Posts made by Coin

@Arkandel said:

Another thing I liked was the way power levels fluctuated throughout the movie. Kylo Ren, for all that he lost like a chump at the end, was incredibly powerful - the guy stopped blasters in mid-air, that's pretty impressive. He did things with the Force we haven't seen in the movies so far.

Then he went down to Rey which made him look bad since she's completely untrained and only figured out how to do half this stuff about an hour before their fight) even though he was wounded at the time.

There could be a ton of reasons for this. For starters, Kylo doesn't really seem like much of a lightsabre duelist. His swings are broad and powerful but lack any real skill, whereas Rey at least showed very early on to be a capable weapon user (sure, it was a staff, but once you're a Jedi, who cares what you're holding?) while Finn, as a new generation of Stormtrooper, was probably trained in using a charge staff (the thing one of them uses to fight him when he's holding the sabre). Plus, at that point, Kylo is wounded, tired, and let's not forget: he just murdered his own father. What, emotional toll doesn't count in a fight? Never mind that he's trying to convince Rey to swing his way.

@TNP said:

@Coin http://nerdist.com/of-course-the-deadpool-script-notes-are-insane/

Amazing.

@Warma-Sheen said:

@Derp Mine was just an outsider's perspective. Didn't know you were Sinister there, but you were right in the middle of stuff so you know what was up. But... I'd disagree with the assessment of a 'good run'. Totally just a judgement call per individual perspective. But for all the time and effort that went into it, I think a good run would have had to last more than what it did. At least a year.

I'd be interested in knowing the amount of time that went into making the game from start to a full opening. You got to at least be active longer than it took you to make the game, right? Maybe I'm taking a harsh view cause of being disheartened at the result of it. But that sucks about the timing of all of it.

I don't know that we were open and active longer than we worked on it. Probably not, actually--or maybe about the same amount of time.

But the amount of work and what you're putting into it is also different during the two stages. You can't really compare the building of the game, its history, a languid telling of a storied world and its people--to the mind-numbing daily grind of +jobs and apps and requests and complaints and and and and and.

While we worked on Eldritch, we still roleplayed somewhat (not as much). I also sat with @Eerie for hours on end with my feet kicked up on my desk talking about this city we were creating and its history, its people--I never had as much fun as those moments when it comes to this hobby.

So you can't compare the two, especially not when you're considering its "run", which is largely affected not just by the people who made the game but also the people who engage in it. There were a lot of little things that were disappointments and for some of us those stacked up faster and taller than for others.

I can't compare "creating" and "running" the game; but to me, the person who was at the start and the end of both, it was all one long process.

@Groth said:

I never played on Eldritch but I'd argue that the measure of a good run is not length but rather if the players enjoyed it while it lasted.

I'm sure quite a few people didn't enjoy it. Many of them because they were too pessimistic, some because they were too optimistic, but the vast majority simply because it wasn't their thing. But as long as some people enjoyed it, I'm all right. I'm gonna do other things now.

One of the many reasons I started Eldritch is because I was tired of criticizing people without having done something myself. I had run games before, but never one that was mine. So now when I see other staffers and especially game creators making what I think are mistakes, I know if it's a mistake I've made, or one I didn't; I know how hard it was to avoid, or how easy to fall into.

Nothing worse than backseat staffing, man; when players wave their hands and say "we can do this better" but then don't actually try. Maybe it was a good run, maybe it wasn't, but we tried. Good enough for me.

@Arkandel said:

Also, apparently there's some controversy about Rey and whether she's too perfect or not feminist enough.

Pah.

Right, because Max Landis has so much to say about writing. Go back to writing indie comic book movies and producing shorts wherein you overanalyze and pontificate about Superman (talk about a Gary Stu), Max. Leave actual literature alone--we need you to, if criticism of Victor Frankenstein is anything to go by.

@Admiral said:

Oh I didn't give up. I was stating that there's no point in boring games with 'beats' and 'hugs' and whatever it is kids these days are after.

@Admiral said:

Well if boring hipster-beat is what folks want I guess there's no point.

Man, you gave up on that in record time, dude. Heh.

@Derp said:

I finally got to see it. I have to agree. It was bloody awesome. I was so worried they were gonna bomb it, but they really pulled through.

