Posts made by Coin

@ThatGuyThere said in Character Rosters:

@Arkandel
I understand and I ma not taking it as an insult. But I am a math person not a language person.
I can do language when I need to, and managed to get a 650 on that part of the SAT by putting in a crap ton of work, and got solid grades in the English classes I had to take in college.
I am glad you respect my opinions and do enjoy conversing on the topics with you, but part of me is not being the best with words unless I really focus. Now I do that on games and on formal work stuff when money is on the line but am never really going to bother in other informal areas.
We are on an on-line board talking about online games it gets a quick glance over not a real proof read, that is what it will always get. To me that is where conversations here are on the priority scale to me, enjoyable and sometimes edifying but not actually important.

My reaction to this is essentially: you're expecting us to put extra effort in deciphering your bad syntax because you're unwilling to put in the extra effort to employ good syntax.

@Lotherio said in Attributes or No?:

My two cents of preference, I'm good with attributes + abilities/skills. I do like the preference to choose if needed whether strength is helping intimidation by breaking something or charisma by mad-dogging and talking.

My favorite things when WEG d6 came out was the 'you have every skill in this category at the base attribute level' which made a lot of sense. Instead of taking tons of skills, you bought the skills that where above and beyond your natural talent/inclination.

I prefer some weight towards the trained skill over natural talent and it was always odd to me (probably from my enjoyment of WEG d6), that in some systems, the 3-4 pips 'expert' in a skill could still be less than someone with more pips in the base attribute who has no training in said skill. It just doesn't quite jive in my mind; I still play those games and enjoy them the same, but as far as preference goes, I prefer attributes that contribute in some way to skills or abilities in some way and are not just a nice stat to help with like health or something.

This is one of the reasons the system I am working on works the way it does.

You essentially Roll [Skill] dice of [Attribute] value. Sure, the higher your attribute, the higher the die can go, but the higher your Skill, the higher your minimum is.

If I am rolling 1d12, I am a super talented person who is barely trained, and my range of success is anywhere between 1-12; but if I am rolling 3d4, I am nowhere near as talented as the former, but I am much more trained, so my actual range is 3-12. Same maximum, different minimum.

Of course, with just a LITTLE more training (+1 to the Skill) the extremely talented person suddenly has 2d12, which makes their range 2-24, which is insanely better than 3d4, even if the latter has a better minimum.

To me, that represents how in fiction, very talented people achieve very good results with little training, while people who have trained all their lives are perhaps not as potentially good, but are much more consistently proficient.

At least, it works for me.

@ThatGuyThere said in Character Rosters:

@Arkandel
Be glad I use the punctuation I do and capitalize I could be all e e cummings up in here.

a) this isn't poetry;
b) e. e. cummings had consistency within his own rebellion against grammar;
c) you aren't e. e. cummings.

@Arkandel said in Character Rosters:

@ThatGuyThere said in Character Rosters:

I enjoy making characters trust me

Dammit, use punctuation. I read that a couple of times at first trying to figure out what 'making characters trust you' meant.

Srsly.

But also - the rosters idea isn't aimed at people who are able to and enjoy making their own characters. They're there to provide those who don't, or just want to perhaps try a game out for a couple of days without investing anything else than on-grid time yet, the chance to do exactly that.

I honestly never understood the hate-on for roster characters. They are an addition to the game, they don't subtract anything substantial in my experience. I don't know of any games thata re exclusively roster?

@Lithium said in Attributes or No?:

@Coin said in Attributes or No?:

@Lithium said in Attributes or No?:

I am a fan of them but I've been quantifying them more objectively.

You have physical, mental, and social categories and then in each three categories you have three traits or attributes that are Power, Finesse, and Resistance.

The skills are also broken down via mental, social, and physical but are used by the skills differently depending on what you want to do:

Brute force punch or slam or grapple: Physical Power + Unarmed Combat. To try and dodge that same attack it'd be Physical Finesse + Unarmed Combat.

