Posts made by Coin

@Cobaltasaurus

Eldritch was never the first place to do it. Neither was Darkwater, to be honest. I played on, uhm, Devilshire? And Devilshire didn't have stringent rules, but deviating too hard got you a hardcore frownyfase.

@HorrorHound said in The Descent MUX:

@ShelBeast

Vampires have more to offer Wolves than visa versa. Blood Tenebrous outlines why Vampires and Wolves never really get involved:

There is no Blood in The Shadow, and there is nothing worth controlling in The Shadow.

"But I am Kane, ruler of All Nosgoth!"

Except Kane had a bleak understanding of anything not Of Nosgoth.

"But what can Vam-"

Vampires control, everything.
You know how you kill a whole Pack of Uratha? You buy their land, intimidate lawmakers, bribe cops, and bulldoze their precious trees and stones. Then you sell it all to Wal-Mart. End.

Doesn't really work that way. The Shadow isn't really a "nature" thing anymore. Wal-Mart and corrupt cops and intimidated lawmakers still have a lot to offer the werewolf setting and, I don't know if you've read Forsaken 2e, but they're very, very good at the social shiznit now.

Now, @Coin is spot on, too. Don't nuke anything. It just ends poorly. I would actually suggest going over to Fallcoast, and cgen a vampire. Then a werewolf. Look at your sheet, and then, redo it with -30xp. Barebones. Because at 50xp any supernatural Splat no longer gives a shit about your Deathclaw Nest. Not the Rahu's, not the Irraka's, not the Nosferatu, not the Gangrel.

Fallcoast operates on a different XP system. 50 XP on Fallcoast is like... 10 experiences in a CofD 2e game.

@ThatOneDude said in Good TV:

@Coin said in Good TV:

@lordbelh said in Good TV:

@Coin RIP Banshee. I also wish they'd had a full last season.

It was only two episodes short of a full season. I don't think the story could have gotten stretched out much further this season, anyway. It was a decent, impactful end. Mothafuckah. </Job>

Man, I'm sad to see Banshee go but it sure did have a good run.

Job was the man! Or...

<Job> Oh, he was a man, honey; just 'cuz you ain't his kinna man don't mean squat! </Job>

Stripping Feeding Grounds and Herd as purchasable Merits is probably not the best idea. But you can definitely make them contingent on upkeep; maybe even contingent on doing something to be able to buy them. Sanctity of Merits helps players swallow losing dots in something if they don't play the upkeep.

I agree with @HorrorHound.

In fact, this sort of thing works best if you let werewolves and vampires mesh together far more than other games would.

@lordbelh said in Good TV:

@Coin RIP Banshee. I also wish they'd had a full last season.

It was only two episodes short of a full season. I don't think the story could have gotten stretched out much further this season, anyway. It was a decent, impactful end. Mothafuckah. </Job>

@Cobaltasaurus said in Tips on Güd TS:

@Gingerlily said in Tips on Güd TS:

@Cobaltasaurus Nobody hates you! You said that the last time. You can flake and return, you weren't running a story scads of people were counting on or anything. You're fine!

I want to be a pretty princess. Flakes can't be pretty princesses.

I'm fairly certain every single pretty princess whose defining trait is being a pretty princess is a testament to how wrong your statement is.

My only thought is that I disagree that the Draugr will make it easier for "humane" Vampires to eek by unnoticed.

Look, in a world where we all work, we all have independent lives, we all have things we do, we all have houses and indoor activities, etc., etc., being a nightowl who's only seen at night and doesn't really interact with anyone while the sun is up is easy to look past.

But in a world where you need to be out there, surviving, keeping your shit together--I think the mundane mortal is going to start looking at someone who they only see at night a little differently.

Sure, Kindred with Dominate and Majesty will have an easier time; those with Obfuscate might not even exist, socially speaking, at all.

If I were a vampire, I would want to strike a thick line between myself and the Draugr in social perceptions--show the mortals around me that I am powerful, but I am not a monster, and that those two things combined make me ideal to help them survive. I just, you know, need a little blood here and there. But my Vigor, or Celerity, or Protean, or Dominate, or whatever is going to make me invaluable to mortals who need to be protected from the ravenous Draugr and Revenant hordes.

Of course, the way you seem to be setting it up would probably allow for this? I am just suggesting that, as staff, it might be great if you pushed for this sort of thing a little bit, if you're okay with the Masquerade being gone.

P.S. What about werewolves? I assume they basically just drop The Herd Must Not Know. Either that, or there's a lot more mortal deaths. A lot.

So Banshee is over. I just watched the last episode.

Aside from its rather lamentable treatment of the vast majority of its female characters (they're all strong characters; it's usually their ends that I'm cringey about), especially in its second half (seasons 3 and 4) and its... unfortunate choice of antagonists for its third season (nngh, but still super compellingly written), it was perhaps one of the best made action shows I've seen in a very, very long time.

One of the best ways to avoid stagnation via plot is to make the plot a change one way or the other.

You start off with the Status Quo and then you give people a choice: You can let the "bad guys" get away witht heir plan (i.e. you fail) and you get Crapsack World or you can do what's necessary to stop them and get New Status Quo.

But the important bit is to make Status Quo and New Status Quo fundamentally different, that way it doesn't feel like beating the bad guys is just a return to how things were; and if the PCs fail, it's still a change.

This is what I was gonna do on Eldritch 'fore I burned out.

