Posts made by Coin

Not to mention that it's pretty trivial to doctor a log.

@Arkandel said:

@Coin said:

I'm the only good one in a set of triplets. Trufax.

Wait, there's two more of you?

No.

No there's not.

Not anymore.

I'm the only good one in a set of triplets. Trufax.

@Corruption said:

Not something that makes me angry exactly, but certainly butt-puckering. $3,400.00 to replace the flood-damaged hot water heater and furnace in my house. Joys of home-ownership, do not make any travel or fun plans for the near future.

This is a RL thing you love? Wrong thread, bro.

Getting my SNES Emulator to run with my xBox 360 controller. Awyiss.

I totally support @HelloRaptor and his not watching things people think eh should watch. Fuck that noise.

@HelloRaptor said:

@Coin @Arkandel
I mean neither of those things, since I still haven't watched Breaking Bad and didn't really get into Veronica Mars.

For the former I hadn't seen anything about it until after it started and I was already pretty full up on TV, so will probably download it at some point now that it's done.

I didn't dislike VM or anything, I watched a bit in the beginning, it just sort of slipped off the radar and I never felt really compelled to go back and watch it.

Bitch, though, was fucking hysterical and I watched all of it.

Well, my point is that the references we make are subjective and I just wanted to burst Arkandel's bubble.

@BallisticOrange said:

@Coin That's actually something I plan to tinker with in the background if the opportunity comes up.

Without a quote or working knowledge of who you are in the larger hobby, I don't have any reference as to what you mean! Heh.

@Ganymede said:

@Coin said:

This was a horrible idea, mostly because this sort of system would flounder and be to the detriment of the laissez-faire attitude that Fallcoast was bringing from The Reach. I mean, I get why you wanted to--but it wasn't going to work, which I guess is why you bowed out early.

You're presuming it would fail. That would presume I had not taken, or would not take, into consideration The Reach's background and Fallcoast's direction.

I am, yeah; but I'm also presuming it would fail if you took those things into consideration. I just don't think it would work on that game. Alas, neither of us will ever know if the other's right! I'm okay with that.

@Ganymede said:

@Coin said:

I would honestly encourage people who like this model to try their hand at making a game that follows it.

I tried to do this on Fallcoast.

I am putting together a proposal for coders to set up a game that follows RfK's model.

This was a horrible idea, mostly because this sort of system would flounder and be to the detriment of the laissez-faire attitude that Fallcoast was bringing from The Reach. I mean, I get why you wanted to--but it wasn't going to work, which I guess is why you bowed out early.

@Sundown said:

Also, all I see when @Coin says "narrative game" is "make your own fun." Which is okay, but ultimately it's an empty game unless /someone/ runs plots in which most of the playerbase can be included. Even then, if the playerbase is fragmented, it'll end up sandboxy, with consequences not really propagating over the entire game world.

If that's all you see, then you're not interpreting my comment to the fullest. But it is in part that, yes. But it always has been. If anything, my comment of "make your own game" is more "make your own fun", because god, yes, go, make your own game. Make ten games. Make all the games. Even if all you can contribute is ideas for metaplot, or an idea for a resources system, or anything--just get together with people and contribute.

In the end, if the game is only good because of staff involvement and boundless energy, as @TheGuyThere mentions above, then it is necessarily going to crash and burn, because no one can keep that up for long.

Once 2e Mage comes out, someone should try to build a Kingsmouth-modeled Mage game. See how long it takes for magic to break that system in half (and it will, it may just take a while). You could add things like people competing to solve the same Mysteries, have systems for ramping up possible Paradox/Disbelief in other people's territories while dragging it down in yours, competitive Astral Realm holding, etc.

I mean, like @Cobaltasaurus said above, for some people this is the antithesis of fun, and that's perfectly fine. But others might get a kick out of it.

@Jaded said:

@Arkandel said:

Fair enough. Let me put ask this, then; one of the criticisms I've heard about RfK players coming into games is that they're intent on essentially recreating the same thing to the point of expecting those games to function the same way and pushing to 'convert' them.

Although hardcoded elements could be borrowed to improve specific aspects of such games, would you say if you guys are looking for essentially a re-enactment of RfK or if you'd be satisfied with certain elements you enjoyed being incorporated in MU* you end up playing as may be appropriate for how they are already set up and ran?

I honestly feel bad for those players who come into other games hoping to see a 'conversion' or 'recreation' of what they found on RFK. They simply won't and it will hurt them in the long run for their own aspirations to try it.