I am trying to avoid power skills like 'Dodge' because honestly avoiding getting punched is a lot different than avoiding being shot, but if you are good with guns then you know how to also take cover and avoid being shot with guns as most people aren't going to be dodging bullets due to relativistic speed differences between a person and a bullet for example.

If you were to use a martial arts attack it'd be Physical Finesse + unarmed combat rather than power.

So far it's working out pretty reasonably in my testing.

This is basically what CofD does. Those are even the same cross categories. I mean, you're obviously aware of it, but you may want to be wary of it, as well.

Also, why is "martial arts" Finesse and Unarmed Combat isn't (or vice versa)? There are a lot of martial arts that I would argue are a lot more about physical power than finesse. If you're going to go into that sort of separation, you might benefit from letting people decide whether their unarmed combat is Power- or Finesse-based from the get go and applying different penalties in that vein.

Why is martial arts finesse? Because that's how it's defined arbitrarily by me, the system make on the game. Are there martial arts that use raw power over finesse? Sure, maybe, but I am not trying to quantify every individual martial art. If someone wants to be highly skilled at a more brute form of unarmed combat then they'd use Power instead of Finesse. I don't really see that as a problem. You use whatever stat that makes sense for how your using the skill.

Yes. I went on to clarify this in the post after that one.

@Ganymede said in Attributes or No?:

@Coin said in Attributes or No?:

Also, why is "martial arts" Finesse and Unarmed Combat isn't (or vice versa)? There are a lot of martial arts that I would argue are a lot more about physical power than finesse.

Just because it requires Dexterity *** doesn't mean it's all about finesse. And Dexterity isn't really just about finesse.

I'm not sure why you're bringing this up (or prerequisites at all). My point is actually that there are a ton of what people would consider "martial arts" that are much more focused on what @Lithium seems to attribute to a "Power"-type attribute instead of a "Finesse"-type attribute, especiall when compared to others.

She can certainly decide to define "Martial Arts", within her system, as "unarmed combat requiring Finesse over Power", but I think many people would find it confusing (or reductive). Doesn't much matter, if that's what she wants to do, though.

I mean, as far as I understand those words.

That CoD breaks them down as such appears to be more of a game-bias or choice.

The words mean certain (sometimes many) things by definition, but a game system gives them a specific definition and within that game system, that's what they mean. It's essentially the difference between finesse and Finesse, yes?

So really, yes, Dexterity in the CofD system is all about Finesse, because it is the Physical Finesse Attribute; literally the physical representation of your character's innate Finesse.

CofD breaks them down that way, and thus within the metaphysical make-up of the reality that the system represents, that's exactly how it works. They're abstract.

This is why I am against interpretations of Attributes that are literal based on the words used. To me, Strength does not necessarily correlate (only) to how much muscle your character has packed on or how much raw strength they can display (after all, if it's for lifting, you also use Athletics, and there are Merits that help as well), but rather to how efficiently and effectively the character imposes their Power in the Physical. The same way as Presence is how efficiently and effectively the charactger imposes their Power in the Social, and Intelligence... you get it. This is why Stamina is still a reasonable Attribute to use when you're clinging to a cliff and someone is stepping on your fingers. It doesn't matter how strong you are; what matters is how efficiently your can resist (Resistance category) in the Physical (i.e. Stamina).

I think there should be more emphasis on Attributes, and less on Skills, personally. I like Dream Pod 9's Silhouette system, and the newer L5R mechanics.

I have never played Dream Pod 9, and only know L5R peripherally.

@Lithium said in Attributes or No?:

I am a fan of them but I've been quantifying them more objectively.

You have physical, mental, and social categories and then in each three categories you have three traits or attributes that are Power, Finesse, and Resistance.

The skills are also broken down via mental, social, and physical but are used by the skills differently depending on what you want to do:

Brute force punch or slam or grapple: Physical Power + Unarmed Combat. To try and dodge that same attack it'd be Physical Finesse + Unarmed Combat.

