Best posts made by Coin

@Cupcake said in Good TV:

@Arkandel I should start demanding pay-to-click/request explanation tolls.

"If you want an explanation, bring a muffin."

@Ganymede said in Punishments in MU*:

@Coin said in Punishments in MU*:

That's not even getting into some people getting approved because staff is their friend and "they can be trusted with this".

I dissent.

Yes, I know. I know. I know about the past corruption. I know about the present corruption; y'all have examples, yo, and I get that. And I also know that this line is abused to the shit, bro, and I have been on the receiving end of such bullshittery when I applied for IC positions.

I get that. Here's the thing, though.

If I have spent eleventy-billion hours of my time and effort to build a game, and that game needs a PC or an NPC of considerable importance who has an active part in keeping the game going, then I am going to guaran-damn-tee you that I'm not going to open him/her/it up for open application. It's just not going to happen. I am going to pick someone who I know to be responsible, honest, and, most importantly, courageous enough to stick it to me and tell me, "Gany, you ignorant slut, << their point here >>."

And that person is likely to be a friend, as close as any lawyer-cat-bot has to having a friend in the MUSH-verse.

If people don't like that, they can kiss my shiny metal ass. I am not going to let a stranger have such a position on my game, period. "Gee, why did Gany pick << let's say Caryatid >> to play << important PC on game >>, huh, huh?* Yeah, because she's got a track record in my books as being someone I can trust with that position, you dimfuck. It's my fucking game, and, like my fucking house, I'm not going to let a fucking unknown come in and potentially fuck it the fuck up. If you've a problem with that choice, so be it; deal with it or get the fuck out, I don't care.

If you want me to admit there is an exception to every rule? Then sure, I can admit there is an exception to every rule.

But here's the thing: that exception should either be lauded by the players or go completely unnoticed.

If it doesn't, then it's not an exception, it's just an issue. And this also isn't a case of "punishing the many because of one bad apple" like when rules are changed game-wide because one asshole is abusing them; this is the opposite, because for every "Gany trusts Caryatid" out there, there are fifty "no, no, Spider has changed, I trust them with this".

So, sure. Exceptions exist. Doesn't change anything.

"They can be trusted with this" is a perfectly-acceptable explanation to me (as long as that is the proffered explanation because I hate it when people try to come up with pretextual excuses to make them seem impartial when they're not).

All that said, if you are going to be upfront about it, then sure. I mean, I'll be the first to accept that as long as you're being upfront about shit like that, no one can really complain about it, because it's not like they didn't know.

@HelloProject said in Fate's Harvest BETA Live (Full Open Soon):

I think I'm banned from Hog Pit, since I don't see it. But I kind of don't want to be in a toxic wasteland anyway.

You need to subscribe to it now.

Everyone harps on Medusa's hair, but frankly, we have survived worse special effects in the past, and we will survive worse special effects in the future, and the consistent and constant focus on this has made it so that I don't even CARE.

They could fucking draw it on with crayon and I would be like "Medusa's hair looks perfect". With a straight face.

I mean fuck, talk about tunnel vision.

@Ganymede said in Punishments in MU*:

@Coin said in Punishments in MU*:

But here's the thing: that exception should either be lauded by the players or go completely unnoticed.

My dissent is premised on my belief that this is not an exception.

Your issue is important, but it is not dichotomous. In my opinion, the choice should be noticeable. If a player asks: "why did staff pick <X> to play <important PC>?", the answer should and must be "because staff trusts <X> to play that character due to his/her/its history." Anything else is a sham.

There's nothing wrong with picking a particular person to play a perspicuous pugilist to perfection. I only have an issue when someone tries to pass the choice off as being part of some impartial selection process.

Honestly, if we're talking about in-game positions of power and the like, I probably agree with you more than not. I think you're conflating stats with position and they aren't the same thing. I wasn't really talking about that. I was talking about PCs on the same level at chargen who just get to have stuff because of arbitrary reasons.

Don't set a criteria for apps if you're not going to apply it across the board, or let people know that some people are gonna get benefits because they are friends and "trusted".

If you're making an exception to a rule, then it's an exception. If X gets to have a stat at 8 and no one else does, that's an exception. If it's because you trust them with it, then 1) what's so important about that ONE STAT that staff needs to TRUST THE PLAYER for them to be able to have it? and 2) why do other people get to buy it later on if they spend XP on it, if it's so important they couldn't be trusted with it at cgen?

I love talking about mechanics and shit so I'm gonna talk a little about a thing I am working on for this game. It's crunchy, and not everyone will like it, but tough titties.

One of the things I am working on for this game is the confluence of supernatural items (Fetishes, Tokens, Azothic Objects, the variety of Mage items, etc.), Familiars (or any sort of companion that characters can acquire which may use Ephemeral rules), as well as some other stuff.

