• KazuyaDarklight@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    2 months ago

    That’s actually kind of a good point, if a horror is far enough literally beyond our comprehension. Is it really a horror?

    • Signtist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’ve seen this image floating around for a while, which breaks down the reasoning - or lack thereof in certain media - pretty well.

      • SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        The point regarding seeing the world from anothers view reminds me of ‘Story of your life’ by Ted Chiang, a brilliant short story that also has a movie based on it (Arrival) which is also my favourite movie despite the, imo, botched ending.

        Spoiler alert:

        As the lead character learns the aliens language and can now interpret time and generally the world they do, you get to a different kind of consciousness.

        As I type this out I relaize its actually kind of off topic after all lol.

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        “This is madness”

        Meaning, a unique viewpoint?

        Knowing the causes of BSE and Alzheimers, the effects of mercury poisoning, real madness loses it’s scare as a mere, although a bit weird, sickness.

        • Signtist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think they’re talking about “justified” madness. Realistic madness is just seeing things that aren’t there, or reacting extremely to mundane stimuli, but if you had somehow been given comprehension of some higher truth about the world that nobody else would ever believe, the actions you take as a result of that knowledge might seem crazy to those around you, even if they’re perfectly logical from your enlightened perspective.

          • shneancy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            for a sample of such madness please try arguing with someone about a topic you’re very familiar with, and they clearly know fuck all about but refuse to learn or listen to anybody but themselves and their echo chamber!

    • OpenStars@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      2 months ago

      In the USA, recently more people died of “excess deaths” than from all wars combined, and this on top of our regularly scheduled culling of kids in schools, our democracy is already converted into a totalitarian regime due in part to an infamous SCOTUS (court) ruling, but it’s probably climate change that will kill us all within it lifetimes, oh yeah and virtually nothing on the internet works quite correctly anymore.

      Today is Thursday btw, and you know what that means - looking forward to the weekend, whoo-hoo! :-P

  • SomeonePrime@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I played a one-shot of Call of Cthulhu where the DM had you roll an intelligence check if you saw a horror. If you rolled over your intelligence, you had no idea what you were looking at and were unaffected. If you rolled under your intelligence, you knew exactly what you were looking at and had to roll against your sanity to see if it drove you insane.

    In other words, you could have no idea what you’re looking at, know what you’re looking at but handle it, or know what you’re looking at and not like it!

      • SomeonePrime@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        It could be, I only ever played the system once and I’m not really familiar with the rules. At a glance, it looks like the intelligence roll usually happens after losing a certain amount of sanity?

    • FeatherConstrictor@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I like the concept, I guess I’m just confused at why a higher intelligence roll would mean a “lower intelligence” as in you don’t know what you’re looking at, but I guess it’s so that a lower intelligence roll is more potentially punishing?

      • SomeonePrime@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        The thought was that the higher your intelligence, the higher the chance you know what you’re seeing. So if you have a high intelligence of say 19, then you need to design the check such that it’s very likely you’ll “succeed” in recognizing it, so with a D20 that means rolling under 19 (a 90% chance). A lower intelligence would actually be a good thing in this case, someone with an intelligence of 2 only has a 5% chance of “succeeding” and rolling under a 2.

        Probably the confusing part here is that you still want to roll high, but it’s strange that a high roll, in some way, isn’t a success; you don’t successfully recognize what you’re looking at and that’s a good thing. Even writing this comment I kept getting it mixed up, but I think mechanically it fits the theme well.