I am trying to avoid power skills like 'Dodge' because honestly avoiding getting punched is a lot different than avoiding being shot, but if you are good with guns then you know how to also take cover and avoid being shot with guns as most people aren't going to be dodging bullets due to relativistic speed differences between a person and a bullet for example.

If you were to use a martial arts attack it'd be Physical Finesse + unarmed combat rather than power.

So far it's working out pretty reasonably in my testing.

This is basically what CofD does. Those are even the same cross categories. I mean, you're obviously aware of it, but you may want to be wary of it, as well.

Also, why is "martial arts" Finesse and Unarmed Combat isn't (or vice versa)? There are a lot of martial arts that I would argue are a lot more about physical power than finesse. If you're going to go into that sort of separation, you might benefit from letting people decide whether their unarmed combat is Power- or Finesse-based from the get go and applying different penalties in that vein.

I like them.

I also like to play with them.

For example, I am designing a system where the Attributes can change depending on the type of game you want to play, and that will inform the kind of Skills you have, as well.

Skills are a combination of an Attribute and a Category. Your categories are Physical, Mental, and Social. Your Attributes could be anything you want that is broad enough. Let's say one of your Attributes is Fortitude.

You make three Skills out of this: Physical Fortitude (Endurance), Mental Fortitude (Resolve), and Social Fortitude (Integrity).

Come up with four more Attributes, and you get 12 more Skills.

This system is meant to combine Attributes and Skills, too, where the Attribute dictates the type of die you roll and the Skill the amount.

I mean, I haven't gotten far along enough to share the whole thing, but this is just one of the ways that Attributes can be used without it being the same-ol', same-ol'.

@faraday said in Dragon Age: Smoke & Shadows:

@Thenomain said in Dragon Age: Smoke & Shadows:

I believe FS3 is FUDGE, not FATE. Correct me if I'm wrong, @faraday.

FS3 is neither. It's a custom system. Edit: I originally said roll+keep but maybe that implies too much like 7th Sea. It's a cousin of WoD and SR4.

I believe Roll+Keep is also in L5R.

@Arkandel said in Dragon Age: Smoke & Shadows:

@Coin said in Dragon Age: Smoke & Shadows:

@Arkandel said in Dragon Age: Smoke & Shadows:

@Thenomain said in Dragon Age: Smoke & Shadows:

@Arkandel

Does it feel weird when they change who plays Spider Man in the movies, or turning Thor into a woman?

And for Thor: Yes, to me at least. Thor is a specific guy! It's not his superhero alias, it's his actual name. Like, literally his mom was bitching at 'Thor' to go wash his hands before dinner when he was a kid. </rant>

There are a bunch of people in the world named "Angel". Is it weird for an X-Man to have the name Angel as their alias?

Angel was named after something else, other people called the same weren't named after him.

(We're derailing the thread so I'll stop it here )

(Psst. I know a dude whose name is Jesus that might have a thing to say...)

@Thenomain said in The Shame Game:

@Kanye-Qwest said in The Shame Game:

I'm just furious at all of you.

Your opinion about us is equally valid as @Coin's about your mom.

(edit: That was funnier before I saw it in print. Eesh.)

The opinion is a tentative thumbs-up.

@Arkandel said in Dragon Age: Smoke & Shadows:

@Thenomain said in Dragon Age: Smoke & Shadows:

@Arkandel

Does it feel weird when they change who plays Spider Man in the movies, or turning Thor into a woman?

And for Thor: Yes, to me at least. Thor is a specific guy! It's not his superhero alias, it's his actual name. Like, literally his mom was bitching at 'Thor' to go wash his hands before dinner when he was a kid. </rant>

There are a bunch of people in the world named "Angel". Is it weird for an X-Man to have the name Angel as their alias?

Mjolnir clearly states that whoever can wield it shall possess the power of Thor. If Jane Foster wants to run around calling herself Thor because of it, what's the big deal?

It's a rhetorical question. Clearly it's a big deal to you, and it's inconsequential to me.