At the moment, I'm putting a lot of effort into the supernatural items. One of my pet peeves is that supernatural items may be thematic when it comes to the gamelines they exist in, but when crossing over in play, they get wildly imbalanced. In particular, any of the Mage items are hilariously overpowered when compared to many Fetishes, and Azothic Objects are only ahead of the game when compared to the vampire's supernatural item, which is--oh right, they don't have one.

On the other hand, point-by-point creation of items (such as is found in first edition's Reliquary leads to so much min-maxing and abuse that it has seriously annoyed me and many others).

On the other other hand, @tragedyjones expressed concern because a unified system might remove the unique feel each item has regarding their gamelines.

I've been working on a solution that takes all this into account, more or less. The first point is addressed by creating a simple system of item creation that applies to everything. Each gameline (including Vampire) will have its own (single) Merit. (e.g. Imbued Items, Artifacts, and Enhanced Items for Mage will all be represented by just "Artifact"). Each type of item will have its own Merit, but they will all use the same system.

The second point will be handled by not making it a point-balance-cost system. You can't "stack drawbacks" to get more benefits or a lower coast. There are universal Drawbacks that apply to all items, and then each type of item has its own drawbacks. You also can't stack certain things beyond some very reasonable points. Also, any item that is a weapon costs an extra dot just because it's a weapon. Bonuses are also limited to "Equipment Bonuses", so you can't have an amulet that gives you +3 Weaponry. You can have a sword with a higher Damage or Initiative rating, but it's just that sword, not a universal bonus with any sword or any weapon. Some other limitations apply.

The last point is handled by making each type of item (so far we have Azothic Object, Artifact, Fetish, and Relic--this last for vampires) have certain effects that are exclusive to them (e.g. only Fetishes can house Numina/Influence, only Artifacts house Rotes, etc.). In addition to this, while all items have universal drawbacks, each type of item will also have specific drawbacks thematic to the game they are tied to (e.g. the destruction of a Fetish releases a pretty fucking pissed off spirit, either because it was trapped in there, or because the owner was irresponsible enough to allow the Fetish to be detroyed). Hopefully, these consequences will not just tie each item thematically to the gameline it belongs to, but also prove to be plot fodder should the item be lost or destroyed.

In addition to all this, we'll place a lot of importance on the history of the item, how it came to be, etc. We want each supernatural item to feel unique and be special to the character who owns it, and it'll be the first thing anyone wanting one will have to figure out.

I know a lot of people don't care so much about mechanics and would rather concentrate on fluff and setting and stuff, but this is one of the things I love to do with game design so I kind of gravitate towards it.

@Skew and I have been working on what the Mage Consilium and society will look like in Vegas and we've come up with something we think is pretty cool, so maybe we'll share that soon.

Oh for Pete's sake.

@surreality said in Punishments in MU*:

@Coin In some systems, those things are linked. CoD being a prime example. There's only one prince status slot, for instance. They're corner case issues, but they are out there.

"Prince" is not a Stat, it's a position, especially in CofD. You can be a Status 3 Prince and just be a Prince without a lot of high Status; many Princes who heavily need the support of their fellow elders, etc., could fall into this category. So there is some overlap, but it's negligible regarding what we're talking about.

You can also say, "I would only allow an IC Prince played by a player I personally trust because of the narrative and story effects the position has," and not sound completely ridiculous, whereas, "I will only allow people I trust to have Melee 5 at chargen but everyone else can buy it later" makes you sound like a dumbass.

@SunnyJ said in Sin City Chronicles:

@Coin Really like the Sangiovanni write-up and the Necromanzia stuff! This is pretty great! My only critique would be tying the Necromanzia to the Strix, which at the same time makes it too much like Crúac and makes both seem less special. Maybe tie to something else, more unique? If there is some other sort of entity capable of using Death to control vampires, and it is using the Sangiovanni to do so, that might give it the 'forbidden sorcery' vibe you want without feeling samey?

In the end, it is all great regardless!

There really isn't anything as perfect as the Strix for that sort of thing, unfortunately. I don't think it makes Cruac and Necromanzia less special by sharing this; rather, it links them more. But that's just preference, I guess.

Despotism. I smell despotism.

@Tinuviel said in Punishments in MU*:

@Coin A lot of the time Status 5 (for instance) is reserved for the Prince. And only the Prince. This is a stupid method and needs to stop.

That is not a fault of the system, that is a fault of the game administrators not using the system the way it was designed. A whole separate peeve.

@Tempest said in Sin City Chronicles:

@Coin said in Sin City Chronicles:

and can't gain more experience until the cap rises, which might feel unfair when they're active, playing and running PRPs, while not getting the same rewards as other people. For that situation--a compromise!

Apparently being either on equal footing or more powerful than every other character in the game isn't enough of a reward for MUers?