I still remember the time my cousin and I convinced our other cousin that if you googled "Google" the internet broke.

He did it. We disconnected the internet just as he did it.

I have never seen someone freak out so much in my life. It probably didn't help that we had spent like an hour explaining to him the ramifications of the internet suddenly collapsing and how he should not under any circumstance google "Google".

@lordbelh said in The 100: The Mush:

@Admiral said in The 100: The Mush:

Anyone who tells you that a game about teenagers isn't run by a specific clique is a liar.

I guess I'm a liar, then. I've played on games about teenagers that weren't run by specific cliques.

I am also a liar!

@Quibbler Cows. It was possessed cows.

Also, before that, a certain quick demon drove a lot and had his car take a lot of beatings.

@Thenomain said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:

@Coin points out that theme and system need to match or confusion ensues. Ten points HR Puffenstuff.

It would also be nice if Mu*s used more of the skills, or challenged characters with them more. Like, you know, Drive. Ever.

Ask @Quibbler, I have in the past made people roll Drive quite a bit. >.>

@Three-Eyed-Crow said in The 100: The Mush:

@Coin said in The 100: The Mush:

Not to mention that cliques are necessary; it's just that in this hobby the word 'clique' has such heavy overtones that everyone loses their god damn minds over it.

Yeah, it's a thing where I always feel like I'm getting sucked back into High School Mentality vortex when people complain about it.

Which is unfortunate, because there are actual issues that I think people actually kind of mean when they talk about the evils of cliques (sharing plot spotlight and making sure there's an effort toward newbie integration) that are really important to game culture and the hobby in general. But it turns into 'ZOMG CLIQUES EXIST!!!' in a way that's really lame and doesn't address those things.

And then you have the people who are always the victim of cliques just because other people don't always and constantly invite them to things.

Man, sometimes I wanna play with someone else. Or, even, most times I want to play with someone else, but I still sometimes want to play with you.

Or the people who don't get along with someone else you play with but get angry when you don't invite them to scenes that are already happenings with that other person. Gee, I don't want the drama, how horrible am I, right?

@Autumn said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:

@Arkandel It's probably due to the effects of having things cost differently depending on whether you buy them in chargen or with XP. That is, if you want to end up with a stat spread of 3/5/3, there is an objectively more XP-efficient way to get there when post-chargen costs are not linear, which disadvantages people who want to start out with a relatively balanced set of stats.

Of course, the other way to do this is to make it more expensive to spike stats in chargen. CoD made tentative baby steps in this direction by having 5s cost extra in chargen, but all that did was adjust the calculations, rather than getting rid of the problem.

Also, this.

@Admiral said in Good TV:

I think Coin might be one of those 4chan trolls we've been seeing pop up lately.

Ascribing emotions to people based on textual interaction is just about as old-school trolly as you can get.

Kay, bruv. You carry on with your curmudgeonly ways.

@Admiral said in Good TV:

Oh gee, someone disagrees with you! They must just be disagreeable.

It's impossible someone might reasonably disagree with you on something!

I was actually just commenting on the fact that you are a curmudgeon who likes to complain and be grumpy all the time.

And, I mean, it's okay? But don't get all weepy when people point it out; that's just silly.

@Arkandel said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:

@Ganymede What I never understood is what the objective of having linear spends was. What was they hoping to get by it? Simplicity? Because it's not that hard to explain you spend '<x> XP per dot' to raise a stat to <x>, surely.

It just... makes no sense. Learning first aid is easy, reading a few books on biology is harder, going to medical school is harder still... all the way to becoming a world-class surgeon which is pretty damn hard. Why make each step cost the same? It's counter-intuitive.

In the real world, each one of those steps has exponential results in your understanding of a thing. Because the 1-5 ratio is meant to be an abtract representation of (in your example) knowledge, and each dot is mechanically and mathematically worth exactly the same when it's time to roll dice (each die has the same exact chance of coming up a 10 as every other die, and each die can produce the same exact variety of results as every other die) it is perfectly justifiable that the costs for each of those dice, separately, be the same.

You can agree or disagree, but this is a perfectly all right way of looking at it. In fact, when talking about Skills, the most valuable dot is always the first one, because it's worth more than the others, due to unskilled penalties (the first dot of Social and Physical Skills is worth 2 dice, while the first dot of a Mental Skill is worth a whopping 4 dice). (Amusingly, or perhaps logically, the first dot of an Attribute is also the most economic one, since it's free!)

So for example, if learning first aid is worth 1 dot, then reading a few books in biology might be worth 2 dots, and going to medical school might be worth 3 dots--but the way the system works mathematically, you're only slightly better at Medicine than you were when you just had first aid (and not even 3 times better, since you have to take your Attribute into account, which lowers the percentage of worth of the following dots, which in fact makes each following dot be worth less overall, if my rudimentary understanding of math is correct).

It's not as simple as 'getting better should be harder' when the theoretical progression is not mirrored and represented by the mechanical progression.

Choosing to do away with diminishing returns for higher levels of a trait implies a recognition of the trait's mechanical and abstract worth, because the system assumes that the storyteller and players are smart enough to recognize this.

This isn't, necessarily, a better way of doing things, since obviously there are preferences otherwise, but your argument against it is flawed.

@Admiral said in Good TV:

Galavant was 'Medieval Glee'.

Glee sucked. Ergo Galavant sucked too.

Hey, everybody, Admiral doesn't like something and he felt the need to share it.

You can rest assured it is a day ending in Y.