@Misadventure said:
Reading the system notes is fun stuff. I hope they do not use the large chunks of stat bonus successes again as Enhancements. The tiers of stats in Aberrant and Scion were pretty much each a class unto themselves, with no in between steps,
This was on purpose, though. Ill-conceived, but on purpose.
Wuss! (Also, really? It's loads simpler than your average nWoD. Huh.)
I'm excited. The only thing better than a bunch of smaller, varied nWoD 2e games would be a bunch of smaller, varied games of lots of cool systems and settings. A Trinity Continuum game would be amazing (you could even play a little with the timestream by making three different games-within-a-game and letting the past influence the future and what not); a Scion game would be fucking awesome, especially if run by someone who isn't a psychotic cuntweasel (not that I'm bitter); someone's already working on a Buffyverse/Cinematic Unisystem MU, which is great; I would love to see something fun for Exalted now that third edition is finally coming out (supposedly). The Strange deserves its own MU, too.
@Cobaltasaurus
I make everyone use jobs because it's a good way to have things documented. But I, as staff, if I have the time, prefer to talk to people in pages about things and then just add the conversation to the job.
If anything, I think the divisions should be of function rather than theme (e.g. Build, Code, Plot, Apps, Admins).
Well, what I mean is: be what you want to see.
I wanted to see a full 2e game that had Vampire, Werewolf, and Demon. I wanted to do Demon. I did it. If you want a different game, wih different mechanisms, do it. If you are unwilling or unable to do so, you are stuck playing in someone else's world. This is how it is everywhere, not just online. Tabletop groups have the same dynamic, except in tabletop you can cater a little more easily since the groups are generally smaller.
And I don't mind people who don't use the system day in and day out, to be clear. I mind people who, when it's time to use the system, complain because their character doesn't perform as they've been playing it without the system. It shows a lack of foresight and willingness to explore and understand the context within which one plays, and an inability to take responsibility for not having put in the effort.
This should really be in the peeves thread. Heh.
And all I'm saying is that if I am using a system in a game, I'm not using it because there was no other choice; I'm using it because that's the system I wanted to use.
I don't play in FATE games--and if I did, I would learn and use the system as intended.
I'm only in the minority inasmuch as the majority is apparently 'people who want to play X theme without the accompanying mechanics'. But those people aren't making those games. Those that are making those games are out there playing them.
@Arkandel said:
So how do you know if a system is good? People use it on their own because it improves their gameplay. How do you know if a system is not? People don't use it unless they are forced to, and stop using it when they aren't.
That's the only benchmark that matters. A great super-fun mechanic that's unused is neither, no matter how it looks on paper.
This is a fallacy, because some people will use it when they aren't forced and others won't.
Your claim is tantamount to saying, "a television show is good if lots of people watch it without being made to". At which point we have to admit that every television show that died because of a lack of ratings was objectively bad.
I use the nWoD system without being forced to. I like it. I think it's a good system that, if used correctly, helps further, guide, and incentivize not only roleplay in general, but the content of the roleplay that the player wants.
So I disagree with this notion that "it's good if people use it without being forced". If anything, it's easy if they do, and I could argue that, but won't.
I don't like FATE; I find its Aspects system clumsy and not to my liking. Does that make it a bad system? No. It just makes it a system I, personally, find not entirely to my liking.
This is why a lot of games, including ours, brooooo, have some sort of respec clauses. Sometimes it's a full respec (which I dislike) but other times it's letting staff know something isn't working out and there need to be some tweaks.
@Wizz said:
@Sunny said:
Cinematic fell apart for me because it's NOT designed to do Buffy. Classic example is that any group of opponents can waste your defense and then dog pile you. If the whole system was full of tricks like this, that would be a point of play, but as is they are pitfalls where the GM realizes they have to carefully construct every combat so as to not destroy a character.
One, that's part of the GM's job, and two, the GM creating encounters where the enemy is exploiting flaws in a system rather than behaving reasonably means the group is playing the wrong game. You don't play Cinematic Unisystem like you would D&D or even WoD.
I don't think she meant that's a flaw enemies have to specifically "exploit." From my reading, she's saying one PC just can't handle groups of baddies very well if they all target him/her and tend to get stomped, and which isn't very Buffy-esque at all -- I remember even very early Buffy and Angel wading into groups of vampires without too much difficulty, if you want to compare the feel of the show vs game mechanics.
This has caveats.
The Unisystem, especially the Cinematic Unisystem, uses "Combat Scores" for NPCs. The NPCs always have the same "rolls", so to speak. Their Dodge is always the same as well. And high-Dex characters like Buffy and Angel can hit more than once per turn (IIRC, you can take 2 Actions at Dex 5, 3 at 7, and 4 at 9).
Angel and Buffy both have at least DEX 7 in the RPG book sheets. That means they can hit 3 targets per turn. At very high Strength (which they also have) the amount of damage they do can easily take out mooks (which these vamps you mention technically are).
As such, the system does indeed allow you to do the things you see in the show, provided that your ST doesn't over-stat the mooks.
