@SG said:
@Silver So, it's going to change. Based on the trailers, I don't see how Batman vs Superman could possibly do well, it looks awful!
I guess it's lucky for the film industry that you probably don't speak for the vast, vast quantities of people who will go watch this movie.
That was a seriously badass rap battle.
"Jennifer Garner famously played Elektra to Ben Affleck’s Daredevil on the big screen."
lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol.
I love how she mentions Garner played her in Daredevil but neatly dodges even mentioning Elektra. I mean they were both shit movies, but haha.
@HelloRaptor said:
Spoken like someone who's never watched a dozen "modern" replacements come in at ten times budget (in both time and money) and still not actually managed to replace the system that it was intended to replace.
Spoken like someone who's never dealt with budgets (in both time and money) based on unrealistic expectations for what things should cost or how long they should take, or situations where 'not actually manage' is just code for 'awkward due to unfamiliarity'.
A decade? That's what you think is old and decrepit?
Read for comprehension, you curmudgeonly fuck. I was pretty clearly speaking about software systems built for functioning within an OS with a modern counterpart, not embedded systems probably built in the 50s.
Further, 'shit that became common 10 years ago' is not the same thing as 'a decade old makes something old and decrepit' by any reasonable standard of understanding what the fuck someone is saying, especially when speaking about technology.
In either case, examples of shit like code written before Unix was even a thing were clearly well outside the realm of what I was talking about in that quote.
I know techies love to use the latest hotness, but only a dumb businessman listens to techies breathlessly talking up their grand future vision of modern hardware and modern software. If you have a system that works and does what you need, you don't replace it. You introduce a new system iff you have clearly-identified business needs that are not being met by your existing system. And even then, you probably start by having the new system only augment what you've got until it has proven itself and can be expanded to replace.
All of which completely ignores the fact that I flat out said that what you had said was true, so why you thought you had to rehash that shit here I have no idea.
What I was talking about, and why @Shebakoby's gripe is still perfectly valid, are companies running old ass programs that are so far past no longer supported and quickly reaching the point where they aren't going to be compatible with a modern OS in any reliable way while still needing to use a modern OS for everything else. And specifically, as I already said, when there are viable modern alternatives even if they aren't perfect.
This is especially a problem when the industry you're a part of is moving forward with that modern alternative regardless of its imperfection. It doesn't really matter if what you're trying to do was best done on an original Macintosh or Windows 3.0 machine, on Version 1 of whatever program you're using, when the people you're in business with are on Windows 7 using Version 8 of whatever that program is, and those versions are incompatible due to changes in how the program works and organizes data. At some point you're going to have to suck it up and move forward.
If you've seriously, for real, in all honesty never run into one of the many examples of organizations running wildly outdated software that they can and should have moved on from, but haven't due to a combination of fearing the unfamiliarity of the new and being unwilling to pay employees to learn a new system before it gets implemented and a million other examples of them just clinging to the past 'because it works' even when it is clearly not going to keep working for much longer? Then really, you have lived a charmed fucking life.
But they do exist, and it is pretty common to run across, and it is pretty fucking frustrating. Especially when they want all the bells and whistles and advancements a modern OS provides but don't want to let go of some shit that came out the same decade as the original version of the OS.
HERE IS SOME BOLD TEXT TO INDICATE YOU SHOULD PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING:
Much like I said before, everything you described is true, from the catastrophic results of trying to update embedded systems by companies more interested in showing off those bells and whistles than creating a functional replacement (they often get paid regardless), to the techheads who will want to replace everything with the most cutting edge modern version of itself even when it's not necessary or even detrimental to the process.
But what I said, and what @Shebakoby was griping about, are also true. We're just talking about different aspects of the same general issue, and none of us are wrong. Aside from the bits where you were wrong about what you quoted.
I see you got some sleep.
@HelloRaptor said:
@Thenomain said:
@Ganymede said:
The term "accuracy" in context refers to whether the opinion is a fact.
I'm not so sure; let's discuss this theory.
I concur.
@Ganymede said:
@Coin said:
No. I just have a higher opinion of him than you, probably.
I don't consider my opinions high or low. It only matters if they are accurate or not.
Opinions are by definition judgments not necessarily based on fact. They can't be "accurate" or "inaccurate". They can be informed and misinformed and --you get the point.
@HelloRaptor said in WoD MUSH Comparison?:
@Coin said:
I shouldn't have replied in the first place. Too little sleep, and I slipped. Won't happen again, he typed optimistically.
Not sure if sincere, or sarcastic FTFY typo.
Fingers crossed for the former! So tight!
