@Arkandel said in Where's your RP at?:
@Warma-Sheen said in Where's your RP at?:
Character death by bad die roll. I've never seen that happen.
I remember on Eldritch when @Coin rolled some ridiculous amount of successes on a roll and killed a PC. She wasn't upset by it, it was just a bit impressive - a classic case of ST-dice. It doesn't always catch headlines because someone wants drama, it can be something like... you just rolled 12 successes in 9 dice, and you just want to tell people.
It was, IIRC, two 9d10 rolls, 10 successes on the first, 6 on the second, for 16 Lethal. She had 8 Health Levels, so that rolled over to 8 Aggravated, filling all her Health Boxes in Aggro and instantly killing her.
@Sunny Not accepting stupid character death based on your own decisions and dice rolls is very much saying 'no, I choose not to accept the rules as they are, I don't want to be done so I refuse to play the game by the rules'. You are effectively invalidating everyone else that plays by the rules because you don't want to lose your character to a stray bullet, falling meteor, chunk of frozen shit from a passing airplane, whatever. Not every death will be super meaningful. And frankly, the random deaths that occur from the very rare super bad rolls just let people know 'hey, don't forget you are playing on a game where this shit can happen, WEIGH YOUR OPTIONS OR ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES'.
@Arkandel See, and I loved those rolls. Some of my favorite scenes came from one side or the other losing that roll and silly shit following. I had a character get TREED by a frenzying Gangrel in badger form. Still makes me laugh. But this is also why I tended to avoid Elysium as THE FIRST place a new character would show up. Because it provoked too many of the rolls all at once. I would generally meet people one or two at a time, and wait until I knew enough people that I could pop into Elysium and not immediately need to make a dozen rolls. And frankly... not using that mechanic felt like it was gypping the Gangrel out of their biggest weakness.
@Miss-Demeanor Exxxxxxxactly.
@Miss-Demeanor said in Where's your RP at?:
Not accepting stupid character death based on your own decisions and dice rolls is very much saying 'no, I choose not to accept the rules as they are, I don't want to be done so I refuse to play the game by the rules'.
So, you'd be okay if, let's say, I played a Vampire Sheriff, and you played a neonate, and I think you looked at me funny, which you didn't, so I went and slaughter-killed you with some staff-granted relic that does +5A damage to vampires.
Right?
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@Ganymede said in Where's your RP at?:
@Miss-Demeanor said in Where's your RP at?:
Not accepting stupid character death based on your own decisions and dice rolls is very much saying 'no, I choose not to accept the rules as they are, I don't want to be done so I refuse to play the game by the rules'.
So, you'd be okay if, let's say, I played a Vampire Sheriff, and you played a neonate, and I think you looked at me funny, which you didn't, so I went and slaughter-killed you with some staff-granted relic that does +5A damage to vampires.
Right?
Given that none of that resulted from my own decisions and rolls, probably not. But nice try at misinterpretation! You may need to fix your learning curve software, 'bot.
@Miss-Demeanor said in Where's your RP at?:
Given that none of that resulted from my own decisions and rolls, probably not. But nice try at misinterpretation!
No, it was a statement for clarification using an absurd situation.
So, it is okay for me to be peckish when I haven't done anything -- deciding or rolling -- that would reasonably result in my doom. But it's not okay if I have taken steps -- deciding or rolling -- towards the edge of and, perhaps off of, the cliff of doom.
Is there a line at which one says, "bro, u totes went over the edge"? Or is that sort of a moving target? Because I think that's what people are arguing about.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
Try reading all the words. At no point did I even imply anything even related to the tangent you just directed at me.
The neonate is at fault for not apologizing profusely enough. THE WEAK SHOULD FEAR THE STRONK.
@Ganymede Ah, my apologies then. Taken as serious inquiry... I would say the line depends a lot on the game system. Some offer more leeway than others.
@Sunny I'm saying the two are NOT mutually exclusive. Not wanting pointless character death is fine. Its when you (empirical) refuse to accept the pointless death that occurs that you (again, empirical) become the asshole.
Eh. That's a tough one and really requires some suggested guidelines about the theme. Vampire could be played multiple ways, and technically, per the book, a Vampire could murder their ghoul, legally, because they're having a bad day. This isn't very popular to do with ghoul players, but is the culture of the game playing that level of high risk vampire? Really depends on the game, the staff, and how the Playerbase wants to play.
There are plenty of WoD characters/players that love having that 75 agg per hit means you must fear my UNDEFEATABLE DICE PENIS factor. Some flaunt it. Some don't. I would never condone that kind of bullying other players to keep them humbled, but the real question is...Is it in theme?