Although, goddamn, Carrie got old.

Well. Dude. It's been thirty-two years since Return of the Jedi. I mean, yeah. She got old. That's what people do over the course of thirty-plus years. Heh.

That's not how the Force works.

I once ran an oWoD game set in Istanbul.

@Bargle said:

Don't worry, it's actually good. Not just good while doped up. But for shame! Going to the theater with the flu? Didn't you see Outbreak?!?

that movie is worth making a couple hundred other people sick.

@Derp said:

@Coin said:

@Derp said:

@Coin

I'm so jealous, you bastard.

Sooooooooo gooooooooooooooooooooooooooood.

You're so mean.

@Derp said:

@Coin

I'm so jealous, you bastard.

Sooooooooo gooooooooooooooooooooooooooood.

The Force Awakens is pretty fantastic. That is all.

@Sessurea said:

Huh, I had no idea I'd been missing all those colors.

Hm? The colors on those posts are from the code here on the forums, not on the game.

@Ganymede said:

@Misadventure said:

Only if characters are randomly given Asshole Cards that dictate when they will screw over other survivors for something truly trivial or selfish.

That's silly. This is what staff is for.

Edited to add: I was running a W:tA 20 game last year, and there was a point where the pack alpha needed to roll to see if he Rage-frenzied when stopped by a sheriff at a traffic stop in the middle of the day in a downtown area. As GM, I told him I would give him an XP if he chose to fail prior to rolling. The pack spent the rest of the session running from other police and taking care of witnesses.

Players will do anything for extra XP. So, give it to them, and laugh.

The new system (sort of) does this by default. I love it. I think people should be able to fail a roll entirely, too, without even rolling, once per scene.

@Ganymede said:

@tragedyjones said:

Y'all need some post apocalyptic pretty people in your life.

I need to watch this, being a devotee of The Last of Us and other post-apocalyptic games.

Also, Rebuild 3 is an awesome Steam game. Wrong thread, I know.

WRONG THREAD GANY. WRONG THREAD.

@Arkandel said:

@Three-Eyed-Crow said:

Where, as bad as this sounds, I felt like I spent the majority of my time being an outwardly-graceful loser because I inevitably didn't want to Internet Argue as long as someone else. It wasn't even so much, "I shot you! Nu-uh!" stuff as, "OK, well, it's their turn to be awesome this time, I can be awesome next time...or next time...or next time..."

That could have been a mileage thing but I can definitely see where you're coming from.

Since we're on a comic book tangent though, do you think it could be cool to adopt the comic book trope where certain heroes are simply better in their own books? You know, the classic Spider-man versus Wolverine thing where if you're reading a Spider-man title he wins but if you're reading a wolvie title Logan does, but on a MU*?

So when there's a plot it's thrown for a main protagonist each time whose powers are just more pronounced for its duration. Either the game is statless and their player gets to decide the baseline or there are dice involved and the character has a buff which lasts for the scene? It might help with the rotation of awesomeness you're referring to.

Welcome to "but he's awesome because all the plots revolve around him".

Also, Wolverine is always badass, in general, regardless of the book he's in. Every book is a Wolverine book when he's in it. Except Ms. Marvel.

@Runescryer said:

Also, I'd like to hear more on what's going to happen with Trinity and Scion

Trinity and Scion belong to Onyx Path entirely now, iirc.

@ThatGuyThere said:

Not sure on star Wars since my few mushing attempts at it usually ended with me getting real bored real quick.
For superheros I definitely think it has lead to more games, at least games being created. Most do not find a real player base and then end up ending fairly quickly as well, same could be said about any genre but Superhero in particular seems to have a faster life cycle then say WoD games from what I have seen.
As far as activities on individual games that has stayed the same for the most part, Superheros games do have a lot of sitting around oc til someone runs things but most people are ready and willing to rp if it gets mentioned, compared to WoD there the ooc room dwellers are less numerous but usually permanent residents.

It is a lot easier to run things in consent-based games. It's also very easy to make a game when it doesn't require stats (especially coded stats) and when your characters are already largely well-known properties.

I can make a superhero game in a month; it took like eight to make Eldritch.