Posts made by Arkandel

@tragedyjones I don't think twinking is a problem per se. I mean, I say that as a self-admitting twink. As long as you're willing to play up your character's shortcomings as well as their strengths and don't act like a jerk because you can beat up/mindfuck everyone you meet, it all comes down to the same basic question - is your PC interesting and fun to play with?

What I dislike is players who through mechanical inexperience or just plain carelessless screw up their build by spending significantly more for the same sheet than they could have. Yes, the system ought to prevent that from happening but for instance what we're discussing here is a case where that wasn't true.

Otherwise twinks like yours truly who plan their spends in advance will quite likely still have a slight advantage due to the increased efficiency, but products like GMC ensure that edge is kept reasonably small.

@tragedyjones Also quite right - and it doesn't screw players who don't know the 'trick' to buy their power stat in CG where it's absurdly cheaper than doing so in-game. That was always one of my gripes with 1.0.

Correct. In nWoD 1.0 (vanilla nWoD?) you can achieve better efficiency by buying dots 1-3 for stuff, but GMC/2.0 scales much better for the last couple of dots, especially for the power stat, attributes and powers.

So a comparison would need to come down to what kind of character you're building.

@Sundown One of the uncelebrated advantages of setting games in the post-WW2 era is also that you don't run into the classic problem with historical settings where some players don't know enough OOC (and some know too much) about the time in question. If it's in the 70s they know what to expect in terms of technology, general politics - just have a wiki up with the basics such as who the US President is, what's happening in the USSR, etc - and general feel.

No one will object because you posed your character going to the bathroom ("you mean the street outside?") or taking a shower before plumbing was advanced enough to allow for such comforts.

The tough part will be finding PB pictures with age-appropriate haircuts and pants.

@Thenomain said:

There is no such thing as "proof" on Mu*s. I thought that we were beyond this.

And yet we're not - can you explain what the difference between "show me logs of RP where you earned Wisdom 4" and "tell me how you earned Wisdom 4, but it has to have been in scenes and not a justification" is other than in semantics?

@Thenomain said:

Did you miss that Arkandel was saying he didn't want to play up the practice/training side of being a boxer?

If this was the point, then I missed it like a skull-shaped meteorite misses the Earth, and Arc and I are in agreement.

You can play a boxer and never land a punch in actual RP. You can play him the next day after a fight he won, all beaten up with a swollen face, bruised joints, limping around like he's a man thirty years past his actual age. You can have him deal with bookies trying to get him to throw a fight in due of his debts and the consequences of what that entails. You can play him being recruited by local petty mob bosses to go harrass store owners for protection cash.

I can keep going - my point is when it comes to playing a character staff often is of a mind to butt in where they're not needed and not do so when it's less ... flashy. Is the guy who sits in a room collecting charity XP and only shows up for violent PrPs to throw some dice only to vanish again afterwards better for the game than the afforementioned boxer who doesn't like to roleplay combat itself? (and mind you, I'm not that guy since I love training scenes, this is an example). And yet the former will thrive in a justifications-heavy system a lot more than the latter.

I find that to be the wrong approach. In trying to stop the theoretical example of the twink who only grabs punching-stats but doesn't roleplay them - which it doesn't accomplish anyway, as I just pointed out an obvious way among many this can be easily circumvented - we penalize players who for a variety of reasons won't play concepts that could be fun for many people to interact with. Maybe they don't like writing justifications, or staff doesn't know them when it's time to approve that Renown/whatever spend. Maybe it's a particular aspect of a profession's life they have in mind - an interesting, original part - and for some inexplicable reason they are told they are playing wrong. But the guy who sits in a room is playing right! Nuts.

Staff should stay out of these things unless they are needed - unless there's an existing, proven issue where someone's really being a jerk. Otherwise let folks spend their XP and play their characters! Don't get in the way, enable them to play what you think is missing. Do you think the boxer needs to throw more punches? Don't try to shame the guy into doing it, run a plot where his punches come into play. Make an event the pinnacle of a small storyline where he's actually in a fight with an NPC antagonist and get him an audience of other PCs.Pull him in with honey, not by pointing at some "THOU SHALL NOT DO THAT" rule.

@Thenomain said:

In this entire thread I'm most interested in RfK's approach, which sounds like a mix of being rewarded for logging in and separately rewarded for doing things. I don't think I've seen a system that determines "are you logged in and also doing things" that has made me comfortable that this is actually what it's doing.

