Best posts made by Arkandel

@auspice Shame you couldn't speak to say thanks.

So do you think there is a consensus here regarding what the 'ideal' power distribution ought to be on a game?

I think it was successfully argued by multiple people a high-level concept could work in the right MU* but it simply isn't for a number of reasons - the narrative changes, it's more (and different) work for the GMs, etc.

One question I was curious to see your answers was whether a varied distribution was actually helpful - i.e. if the mere presence of some characters who are more advanced than others is better overall for a game or not.

Please keep me honest if I misinterpreted but I think although we focused on how that should be implemented there was no generally agreed on take for what it does to a game if this is the case or if it's not.

For example would you prefer to play on a MU* where mechanical power uniformity is enforced ("all characters fall within levels 4-6")? Or one where the majority might be levels 4-6 but some (regardless of the method they're chosen) are 8-10?

I know this question is based on a abstract model made in a vacuum, and that in fact several excellent points were made in this very thread about how 'levels' or even attributes on a +sheet don't mean the same thing in every system or game, but I think we can still get some interesting answers about the concept itself of how to distribute power to a playerbase.

@HelloRaptor said:

I don't believe I've ever cuddled with someone who wasn't already a close friend or family, or suffering hypothermia.

Exactly how many people suffering from hypothermia have you cuddled with?

Although this was written with authors in mind, I think we might be able to pick up a few things from it to improve our shitty poses. Or maybe not. Either way here it is, an article recommended by Brandon Sanderson.

http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2015/08/26/i-smell-your-rookie-moves-new-writers/

@Misadventure What, you expected @HelloRaptor to save you even before receiving this new, strangely fitting update on his background?

@Staricide said in Gap between RP fantasy and RP reality:

What areas do you find there's the biggest difference between what you imagine doing with your character before you start playing them and how things always seem to go once you're actually playing them?

I think in general terms it's got less to do with the characters than the players and the environment since that's what your roleplay hinges on.

For example you can make your battle-hardened, wizened veteran with PTSD who you want to try and stay out of conflict until he gets pulled right back into it by the circumstances... and yet all you find is birthday parties RP, or maybe there aren't enough STs to run said conflict so although everyone talks about war there isn't really any action, and so on.

That's why it pays off so much to create open-ended characters. Have their initial personality, their back story, their views and dreams (or nightmares) on the back burner then... use what you get on the game.

Although that's true, losing excess weight is a matter of diet regulation a whole lot more than adding additional exercise.

Life isn't fair. We can eat calories way easier and faster than we can consume their energy.

@Ghost said in Well, this sums up why I RP:

And why do YOU guys RP?

Because I like it. It's creative, social (well, in a way) and a habit.

As hobbies go, no other reasons are really needed but also how can you truly explain why you like a thing? It resonates somehow.

I wouldn't underestimate the 'habit' part of it, either. A lot of people are engaged in whatever they're doing simply because it was a part of their life before so it's important to them, and thus they keep doing it long after the original reasons are no longer valid.

For example MU* (and MUDs, specifically) used to be basically the only ways to play online with other people in fantasy or sci-fi environments. That's no longer the case, but some of us got a taste of it and we don't want to let go.

@Ganymede said:

@Arkandel said:

However what it comes down to is that cutting calories is by very far more efficient than increasing exercise if one's goal is fat loss.

This is very, very debatable, and, frankly, I disagree for the reasons presented by @Derp.

I don't see that it's debatable at all. Let's break down the numbers (I like numbers).

A quick snack, let's say a Twix bar, has 250 calories: https://www.twix.com/product/nutrition.

For a 205 lb person, according to the table earlier in this thread, it takes cycling at 10-11.9 mph to burn 558 calories.

Therefore, if you don't mind a little rounding, it takes half an hour at a pretty decent speed to burn that. It's possible (at this point I'm making assumptions) most people who actually need to lose weight the most won't find it easy to maintain that on a daily basis. On the other hand, not eating that Twix takes no effort at all, other than an expenditure of will - without which chances are any working out is terminally sabotaged anyway.

Now on top of that, what do you get from a Twix bar? Carbs - processed sugar, that's about it. It contains 2.2 grams of protein so it's not like it's going to feed anyone's muscles worth a damn, and it's probably not even going to replace a meal since most people will eat it between meals.

I don't see how this is debatable. But I am not saying getting exercise isn't really important, just that regulating one's diet is far more so.

