GunRightsAndFlatEarth

Gun Rights Supporters are the New Flat Earthers.

There is a lot of skepticism about studies about gun harms in the gun community. Studies that show to reduce gun harms what we need to do is reduce gun access significantly and that the costs in the ability to defend ourselves is marginal. Studies by groups like the CDC and the AMA are considered anti-gun propaganda, even though these groups are not chartered as anti-gun or tasked with anti-gun missions.

A lot of pro-gun arguments become dogmatic. "It's in the Constitution!" Or "Only criminals will have guns!" or "We need to be able to overthrow tyrannical governments!" or "Registration leads to confiscation!" I could spend all day listing these. While I agree that people should have access to guns for self-defense, There are good and logical counters for all of these. Possibly more importantly is that none of these are good rebuttals to the issue that real people really die (and are injured) by firearms. There is real, provable harm, and I believe there are real, provable benefits, but they are not as obvious as the harms and we need good science to be able to make good policy that minimizes the harms while maintaining the benefits.

Every time contrary evidence is supplied, the gun community generally sticks it head in the sand or shouts "Fake News!" Their support for gun rights is not informed by facts. And they fight hard to limit restrictions that could help. Restrictions that many gun owners feel are simply the cost of being gun owners. Things like safe storage and background checks on all transfers. There are things the gun community doesn't like that we can show don't have to lead to the bleak outcomes the dogmatic replies say they must.

On the other hand the people that push for gun control often create legislation that is more punitive against the gun community then it is helpful. Being charitable you could argue what they are doing is raising the barrier to firearms (and thus firearms harms) or trying to accomplish harm reduction one step at a time. But the gun control advocates also need to temper their zeal and fear and deal with the real harms and not just the sensational ones. They need to also work together and honor restrictions made as a compromise and not use them as stepping stones for total confiscation or bans.

Some good science is needed. Gun rights proponents need to listen to it. But the people proposing restrictions need to target their restrictions to the desired result. And gun people should hold them accountable for punitive laws while accepting the benign ones and discussing where the line exists between too far and too harmful.

Models, Miniatures and Wargaming

I have a history with plastic scale modelling. My father was into models, I built models as part of my interest in military aircraft and later armor and vehicles. I've never been really good at modelling but I enjoy it. It helps me understand the scale and how these things go together.  I fell out of plastic modelling when I started getting into role-playing games. I painted a couple of minis, but generally focused my time elsewhere. After my kids were born, I started to game less and less. Now it's pretty rare that I get to a game. Lately, I've been reaching back to my scale modelling as something I can do by myself to fill that hobby hole. It's nice because it not dangerous like firearms, it's fairly inexpensive, doesn't require going places and what supplies I can't order online are mostly available to craft, hobby and hardware/home improvement stores.

I like using models to tell a story. I like telling stories to justify the choices I make in models. This intertwines gaming and model-making for me. In my search for kits I have started to find interesting things in wargaming. Wargaming strikes me as a great place to find a mix of storytelling and model-making. There are some interesting challenges and trade-offs. The smaller scale means that it's harder to build and paint the models, but easier to assemble a lot of them. I can create scenes and diorama without needing huge amounts of space. I doubt that I'll engage in actual games, but I do have thoughts about the games, and this is as good as any place to talk about them.

I like WWII and modern military models and figures. Throw in some Weird War ideas and I think you have some really interesting gaming potential. I'd love to have a Airborne team versus Nazi zombies or some sort of other weird science pulpy scenarios. OTOH, I'd hate to ask someone to play Nazis, I'd really be uncomfortable with every Nazi win, I just can't separate wanting the German team to win in a wargame with wishing the Germans won the war. Which is unfortunate for a couple of reasons. You need an opponent to play against and the Nazis had some really interesting vehicles, equipment and organization. Being "Weird War" would help, but it's still rooting for Nazis.  In scale modelling I got around this by making "German" models captured and repurposed American/Allied equipment, mostly in an apocalyptic setting. I got to build interesting German vehicles and didn't have to deal with appearing like I support the Third Reich. I also got to work my storytelling around other things

The nice thing about fantasy and sci-fi settings is you get to avoid all of that historical baggage. Even if Star Wars Stormtroopers are designed to look like Nazi troops, they are fictional. Nobody has ever really died from Warhammer Chaos legions scorched earth campaigns. Weird aliens or robots that want to wipe out humanity aren't really as bad as actual genocide-supporting groups being simulated. That's not to say that these settings are free of bigotry. We can see all sorts of sexism and coded racism in everything from the outfits the female characters wear to the way that orcs are are a stand-in for so-called "less evolved" races on earth.  These are things that need to be addressed from the manufacturers down to the players. I don't have any solutions (and I do have a shelf full of Orcs waiting to be built), but I'm looking to have conversations about fixing these issues.

This has just been a rambling primer on other posts I may make on wargaming and models.

Rushed

Rush:

You can interrupt initiative and act before your turn, at a penalty. If you rush another characters turn this takes the place of your action and you can have a free, move or combat action at the penalty recorded below.

A character Rushing as a way to interrupt another character's action only gets 1 action that turn.  A character using the Rush rule can opt to take an additional action on their turn. Rushed or additional "Free" or "Move" actions that typically don't include checks now must have a average check that, if failed, fumbles your whole action. Attack or skill actions used with Rush have a -20% (-4 in d20, +2 to difficulty in White Wolf/U5D) penalty. A failed Rushed action costs the character's next turn.

This can be a existing combat rule (optional in the Universal 5 Dot concept), an ability (for GURPS), or a D20/Pathfinder Feat. Rush can be taken as a fighter's bonus feat. Characters and creatures that get multiple actions a turn can counter a rush with a parry, dodge or counterattack as an action without penalty. Rushed actions cannot benefit from modifiers about aim or concentration. Rushed actions are affected normally by weapon and envromental modifiers. In the case of multiple characters rushing on the same phase, only the first to declare their rush acts. If there is a question you can roll initiative, but rush actions should always be quick. Players should have their action immediately described, it would be fair to cancel the action (but not the penalty) for a player that slows the game with rushed actions.

Rush cannot be used with spells (see the Metamagic feat Quicken Spell). For other settings any mental or psychic special ability would also be incompatible with Rush. Physical special abilities would be compatible. A character can rush the final turn of a multi-turn non-combat action to have it activate before the turn they interrupted as long as they accept the penalty to the roll. Game Masters may also consider other limitations if Rush is used too often. Perhaps it can only be used once per encounter, or at the top of the round. If multiple characters have or can use Rush, the GM may decide that only one character can use Rush in a turn.

Notes:

NPCs generally shouldn't use Rush unless there is a compelling story reason. The GM already has many tools for adjusting NPC initiative and Rush can easily feel like a personal attack if it is used against the players. GMs should be careful when introducing Rush and should be open to applying additional penalties to prevent it's overuse. Rush was designed for high mortality short battle skirmish games, such as modern settings where a single gunshot can be fatal to even a seasoned character. However I feel that it is easily useful in most settings.