Bay 12 Games Forum

... they have skulls? I thought they were ambulatory mushrooms, which would likely preclude a skeletal system. Stomping one would likely be about the same as squishing a particularly firm fungus.

Unless you're going by the movie version, perhaps.

Then again, they do have teeth, so maybe there's something to that. Hrm.

Hell, they're gods. The intonation or emphasis that distinguishes yes from no in their language could well be outside the register of human hearing. It could all be "blurp", to you.

Or that whole context thing. It'd be fun if the meaning of the word changed based on the order in which they replied. So bloorp would be yes on the first and third sequential responses, while it would be no on the second and fourth (across questions, of course). Stuff like that. Could also be entirely random with the current state only discernible by divine physiology.

That language needs some limitations on it or the puzzle can potentially be functionally unsolvable. By humans, anyway

I'd be more curious about potential variate state truth statements, in that case. What if you ask a yes/no question that can be answered yes or no and be equally truthful or false? Or have the true/false value dependent on axiom bases or other data you might not hold or have? The latter bit is particularly easy in english where you've got words that are spelled/sound the same but have different meanings only discernible by context; who's to say this alternative language isn't structured so almost the entirety of their language functions so? Yes or no could be almost entirely meaningless on their own in the unknown language

... my question would be what's the reward (is there one?) for picking a door with the car over the door with a goat.

Because if you're reading that somewhat literally, the host's asking which door you want. Not what's behind it. If that's the case, unless there's something special about the individual doors, any door will do.

Hitler breathed air, too. You're all oxynazis.

Eesh, minor reading failure. Ree noted it by an alternate name "Crisis of the Commons" in the paragraph before you started quoting

It's kind of tongue in cheek, but I guess we need to stop everything and make those societal roles where absolute paragon reading of cardinal direction based maps is essential male only. Because the statistical correlation between some (was it even a majority?) males being (somewhat) better than some females at NSEW-based map reading means that no women ever will be the most effective individual to suit the needs of that position, nevermind what other capabilities might be needed or the fact that any number them may still be better than whatever male candidates are available.

Mind you, this goes the other way, too. Any jobs where identifying the color red (I guess? I'm not really sure what red receptors do, honestly.) is paramount must become strictly female dominated!

Silliness aside, the primary point is that the differences are minor. Generally, incredibly minor and easily overshadowed by individual differences or previous training.

So, yeah. Sexual acts is about the only thing physical sex actually matters in, and I guess reproduction for another couple of decades or whatever (I'd be completely unsurprised if medical science finishes cracking the particulars of the stuff gender-locking that in my life time).

Everything else, there are specific virtues or traits which have no necessary connection to gender. Those are the things that are important. Whether a person will have them will vary based on the individual, not their varying nether regions. So, we should judge by the individual in question, not their reproductive physiology.

Though I guess I'm ranting a bit, again. Or something. Fairly tired and overly warm, bleh.

For BZ's stuff... man, I don't even know what you'd count as a "normal life" anymore (Which country's? Which cultural group's?), or by what measure you're considering important. Important for... what? Societal stability? Personal survivability? <Insert 50 thousand different heuristics>? But I guess from a general societal perspective you're going to run into more problems if your gender role display doesn't match your sex than if they do. You can be fairly lacking in the masculine traits of your culture and still get by if you're not displaying the feminine ones as a male, and vise versa as a female, though it's likely to land you in a lower totem pole, so to speak, in the social hierarchy. Or something. Neither aspect stands alone in general human interaction, from what I've seen.

Sexual perspective is another weird one. I'm not really sure how you'd classify masculine or feminine "in the bedroom", so to speak, in any manner that's not so culturally entangled as to be a useless label for any wider discussion. Hell, most of the stuff I've seen expressed as being one or the other occurs in the other gender, just in a slightly different (or sometimes flatly identical!) manner.

Clarify the teeerrrmmmmsss!