With the effects listed, these seem pretty clearly like they're just going to end up being 'combat boosters' (including things such as use of Dominate, not just brawl rolls) which feels kind of lame and seems to defeat the whole purpose of the XP cap. Characters at the XP cap will still be getting much stronger in terms of pure mechanics on account of having more of these chips. The re-roll in particular will likely be incredibly powerful in combat if you can just use it after failing a roll.

Kay. Have fun wherever you end up.

@Wizz said in Good TV:

@Coin said in Good TV:

@Arkandel said in Good TV:

"My name is Barry Allen, and I'm the fastest man alive!"

No, man, you're not. Every goddamn season there's a villain notably faster than you. Stop lying.

Well, I mean, maybe it's a story framing device and he's saying it in the future, telling you how he took down the competition.

Does he straight up murder them so he can continue to be the fastest man alive? Is that like his whole thing?
Because if so I have been missing out

No, but I mean, that's essentially what happens. LOL.

@surreality said in Punishments in MU*:

@Coin Most places I've seen have linked it, as you quoted.

There are systems out there where positions and stats are linked in some form. That's all. Those are going to involve an exception to the universal statement.

Sure, and in those systems those Stats are usually basically just that: marks of position. But again, exceptions to every rule. My response was to the fact that CofD, in particular, i.e. your example, does separate them.

I don't see any drama there or reason for you to be making it.

Uh, okay?

If given a choice, the former. Though I would eschew Cyber and Steam Punk and go with Diesel Punk as a middle-ground, though it REALLY actually depends on your societal backdrop, really, to determine what kind of "-Punk" you wanna be using. Steam/Cyber are fundamentally different in what sort of world they typically exist in.

@Arkandel said in Good TV:

@Coin For me it was the bad acting, the constant and non-stop exposition through dialogue, paper-thin characterisation, what seems to be an absurdly small budget for a superhero series (NASA operate out of an empty warehouse?), the laughably bad special effects (Medusa's hair...). I found them hard to bypass.

See, I just see the same quality of acting I see on most television, the same type of exposition through dialogue, characterization possible through two hours of exposition-laden plot, and ... eh, I didn't think the special effects for Medusa's hair were that bad--it was clearly EXPENSIVE, because they got rid of it right quick enough.

Maybe I'm just used to seeing these things individually and didn't really thinka nything of them all together.

@Arkandel said in Punishments in MU*:

@Coin said in Punishments in MU*:

@Tinuviel said in Punishments in MU*:

@Coin said in Punishments in MU*:

It was, after all, just a joke.

At your expense.

But a joke. >.>

If you have to explain it as such, perhaps it wasn't.

Maybe not a good one, alas.

Is this thread tangent my punishment in MU?

I mean.

You did tag me.

@thenomain said in Which setting do you like better?:

@coin

Very little Steampunk describes a societal impact of technology. You know, the "punk" part of this. That which does is done well, but is a very small subset of what people call Steampunk. I'd rather it be called Vernian. Or Shellian. Or Space 1889...ian?

The Difference Engine does do steampunk very well because it's two cyberpunk authors re-imagining Neuromancer in the 1800s, and one of those writers has their very livelihood based on viewing sociology through the lens of science-fiction. Gibson pretty exclusively writes stories about people's interactions with a larger world. Two punk writers being anachronistic.

But otherwise most of Steampunk isn't really punk, and except for having grounding in Victorian era, barely even steam. Firefly is more Steampunk than a lot of what's out there. Western Steampunk, but very punk. So yeah, we'll be talking about this for a while.

Not sure how much steampunk you've actually read, but there's a lot of stuff out there that does do justice to the "punk" aspect.

@Arkandel said in Good TV:

@Coin It's possible it's the bar that's been raised so high after Netflix got in the game and we also got a barrage of blockbuster superhero movies hitting us with their much higher production values.

I just don't see why exposition needs to be rushed; if a full complex plot of a film can be narrated through better storytelling in a 90 minute span then surely they can afford to be just slightly more patient with a TV show which by definition has way more time to feed it to us. Leave some mysteries in there, don't force-feed everything in one go; do we need a teenage Medusa walking in the room with Bolt to explicitly say "I know everyone is afraid of you but I'm not" in so many words or Maximus giving us the 101 on his relationship to her in another 20 second monologue, right in the first episode?

Maybe I'm nitpicking too hard, I dunno. I guess I didn't like it.

Keep in mind that the first two episodes were also written with an IMAX theatrical premiere in mind.

Was that a great decision? Probably not. Did the premiere come off pretty clunky? Sure.

My question is, though, in an age where the adage is basically "you have to give it a few episodes before you judge it" (literally the majority of shows have had this said about them in the past decade) why are people so quick to throw shit under the bus after a poor premiere?

It probably doesn't help that we've been told The Inhumans was gonna suck ass by every media outlet for months now, so you go into it already biased.

@Ganymede said in Punishments in MU*:

@Coin said in Punishments in MU*:

You wish people would pay money to see you two slapfight.

Exactly.