@Ganymede said:
@Coin said:
It's like you're purposely being obtuse just to be an ass, which is beneath you * * *.
Dude, what? Are you new here?
No. I just have a higher opinion of him than you, probably. 
@HelloRaptor said:
And sometimes making people roll blind is just a way of making sure knowledge doesn't color their reactions.
Yeah, wouldn't want people we otherwise trust getting unconsciously influenced in their decisions by-
Sorry, choked on the... irony? Hypocrisy? I can never tell which is which these days.
You're so grumpy lately. And in both cases, it's still about trust. See how it's still about the same thing?
Also, dude, give me a fucking break. Not every situation is the same, and not every situation has to be different because of any reason other than we choose it to be. Sometimes I want to be in the scene I'm running. Sometimes I want to keep people in the dark about their rolls. I usually ask if anyone has a problem with either, which I would have told you, if you had asked if I take any steps to make sure people are okay with these aspects of my storytelling, instead of jumping right into being a dick.
It's like you're purposely being obtuse just to be an ass, which is beneath you, because you can usually and very skillfully be a comprehending ass, which is much preferable.
@Arkandel said:
@Ganymede said:
@Arkandel said:
What's important is for me to have fun, not my character. In fact most of the time those two goals are mutually exclusive.
Then don't have the ST roll. Let him or her concoct stuff for you to tilt at. There are few players like you or I.
I don't even care how it happens, so as long as they're having fun too, let them figure it out. Some people like @Coin just want to watch the world roll, so that's fine with me too - whatever! Then I've run PrPs where not a single die was rolled (I had a great such scene last night in fact). All that matters is being entertained.
This is false. I have run myriad plots in which nary a dice was rolled and have even staffed and run major story arcs on diceless games. You, sir, exaggerate.
And sometimes making people roll blind is just a way of making sure knowledge doesn't color their reactions. If they botch a roll and see it, they know they botched it. If they botch a roll and didn't, they know what I tell them, via my pose and storytelling, and that often creates a better scene.
Often. Not always. Subjectively. Not objectively. In before people get up in arms about opinions and assholes.
@Sunny said:
How do you feel about your tabletop ST rolling dice behind a screen vs on the table without a screen?
Seriously. Hell, I had +roll/blind installed on The Reach when I was staffing there, and use it a lot on Eldritch.
Anyone who can't trust me as a storyteller should not play in scenes I run. I will look at your sheet. I will gauge your character. I will roll stuff secretly and ask you to roll blind. I like to keep the suspense as on the table as possible, especially when I'm running horror.
@Corruption said:
@Coin - If you have Changeling 2.0 I WILL play even if it screws me for time to do RL stuff I want to do. Talk about games I want badly.
My Eldrich werewolf is going really well. I'm having trouble getting into my vampire, which makes me sad because it really is a good character. I may have to let him go to free the slot for someone who'll use it harder tho.
Eldrich = A+++, though. And I'm a jaded Dino, too. Still saying that.
If you find yourself not being able to get into your character, dropping is sensible, as we do have sphere caps.
That said, I did send @mail to everyone in the vampire sphere with things for them to do, so you might wanna check and make sure it didn't time out. If it did, ask Anahid or page me and I will get you the text.
Also, we have upcoming Black Mass, so you might wanna stick around and see if that generates new drive for him.
@The-Tree-of-Woe said:
I picked up Broforce, which was on sale recently.
If you like Metal Slug, grab it. It's hella addictive. The characters are tribute/parodies of action movie heroes (and a couple of monsters). John Rambro, Bro Hard, Ellen Ripbro, the Predabro, Brobocop, and so on.
Aw man, that sounds amazing. I loved Metal Slug.
@HelloRaptor said:
I disagree. That's still about trust.
Since you're just ignoring shit and repeating yourself, I'll bow out.
A++, @Coin, you're totally right.
Man, I was gonna reply with a long thing, and then I was like, nah.
TL;DR: different roleplaying cultures see these things differently and nWoD MU players in general suffer from a very narrow view regarding what is acceptable in these circumstances and what isn't.
Alas, c'est la vie.
@HelloRaptor, I disagree. That's still about trust.
But then again, I also never run scenes with my character in them and then pretend my character can't do something that would be applicable to the scene. Instead, I build the scene in a way that my character is only helpful in things that move the plot along for the other characters where it comes to things that only my character can do.
So it's about trust, and it's also about storytellers not being lazy and actually putting some thought into what they're running. When I ran combat stuff with my combat-capable Sin-Eater, he was in the thick of it, usually off to the side. Maybe he was handling mooks, and so something he could do easily had to be done by someone else, or whatever.