@Thenomain said in Dragon Age: Smoke & Shadows:

@Arkandel

Does it feel weird when they change who plays Spide Man in the movies, or turning Thor into a woman? I think you under-estimate people's ability to just roll with it, especially when changing medium.

The movies are in different continuities (and even with superheros who are not and still get actor changes, this is a constraint due to the medium and budgetary concerns, and thus a whole different animal).

Thor did not become a woman; Jane Foster took up the mantle of Thor. This is a syntactically small but contextually huge difference. (For extra fun: Thor was a frog once. Everyone thought that was great. They didn't complain until it was a woman.)

In this case, the fact that all the FCs could theoretically be so different within the canon as it exists because the canon is mutable depending on who plays the game and the choices they make makes me wonder why FCs are even considered a good idea at all?, since you could essentialyl create three dozen versions of Hawke who are all different, pretty much making them OCs... sort of.
Or perhaps they just mean the NPCs from the game who'll just be Staff NPCs, in which case, whatever.

@Lithium: Everyone's opinions are equally valid!
@Ganymede: No, some people's opinions are better informed and more valid than others!
@Lithium: No! You're wrong and I'm right!

I see a paradox! (Is that a paradox? Well. Contradiction, anyway.)

P.S. If you guys haven't seen this (re: Flat Earth Movement) you really fucking need to, right now.

@Chime said in Chime Patreon:

but I have the business sense of an octopus in a peanut butter jar.

Is it full of peanut butter or is it a jar that just once held peanut butter? Because those fuckers are intelligent! They can open jar lids from inside!

All kidding aside, I will try to contribute as I can, as I think this is the least the community can do to thank you for your efforts and favor.

@Bobotron said in CoD - Victorian - Penny Dreadful-ish.:

@Coin
There's some info on combining the BP and Generation stats in the Vampire Translation Guide, if you're interested in looking.

I've seen it. I don't remember them, but I don't particularly remember them being too great? I can take a look, though.

@Arkandel said in CoD - Victorian - Penny Dreadful-ish.:

@Coin Yeah, that'd work. Essentially take thin-blooded out of the equation and control (but really control, as opposed to allowing special cases) Generations. For instance if you lower your PC's Generation via diablerie they becomes an NPC, done-fixed.

Addendum: It still leaves Elders in game as a concept though, which affects theme overall.

It would also let you apply nebulous effects to the sixth dot of Disciplines, which so far don't exist in CofD 2e.

@bored said in CoD - Victorian - Penny Dreadful-ish.:

@Arkandel I assume you could still use it as the power stat, just deriving your value from Generation, and then toss out all the thematic stuff about torpor and potency loss.

The probablem with multi sphere is that you wouldn't be buying it up with XP and if other people could it would exacerbate the typical 'Vampires are the weakest splat always' problem. But I'm also a universal mage hater, and tend to be pro less spheres in general, so ymmv.

This is honestly my biggest concern regarding using VtM theme with CofD rules. Generation is one of the most useful tools for keeping other players down.

If you wanted to use Generation in a game I would just say "any vampire of 8th+ Generation has the same peak of power in their blood, but it requires lower Generation to reach the levels of the Elders (re: Blood Potency 6+)". And then don't allow Elders.

@peasoupling said in CoD - Victorian - Penny Dreadful-ish.:

I sometimes wonder why fantasy/science-fiction settings have to copy our familiar forms of bigotry and discrimination for the sake of 'realism'.

Because that is the point. Science Fiction in particular is allegorical.

Also what @Thenomain and @Ganymede said.

@Bobotron said in [Interest Check] Original vampire-based supernatural MU*:

@Coin
LOL. I just picture the blooded using Caesar as an insult word for the Dictator position perhaps. Funnier if it's someone from House Julius.

I think it would be funnier if the position was actually Caesar and when a vampire wanted to be scathing, he'd go, like, "She just better watch her back, s'all I'm sayin'm, knowatamean?"