See, I see the mechanics as a help towards making the story less predictable and adding a level of chance to it. When people typically complain about mechanics I find that it's because they want to do something their stats don't allow if they have to roll for it, to which I say: maybe build the character you want to play, instead of playing without consideration of the mechanics.
But I'm pretty heartless about this.
@Three-Eyed-Crow said:
I've never been particularly interested in playing WoD either, but I'm certainly aware of its popularity in the MU* community (insofar as things in this hobby can be considered popular).
One thing I'm curious about is how widely available and established the code is to set up a WoD MUSH, versus hand-coding a workable Buffy game or Anita Blake game or Vampire Diaries game or... (and so on, through similar themes).
I'm sure the hardware (and the comfort level the players who've been doing it for decades develop with the system itself) isn't the only factor, but I wonder how much of one it is. I also have no idea how different the average WoD game is from the other average WoD game.
Buffy has its own system (cinematic unisystem) which would work well for Anita Blake, also, IMO. For Vampire Diaries, I would actually just use Monsterhearts. It's what it was made for, pretty much.
The workload is different, is the best way I can put it. There is plot stuff going on, and a lot of Aspiration processing, some other types of XP processing (which I wish there were more of) and a lot of XP spends. Apps are chugging along. They aren't superfast, but they don't need to be. Freaky and Sinister are helping lots. I've got the latter working on things like converted Numina lists from 1e to expand the list of available Numina and a Bestiary for animal stats, while Freaky is handling apps and doing great with that.
So the workload is different, heh.
So far the idea is to handle First Changes, Embraces, and Soul Pacts (inasmuch as "becoming one of the Covers of a Demon" is a Soul Pact's endgame) separate from straight into supernatural CG. So we will see who is interested in the former and take that into consideration when opening slots for the latter. There is no perfect system, but we want to both give new players the chance to come in and also give those who are already playing but want to "upgrade" a chance to do so as well.
This is something I've talked over at length with @Eerie and that I want @Thenomain's opinion on going forward, and definitely something that we'll be working into the six month meeting. But for now, the best way we can come up with is to handle them separately and have them inform each other.
I realize that at the moment the spheres are small. I won't even try to justify it with them 'feeling' small. They are small. Period. And this is something that will change soon, but at the moment we're struggling with some unforeseen issues with the code re: transitions, which is what's holding us back, so to speak.
A bit of a tangent:
Eldritch is as much a place for you guys to play as it is a place for @Eerie and I to stretch our storytelling muscles as it is a place for @Thenomain to test his new ideas for code as it is a place for me personally to poke at game/MU design.
What does this mean? It means that Eldritch will always be changing, probably, in some way or another, and players should be ready for that! But we're working all the time to igure new things out. Sometimes that means it'll take us a bit longer than it should (coughrenowngadgetsfetishescough), but it's all coming.
Genere and sub-genre, to me, are the same thing, much like one matryoshka doll doesn't stop being a doll because it fits inside another matryoshka doll. That's all I meant. So, you're right, and you could have been right without being frustrating. You just like being frustrating.
Let's start with "punk" is not a genre. It isn't even, IMO, a musical genre. It's a philosophy, a way of approaching life. At least, if we're talking about the more conventional meaning of punk, and not the older, more traditional meaning, which is essentially "trash".
@Misadventure said:
I am all for this being a new genre. If it has a defining traits. I will agree that it can be sci-fi, or fantasy, but perhaps you do not.
What? I literally said that IMO it was a sub-genre of sci-fi (and, sure, fantasy). I'm not sure how you get that I do not agree with that from my statements.
In the case of steampunk, it really is a sub-genre, same as cyberpunk.
Both are clearly science fiction, with a certain "skin" on them that encompasses not only visuals/descriptions but also certain types of messages and philosophies. Cyberpunk stories often have to do with transhumanism, while steampunk stories have to do with, as Chime mentioned, the Age of Reason and discovery, exploration, etc. Steampunk is like Pulp's Sci-Fi Younger Sibling. It's pulp! But with SCIENCE! Not necessarily CORRECT science, but the SPIRIT OF SCIENCE. And while you could find this in older pulp stories (John Carter of Mars and a lot of early sci-fi) they typically lacked the punk element.
You can write all sorts of stories with cyberpunk or steampunk descriptions and styles, but what really drives them home as genres is how they changed the face of sci-fi and speculative fiction. The PUNK is there because they were revolutionary in the way they approached the broader genre. Cyberpunk and Steampunk changed traditional sci-fi for a lot of people. There is, IMO, "punk" in steampunk and cyberpunk.
@Ganymede said:
@EmmahSue said:
I have trouble finding RP. I ask on various channels and in the OOC Room and get silence more often than offer. I'm not sure if it's because I'm playing a Lance Vamp, so folks don't want to get all up ins? Or maybe I've just lost my touch.
ES
That might be it, actually.
I'm pretty sure she's referring to your reply being quite ambiguous as to which reason it "might actually be".
You could have meant she might actually be losing her touch.