Again, this is where being clear about the risk expectation of the game, going in, is necessary. You have to accept that some players might see this level of risk and say "this game isn't for me", but it doesn't mean something wrong is happening if that is the style of game the players wish to play
Delete the Hog Pit. It'll be fun.
I really don't understand He-Man
@Miss-Demeanor said in Where's your RP at?:
@Arkandel See, and I loved those rolls. Some of my favorite scenes came from one side or the other losing that roll and silly shit following. I had a character get TREED by a frenzying Gangrel in badger form. Still makes me laugh. But this is also why I tended to avoid Elysium as THE FIRST place a new character would show up. Because it provoked too many of the rolls all at once. I would generally meet people one or two at a time, and wait until I knew enough people that I could pop into Elysium and not immediately need to make a dozen rolls. And frankly... not using that mechanic felt like it was gypping the Gangrel out of their biggest weakness.
I used to fail those rolls ALL THE TIME, to the point it became an in joke in the sphere. 'Oh...there goes Kaleb fleeing from the Elysium again...'
I always found it hilarious.
And...so? Tea? China?
My statement was in response to equating out a desire for no stupid PC death to wanting complete control. Key words there: desire, complete. The confusion was related to that specific, precise desire. This whole argument started because some folks stated they would not be interested in playing on a game where capricious character death was the thing. So acceptance of a stupid death has zero to do with anything.
@Ghost said in Where's your RP at?:
Vampire could be played multiple ways, and technically, per the book, a Vampire could murder their ghoul, legally, because they're having a bad day. This isn't very popular to do with ghoul players, but is the culture of the game playing that level of high risk vampire? Really depends on the game, the staff, and how the Playerbase wants to play.
If the limits of what is reasonable or unreasonable killing is based on how the players involved want to handle it, then you're treading into the "consent"-land of killing. That is, that whether a killing is justified on an OOC level depends on whether the people involved are okay with it. And there will be time when one person says "you must die," and the other says, "but I didn't do shit to deserve it."
That's when staff have to come in and make a call. On the one hand, vampire is deadly game involving characters that are political predators who, in nWoD, can kill each other willy-nilly, barring some Prince's rules. On the other hand, if you have players killing other players for flimsy reasons, you're not going to have much of a player base left that's interested in playing with people they think are assholes.
There are plenty of WoD characters/players that love having that 75 agg per hit means you must fear my UNDEFEATABLE DICE PENIS factor. Some flaunt it. Some don't. I would never condone that kind of bullying other players to keep them humbled, but the real question is...Is it in theme?
If you don't condone it, then why would you let it happen on your watch? That's the dilemma that staff often face: having to please a diverse group of players who have their own idea of where the "line" is. Theme or not, the question, when faced with it, comes down to: who do I want to piss off? Because if everyone's okay with it, then staff aren't being called in.
Again, this is where being clear about the risk expectation of the game, going in, is necessary.
I've been around the block on this topic for over a score years now. From my perspective now, I can say this with anecdotal and experiential authority: you are never going to be crystal clear about the risk expectation of your game. You can definitely try, but you won't get there. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but it's good to be realistic in your expectations.
@Alamias Maaaaaan, I was never so happy as I was when one of my vamps managed to piss Kaleb off. I can't recall if it was Sera or Ramona. But like... that was an ACCOMPLISHMENT, dammit. XD
@Sunny To be quite frank, you have been and continue to be very aggressive in jumping down the throats of people going 'but risk of character death isn't WRONG' by immediately squawking about 'pointless' character death. So if you don't like someone aggressively responding? Sorry, not sorry. And actually, this whole argument started because I dared to suggest that a post-apoc survival game with actual threat of character death would be fun, and that brought all the anti-PC-death people out of the woodwork to say just how horrible that would actually be.
@Sunny Your statement then asks the question as to what is a 'stupid death' and what is not, which is yet another debate.
@Ganymede Yeah, the staff should try to set the tone and which theme they want to keep versus which they want to throw out, but when you pick a game line to base your game off of, a lot of different interpretations are going to come with it . So yeah, being crystal clear is pretty much an impossibility, especially considering how many people have their preconceived notions of how things should be in WoD and what they are used to playing on other games, which for some people, for some reason, seem to have a big bearing on what they do in someone else's WoD game.
@Warma-Sheen said in Where's your RP at?:
Sure, everyone has their own idea and preferences for story, but I don't understand how anyone can come onto a medium with this many other contributors and still expect to have full control over everything that happens to their character. I know that mindset exists. I'm not putting it down. All I'm saying is that I can't understand it.
As @Sunny said - a lot of people seem to be conflating "I don't want character death" with "I must control everything ZOMG!" While I'm sure there are some extreme folks out there who feel that way, these are by no means the same thing.