It might not be what you're referring to but one of the questions I think we should ask here is whether it's important that a system both know a player is active and that their character is growing based on what they're doing. That is, if that is the solution, what problem does it solve?

For instance I might want to play a professional boxer but have no interest in having scenes around him sparring, working out, having actual fights... I want to have that stuff in the background, and yet still have a sheet which reflects the IC skills I think he'll have. Is that 'wrong'? Should the system make me work for those things in particular rather than play what is dependent on having the, yet without being them?

Sometimes system designers seek more control that's needed or suitable. Trust but verify.

@Sunny said:

Has seriously no one ever played in an experience limited campaign in tabletop?

Have? Sure. Preferred it? Nope.

I mean anyone can run the thing they envision and that's perfectly fine with me, but I like stories where my character grows in power, influence or skills. I like the theorycrafting, figuring out stats, making choices between what I can buy with XP. That carrot - I wannit.

Other people might not. More power to them.

@SG said:

I wonder if a Wall Street game would be fun?

Everyone plays coked up stock brokers in either the 20s or 80s, gambling with a randomized stock market, dodging federal investigations and trying to scam their way to owning the world!!

Or something.

If the zombie outbreak hits or the traders are involved in demonic pacts to stay afloat you have something.

If not, Iiiii dunno.

I don't think "RL" means what you fools think it means. But I want me some FO4 too.

Generally speaking (as it goes well beyond the scope of XP), overtuning systems to prevent abuse so that the majority is burdened with enforcement meant to prevent abuse by a much smaller minority is a poor choice; it both inconveniences everyone and doesn't stop what it was meant to.

Such things are nearly always lose/lose propositions.

For what it's worth, Demon on Eldritch seemed really dead. I gave it a shot for a couple of weeks - I had one offer for RP, the channel was really quiet, no one was running plot and there was little integration with other spheres. Perhaps oddly enough Stigmatics seemed to find it easier to get going than actual Demons did.

My experience compared to Werewolf was that it was really dead out there.

... What does any of this have to do with experience gains in nWoD 2.0 though?

The Warcraft trailer looks really good!

What's really fun is recognizing in-game places. Like, it's Stormwind. How many movies do we ever get to watch where we know our way around in their make-belief streets?

Cards Against Humanity over lunch at work.

Coworker shows a card to another coworker and asks, "what does this word mean"?

The word was 'clitoris'.

... The second coworker found himself on the floor unable to stop laughing.

See, you're right of course, but it also depends on your PoV.

Example: I'm a bicycle rider and I'm often really annoyed by how some people drive as I don't cherish being ran over. But on the other hand I've seen cyclists go over sidewalks and turn left on intersections without even checking (at night! without lights! no shits given!) which makes me cringe.

Idiots are idiotic, news at 11.

That's a good idea. It could even potentially be improved by using @Sunny's XP system - i.e. where each source can amount for 30%, but you can only spend 100% (i.e. the cap is on spending, not earning).

Then you can have excess XP if they exist be spendable on non-attribute things, cosmetic stuff (a Bugatti, a glowing enchantment over your weapon, etc). This way hitting the cap isn't wasted for super-active people, they can still benefit in ways that don't have mechanical effects.

I'm not opposed to a diverse number of sources such as @Coin suggested. So maybe something this, based on your max earnable XP per time period.

• a charity reward for very casual players so they can advance without playing regularly - say, counting for 25% of the max.
• a vote reward for active, social players. It's by far the easiest method even if it becomes a popularity contest - being popular and out there still counts. Another 25%.
• a submission system similar to GMC's Beast so you can demonstrate significant things took place through a quick explanation ('I punched Hemi in the face and resolved my Fuck That Guy Condition') for 25%.
• A PrP-running/participation system for people who dislike having to do bar scenes or whose schedules are easier to fit within an +event than looking for RP hoping there's a scene around. 25%.

There could be something to this.

I think @Ganymede's point was the write-up didn't need to be funny or original, maybe just a tiny blurb showing there was actual RP involved. She just chose to put more into it, but she didn't have to. So you wouldn't have had to either, it's just a perk.

@Coin Yeah, I flaked out on you too. Just a bit burned out - I'll be back to fuck your shit up, 80s style.