@Coin

I think even more so than people not understanding games like MU* are by definition social since they involve group activities the problem is players don't want to understand not everyone plays the same game the same way.

I don't think that can be underestimated as a factor. Sometimes we're stuck in groupthink mode and it's a tough as hell issue to distance yourself from. I try to keep things in perspective - when HR for instance protested that my peeve about that 'Life Two' thing was unreasonable I did my best to take a step back. Was I just being an asshole? (I decided otherwise but who knows, I'm biased).

The same way... look at threads right here on MSB. Someone makes the implicit assumption that if you care about your stats you're not there to play a character. You yourself like social dice in certain situations where others frown on the practice. Some people play mostly relationships and TS scenes while for others TS itself is wrong.

We still find a way to detest each other's playstyle, consciously or otherwise, and look at our own preferences as what ought to the universal standard.

And that's over the same game. The same rules and mechanics taken from the same source material. Now take into account all those other MU* with different goals, themes, rules...

My father passed away this morning.

I need to fly overseas so I won't be around here much for a few days. I should still check in once in a while. If you need anything please PM me.

@Tempest said:

Eldritch is Vamp+Woof+Demon, and also has a sphere cap, so you can't go there and play a vampire even if you wanted.

Right now they can.

@Misadventure said:

Exercising actual constraint is a skill, and practice will make you better at it.

You know what they say? Willpower is a muscle. Just any muscle it gets stronger as you exercise it. Just like any muscle, it also gets fatigued if you have to exercise it all the time.

That's why, for instance, you don't buy and leave a bunch of cookies on your kitchen table. Why do that to yourself?

As a strong PrP believer I can still point to these potential issues:

• Access to ST varies between groups. Do you want only specific people shaping the game?

• Timezones are the bane of PrPs. Would you be excluding part of the playerbase from shaping the game?

• Coordination between STs can be a logistical task on its own. Getting/keeping everyone on the same page isn't a trivial challenge.

That's just from the top of my head.

@Ganymede For the record: http://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/ (and other, assorted links)

@kls said:

It's not that staff was discouraged from playing in their own game; it's that staff was discouraged from playing a power game:

• 4.2. Storytellers may have a single PC, who are subject to all of the disadvantages of Political play and eligible for none of the advantages. They may not act as a judge in any circumstance in which there is a conflict of interest (CoI). If unsure, the storyteller will divulge the possible CoI and ask all participants in the scene whether there are any objections. If anyone objects a different judge will be found.

I assume "Storytellers" in this case only refers to staff, otherwise it was even more draconic than I thought. But even as written that's pretty drastic; while taking yourself out of CoI situations when it comes to doing work as staff is perfectly reasonable, the policy above (well, the entire policy, I only quoted part of it) seems too drastic.

It's already hard enough to get good people without expecting those good people to be able and participate in the game fully. No one wants staff alts to be given unfair advantages but I see no compelling argument against being handed out unfair disadvantages - and in fact one good reason not to; they won't want to do the job a MU* requires someone to be doing. As (presumably) was the case here where the game eventually ran out of steam.

@Auspice I find a lot of the criticism leveraged against Netflix is because of things they are literally not allowed to do although they'd love to. For example in Canada a common one is "it doesn't give me the same selection as in the US unless I use a VPN".

Do you think they don't want to?

Oh, all too well. My PCs routinely end up being left out from what their cabals/coteries are doing in my PrPs, then I need to make up IC reasons why they weren't there for them. Bah!

@Auspice What I'm worried will happen is we'll revert back to basically the exact same setup as cable, but streamed. Obviously no one will pay for 4-5 different subscriptions and switch between Netflix, HBO, Disney, Amazon, etc... so it will come down to whatever compromises the market will tolerate in exchange for affordable, usable bundling.

@Seamus said in The Game Game:

It has been mentioned on more than one occasion that one game is in competition with another game. I have never really seen it that way. I look at them as just a different book. It might catch my eye or not. What are the thoughts of the hive on the topic?

So we won't derail another topic.

It's a naive way to see it. Look at it this way; the golden age of MUSHing was when there were more games around. It drove everyone to improve the code, the command interface offered to users, innovate around the notion of a grid, CGen, etc.

The only 'competition' I can see is when a game is explicitly created to disrupt another. Say you're running a WoD game in New York and I fork it, asking your players to come play the same characters in mine.