I MU* because I love to interact with other people. Stories evolve in surprising ways. I don't mind when bad things happen to my character - actually in most cases I welcome it because RPing complications is fun. I just don't want to lose my character against my will. I don't understand why that's so hard to understand when various people have laid out very concrete reasons why they don't like it.
@Miss-Demeanor said:
I dared to suggest that a post-apoc survival game with actual threat of character death would be fun, and that brought all the anti-PC-death people out of the woodwork to say just how horrible that would actually be."
As one of the "anti-PC-death-people", I will point out that I have repeatedly said that it is a matter of personal taste and that I, personally wouldn't like to play on such a game for these specific reasons. This is merely an opinion to inform someone who may want to make such a hypothetical game. I don't personally like WoD games either but that's a far cry from running around saying they're "horrible".
If someone wants to run a post-apoc game with a high mortality rate - more power to them. I simply won't play and that's totally fine.
@Ganymede said in Where's your RP at?:
@WTFE said in Where's your RP at?:
- What does an economic system bring to the table that enhances my fun?
What I got from your post is: I don't find any economic system, regardless of construction, to be fun, and I cannot identify what part of a system is flawed because, in general, I'm not that kind of player that would find such a system fun -- but go ahead and try to prove me wrong.
And I can understand that statement.
That's a fair summary.
I have never seen an economic system that enhanced fun in any way, shape, or form. The best ones were merely window-dressing that added a bit of pointless make-work for a short, inoffensive amount of time but had no real impact on game-play and don't do anything positive or negative. (The aforementioned "DICE" system someone touted falls into this category from the brief coverage given.)
I am, however, willing to be convinced otherwise; I'm not going to say "I'll never play in a game that has an economic system". I just can't really help come up with one because I can't even conceive of an economic system that would enhance fun.
@Miss-Demeanor said in Where's your RP at?:
@Alamias Maaaaaan, I was never so happy as I was when one of my vamps managed to piss Kaleb off. I can't recall if it was Sera or Ramona. But like... that was an ACCOMPLISHMENT, dammit. XD
Sera. I remember that....it was fun times. And for the life of me I could not roll for shit when I was trying to Mesmerize her either, so Kaleb was all flustered....
@faraday A lot of people have also been conflating 'I think there needs to be risk up to and including PC death' with 'OMG ONLY PC DEATH COUNTS AS RISK' or 'BUT POINTLESS CHARACTER DEATH IS MEAN!'. Its a post-apocalyptic world. Things will be deadly. If there is absolutely zero risk of death, then the post-apocalyptic theme starts to break down very quickly.
Without any risk of death... what is there to really fear in the ruins of your destroyed society? 'My stuff might get stolen... but its okay because I'll somehow get new stuff so I won't die of starvation' Where's the risk? Where is the ACTUAL risk? There isn't any. Because nothing will actually stop your character. Capture, torture, loss of gear... you will always prevail. There will always, in the end, be a happy ending. You don't actually have to scrabble to survive... because you just magically WILL. Whether your character knows that or not? YOU DO. And that WILL influence IC actions along the way.
Now suddenly you don't have to worry about low supplies, because magically there will always be just enough. Foraging for clean water and food? Not a concern. Those ghouls/zombies/raiders at your gates... feh, you will overcome. There's nothing to lose. Got kicked out of your base? You'll get handed another. There will be no heartrending losses along the way... because in this magical world... there is no death. And no, NPC death isn't going to phase anyone. You don't get attached to and form attachments to or relationships with NPC's. NPC's are the red shirts of the Star Trek world. The random, nameless dudes sacrificed to the PC Gods to make it SEEM like there's danger... when really there isn't.
@Alamias said in Where's your RP at?:
@Miss-Demeanor said in Where's your RP at?:
@Alamias Maaaaaan, I was never so happy as I was when one of my vamps managed to piss Kaleb off. I can't recall if it was Sera or Ramona. But like... that was an ACCOMPLISHMENT, dammit. XD
Sera. I remember that....it was fun times. And for the life of me I could not roll for shit when I was trying to Mesmerize her either, so Kaleb was all flustered....
TBF, Sera was built to be a wall of resistance. Her resistance traits were all damn near maxed out, she had all the best merits and Carthian devotions for resisting mind/emotinal control, damage, etc. She was made to be a tank. 
Didn't Kaleb end up punching some other dude over it?
@Miss-Demeanor said in Where's your RP at?:
@Alamias Maaaaaan, I was never so happy as I was when one of my vamps managed to piss Kaleb off. I can't recall if it was Sera or Ramona. But like... that was an ACCOMPLISHMENT, dammit. XD
Sera. I remember that....it was fun times. And for the life of me I could not roll for shit when I was trying to Mesmerize her either, so Kaleb was all flustered....