A few times he just stood there and let other people handle it because he was mentoring them and being a jerk about it.
It is about trust. It's also about storytellers not writing themselves into a corner. I mean, shit, I thought that was a given.
I don't know, man. This has almost universally almost always sounded like absolute horseshit to me.
Some of the best plots I ever ran had my character smack dab in the middle of them, urging the plot forward. I didn't steal spotlight, I didn't make things easier or harder. A few times they've almost died, even, but not because I went too hard. That's just how the dice rolled. I used my character to move the plot along. Sometimes they were a bit more NPC-ish than others, but so what?
I think that the level of awkwardness regarding inserting your own character in a scene you're running is almost entirely to do with the level of comfort and trust that the other players are willing to put in you, and how you present yourself as a storyteller and a player.
Are there people who will use the opportunity to steal the spotlight and highlight their own character among the others? Sure. But you can't throw a rock in the world without hitting an asshole, and MUs have a higher density than the real world as a matter of fact.
I guess what I mean is: you can have your own prejudices about this, but don't forget that they are prejudices, and not some universal truth. It's not 'it doesn't work out because it is an inherently bad thing'. It's 'it doesn't work out because often people are assholes'. But that's true for everything. We often remember the bad and take the good for granted, and if you had bad experiences with people running plots their own characters were in, and you let that color your opinion and influence whether you go on any of those again (even with other players and not the orgiinal offending party), that's on you.
And that's perfectly fine. But it can and has worked out to everyone's satisfaction in the past.
@Spawnblade said:
@Coin - You say you (Eldritch) don't want to be "the next big thing." Does this mean that you do not want a larger player base / new players? It seems you'd prefer a lot of niche servers, rather than one where a lot of people with differing views/personalities can clash. Is this correct?
No, not really. I mean, it's not wrong in that I don't want to have a huge, sprawling game, but it's not correct in that I don't want new players. So I guess it's a contradictory position to take when you ask it that way?
The crux of the issue is that I want to tell stories in my setting that I can include people in. With larger player bases, that becomes impossible, because I can't include enough people to ever feel like I'm being inclusive enough. Further, large games are unwieldly and hard to manage, require excessive amount of administrative staffers, which inevitably create extra drama. But most importantly: I prefer more accessible numbers, and I also think that it will benefit the entire hobby to have people spread out among other games rather than moving, lemming-style, from one big game to another.
I suppose my aversion to small / shrinking player bases is founded upon what often happens when we humans interact with the same people day after day with nothing to shake things up -- we start talking about the weather. Regardless, I appreciate your desire to see all of these places succeed. I wish more people held such goodwill.
If you find yourself with nothing to talk about the weather, and wanting to shake something up, do it. I'm not saying you, personally, are someone who relies on others to shake things up for you, but that's the impression your comment gives. Meanwhile, if I really want some action to take place on a game and I have interest from other people--real interest, not just whining about 'nothing is happening' while they don't even try to participate with some enthusiasm--I will run the hell out of a plot.
It's the same principle I apply to "gosh, this game sucks, it could be done so much better." Well, okay, butterfly, go on and do it better then. I mean, even if Eldritch bombs, at least no one will be able to say "Coin whined a lot, but never tried to do it himself".
Again, this isn't me being defensive; just my view on your opinion regarding needing new blood to shake things up. Plot shakes things up. Otherwise, all you're adding is another person who you will eventually get to know and who will eventually join you in the "nothing is happening" spiral.
@Ganymede Yeah, which is why I went on to say we¡'d see what we could do. But the bulk of the effort is on players: being open to new people, being persistent in the offers of roleplay, etc.
@ThatOneDude said:
@Miss-Demeanor That's a valid point.
@surreality Why not just combine Reno and Eldritch?
@tragedyjones and @EmmahSue and @Eerie and I all talked about Reno and Eldritch existing in the same shared universe, though the games would never formally cross other than perhaps news posts and rumors in one game regarding what happens in another.
The idea was never formalized, and it's not what you mean anyway. What you mean is never going to happen because of my aforementioned post regarding what we actually want for Eldritch, and the fact that the games are fundamentally different in theme and approach.
@Miss-Demeanor said:
@Coin By no means did I mean to suggest that this was something staff should have to take care of. It isn't. Its totally a player thing. It is still a thing, however. And a lot more games are going to die out slowly if SOMETHING isn't done about it.
Nah. I didn't think you were. I was just commenting on it being more of a cultural issue at the moment than a game-specific one. I mean, I hate it, too.
But I bougth all these pessimistic pins...