Incorporating some of the elements might work - but the thing that RfK did was create the mindset of political play at the outset with the source of conflict being resolvable in manners other than hardcore combat PKing. As it stands right now and from what I understand the current crop of games doesn't encourage this mind set - I mean hell you pretty much have same ol same ol from TR to Fallcoast - where vampire combat kings are dominant. I cannot say the same for Eldritch and Reno but from what I've heard so far that too is the case. Will incorporating some of the political play aspects change those mindsets? Probably not, but one could hope.

I can't speak for Reno, but Eldritch is a more narrative-focused game. We're not so interested in players competing against each other unless they want to do so, and if they do, they should be doing so by creating plot for each other, not relying on other systems. It's not better or worse; it's just different.

But this is why I said that it's in the benefit of people who liked RfK's model to make a game like that. Not because I want them to go away and play in their corner or anything; but because if you really enjoy something, you should invest in it beyond participating should someone provide it for you.

@Arkandel said:

Fair enough. Let me put ask this, then; one of the criticisms I've heard about RfK players coming into games is that they're intent on essentially recreating the same thing to the point of expecting those games to function the same way and pushing to 'convert' them.

This is what I was referring to in my original post on this thread. This is a really bad attitude to take coming to a new game.

I would honestly encourage people who like this model to try their hand at making a game that follows it. The only way this hobby is going to stay alive and (somewhat) relevant (within context) is if people make and host games that cater to different types of play and niches. Some people only like one kind of play, other people would like to play several different types of play, but have an easier time separating how they play between games. I'm one of those. I can do all sorts of different types of playing, but I don't want to do highly political vampire in the same game as laissez-faire mage and resources-heavy Hunter and plot-driven werewolf. All games I would play. But not in a MU where they coexisted.

@Arkandel said:

@HelloRaptor By which you naturally mean knowing Jane from freakin' Breaking Bad is playing the part, right?

Probably not. Jane's role was short-lived, while Chloe was actually the titular "bitch in apartment 23".

Also, if we're really doing this, don't you both mean "knowing Gia Goodman from Veronica Mars is playing the part"? Since, you know, that was her first long-running role.

Thanks for elucidating. I know a lot of people were curious.

I think, though, that it's important (and you touch on this) for people froming in from Requiem for Kingsmouth to other games not to try to push that model on the games they come to. If this model is what they want to play, I think the best course of action is to make a new game that follows it. While quite a few people seem to want to play this sort of game, it doesn't mean a lot of people want to run it. I, for example, if I had the time, would love to play in it. I wouldn't really like to run it, though, and I won't. So, yeah, I think it's important for people who come from RfK to other games like Reno and Eldritch and Fallcoast to manage their expectations, because games can be and are very very very different. I wish RfK hadn't closed, because it provided a niche that we're sorely needing in this hobby--that of intense, political Vampire play. Maybe someone will pick up that type of game slack. We can hope.

@HelloRaptor said:

@Ganymede said:

@Misadventure

Even I did not understand what, if anything, you were getting at.

Same, though I find this to be the case pretty frequently with @Misadventure.

That's not meant as an insult, just an awkward observation. Sometimes it feels like a normal question has been put through a translation tool from English to something else, then again across a few others, then back to English and so while the words might seem relevant at a glance the sentences themselves no longer parse in context with what's being talked about.

Yah.

@Alzie said:

@tragedyjones said:

WHAT ARE WE YELLING ABOUT!?

Something Something Werewolf 2e. Something Something @coin lacking tact. Something Something Old Man @tragedyjones yelling get off my lawn.

lololololol.

@Misadventure said:

Yeah, you are the one that's offended. I thought so.

Explain why after I say I misunderstood something it needed to be repeated that I wasn't on the same page?

First: I don't need to explain shit. But since you asked so nicely:

If you misunderstand something, I repeat it, since obviously it wasn't explained well the first time. Also, you misunderstanding something doesn't take up all instances of misunderstanding in the conversation; don't be greedy, we can all misunderstand something if we want, and even misunderstand different things.

Explain why after /I/ mention something, it needs to be stated that no one else did?

For example, you bringing something up out of the blue in a way that suggested it was a topic of conversation meant I interpreted it as that. If you're going to introduce something new, do so in a way that explicitly explains it's something new you want to incorporate into the conversation and why, so people don't wonder why you brought it up. People are not obligated to understand your leaps of internal logic.

What were either things hoping to achieve? Did I stutter? Do I lack the "authority" to bring up something on my own?

This is just more passive aggression.