dumb. Fucking dumb.

The fact that we encourage dumb people and the easily influenced to vote out of some misguided sense of duty instead of leaving it to the people who care (are benevolent) and put in the effort to be intelligent is why, as you put it, democracy doesn't work.

It's a complex world and it's only going to get more complex. So much energy is exerted on getting through life that nobody has anything left in them after a job, family, and life to care about the bigger picture and thus vote based on the statements of charismatic demagogues.

I'm not saying that dictatorships work, even benevolent ones. I'm just finding that democracy is not going to work for our world. It's not going to work when Coca Cola and Microsoft have more influence than a small country like Sweden or a state like Oregon.

>So much energy is exerted on getting through life that nobody has anything left in them after a job, family, and life to care about the bigger picture
It was very much engineered this way. No elite likes having the people in the streets.

I want to believe that we've moved away from the wholesale exploitation of workers that the world has practiced before the 1920s spanning the entirety of human history.

But it's just gotten worse. Yes, our workdays have gotten shorter, food scarcity is hardly a problem, we have medicine, entertainment, and security. I think what the issue is is that we've stopped caring about making lives better for everyone. We don't care about improving housing density to reduce commuting, we don't improve public transit to alleviate all the costs and stresses of maintaining a vehicle, we've committed less to teaching people (in the home) and rely on a school system that is design around producing people who can follow instructions, and a million other things.

We've loaded up peoples' lives so much that they can't care. I don't think the elite have explicitly done that for reasons besides making money by pushing on society, "You need all this extra shit and when you get it you need more".

I think there is much to be had from life that doesn't involve owning a boat or useless shit in your house (i.e. decor from Target).

I think the greatest reason why our society has become so busy/shit is the fact that both parents have to work now. We've allowed wages to become so shit for people that they cannot afford the basics so they sacrifice family building so they can have a roof for their heads and to pay for the excesses pushed at us by the "elites" who are only greedy for growth and sales.

I don't think there is maliciousness at work there. I think we've just stopped caring (due to endless distractions in media) about the nobodies on the street and the quality of their life.

>what are oil wars

Why can we always seem to have the option of benevolent dictatorships, but never benevolent democracies?

>You will never love a woman you can touch
>You will never touch a woman you can love

We care, it's just such an overwhelming problem.

You and me did not evolve to handle this kind of problem singularly or collectively. It is an out of context problem for clever, tool and language using omnivorous apes originally native to Africa that just sort of evolved to take advantage of opportunity as it presented itself, be afraid of the dark, favor the local, familiar, and genetically related, and ultimately be steered in a fairly powerful way towards seeking the resources and security necessary to conceive and raise another generation of the same, and thereafter to defend these things.

Maybe a bit of margin seeking to make sure it's safe, often to an obsessive degree, but it does work. A lot of the things that are ultimately dysfunctional in our current context have an unfathomable in length track record of being rewarding from an evolutionary perspective.

Even to the extent a lot of it isn't actively bad, the way we are wired also isn't really well suited to these issues of larger planning and effective action on such a scale anyway.

Never mind the difficulty presented by human nature causing us to pull in different directions very manfully and have incentives to resist being hitched to the same team in the first place. (I GOT MINE WHY SHOULD I PAY FOR THAT LAZY BUM LET THE MARKET CORRECT. Although I might also criticize the other direction, which would be missing the forest for the trees and not being stern enough with people and demanding accountability and turning them out like lepers if they abuse you too much as a charity or opportunity. And people will. Cripples and poor people and the disabled can be devious and uncooperative and shitty.)

Because it's easier to imagine counting on one good and intelligent man than a good and intelligent society.

It's that simple. People are shit, this will never change.

But it's very easy to imagine one strong individual to alleviate the worry in all; why we think that can be attributed to fiction, stories of heroism, or simply the fact that everyone (religious or not) knows of some story of some Jesus figure who will come back one day and solve all the problems.

No, I found my love in an anime.

I'm not gay so no. Don't plan on becoming gay anyways since that shit is gay.

I met my fiancee through tabletop, we've been together for four years, living together for two, engaged for one. Getting married before too terribly long. We just moved cross country together, so we haven't been able to game in a while, but we've finally met some other gamers, and should be back to it soon.

I'm replying to acknowledge what you've said and will have to think about it. But I lack the time at the moment to process and think further about your post.

>Because it's easier to imagine counting on one good and intelligent man than a good and intelligent society.

But everyone does know he will need a bureaucracy under him to actually run the whole shebang right?

well no, cozz i'm not searching for it in the first place.

>Finding love on the battlefield thread
>Discussing the finer points of capitalism v communism

Fuck I love Veeky Forums.

Democracy is a group effort.
As said, democracy may or may not pass good policy.

A dictator runs society like a business structure. It's certainly not going to be perfect but the dictator will surround themselves with like-minded people who will enact their will. The bureaucracy will be an extension of the dictator's like the COO and CFO are an extension of the CEO's direction.

Consider the Pope. If the Pope says it, IT IS DONE. I know that's not actually how it works but bear with me - the Pope has the authority to dictate policy and it is passed down. And even if it gets fucked up and distorted by the time it gets to the priest, the desired effect will eventually be achieved.

Democracy, even our representative democracy doesn't work like that. Democracy, benevolent or not, is the function of some couple thousand elected officials and deputy officials clusterfucking together and compromising whereas the dictator just gets shit done.

>love

>Fascist Communism
>Fascist Socialism

this is pure ideology

If anything it's been more responsible for helping me lose love, but I guess I have a small crush on one guy in one of my gaming groups if that counts...?

this I've fallen for my ERP GM only he's straight

>A dictator runs society like a business structure.
They absolutely do not. A business structure works within a framework of law, on almost every level. A dictator works within the context of international law, and the willingness of other countries to come in his to kill and to have citizens killed, spend hundreds of millions of whichever currency you like best to wage war, and face various diplomatic strangleholds. And I'm talking about countries that would want to remove him, because many just don't give a fuck about a given dictator, or worse, actively help them.

A CEO, or a company, doesn't hold the life of a country in his hands (even though they sure try these days).

>And even if it gets fucked up and distorted by the time it gets to the priest, the desired effect will eventually be achieved.
You're identifying the problem, and conclude by saying there is no problem? Please.

And yes, the absolute best leadership a country can have is an absolute dictatorship by a benevolent dictator. I hope I don't have to explain the problems with that, because it's the same as every other absolutist ideology ever: humans aren't perfect.

reminder that the instruments of state oppression in soviet russia already existed under the tsarist autocracy, including propaganda/misinformation outlets and political police. the only difference is that the autocracy was not even ostensibly accountable to the peasants or proletariat and used the state to defend its own power and entitlements, while the communist administration derived its legitimacy from increasing standards of living and providing universal employment: hence the obsession with five-year-plans and industrialization. accounts which place the blame exclusively on communism for the emergence of an autocratic system in russia are historically illiterate and politically dishonest. russia has had the tendency to move from one autocratic system to another for centuries. consider the rise of vladimir putin: even with the perestroika process of liberalization and an invitation to neoliberal economists to restructure the economy, russia still reverted to the rule of a charismatic leader following the collapse of the USSR. the russian communists and socialists merely failed to break that trend, and not for a lack of trying. remember that it was under the bolshevik administration that the first free elections in russian history were held and it was the socialist revolutionary party that won that election in 1917.

Your wife is my mom!

user being a girl wouldn't explain why her fianceE is "they". So fiancee is a trap whatever user is.

(Concerning your picture, that, or she could also die of famine. Probably not since she's hot as fuck, maybe there would be a benevolent important member of the Party who would take as a comfort woman. Totally not prostitution though!)

>love

Could be a typo. I also use "they" when I'm feeling particularly SJW-ish and inclusive.

No. A few months ago I asked out a girl who my friend introduced to me as a new player for our D&D campaign. I figured she'd be an easy mark because the rest of our group were literal autists or asexuals, but were mostly clean and didn't do loli / magical realm rape shit.

I wore a nice polo shirt to each session, put a lot of effort into washing my face and making jokes to impress her. I also let her borrow my dice.

My friend's girlfriend however got really pised when I started showing DM favoritism toward her, then finally lost her patience and starting outright saying I was only giving her treasure cause I wanted a look at her tits.

I asked out the girl anyway a few weeks later and she said no. I asked her if she was sure and she said yeah. Then she claimed she was moving and had to leave the campaign.

I saw her working at her job a week ago. She didn't move.

nicely meme'd, i'd rate it pretty highly on a 0/meme scale

Do you wish your fiancee was a trap though? That's probably why. My boyfriend has said that to me occasionally.

I literally owe my life to it. My parents met playing D&D.

How does it feel knowing that once you have children with her, your tabletop time will slowly be sucked into the void and replaced with time wiping your shitspawn's diapers and "watching the little guy" instead of playing D&D and having fun with friends?

>ancap
>not LG

Mine too. The mutual friend they met through was my dad's D&D group, who he was friends with anyway but I like to brag my parents met through D&D to "up my nerd cred" or whatever.

My first girlfriend and occasional bumping-bits-companion was a reverse trap. Literally spent 3 months trying to figure whether or not I should call her "he" or "she".

Fucking unisex first names.

Holy shit nigger you're young.

>communism forces girls to be soldiers or scientists instead of prostitutes
fuck that

No, but it helped me realize back in the early 2000s that my then-gf wasn't for me.

Turns out she was an idiot with all the imagination of a cinderblock and zero creativity.

It's so annoying when reverse traps aren't bi.