@RightMeow said in MU* Gripes and Peeves:
I kept laughing at some violent horror movie and was like.. dude, this is fucked up. It's not funny and I can't stop laughing.
The original "The Evil Dead' is pretty damn scary --
-- unless you're high out of your mind, and then it's freakin' hilarious, and I call bullshit on anyone that claims otherwise.
Mine isn't really that detailed, but here we go:
*Also, I generally tend to avoid temp RP Rooms in favor of actual grid locations. I've made many a friend by random passthrough, or because they showed up with another friend at a real place. But temproom scenes tend to be running a bit heavy lately, because of pre-planned stuff. I need to remedy this.
**Sometimes 5 and 6 are interchanged. Depends on my mood. Though I admit to having a preference for OOC room as opposed to LFG, because I can see how people tend to act for a bit when they -aren't- hurting for RP.
@Jeshin said in The Art of Lawyering:
I looked up Lawyers got this, so necro thread.
Soda company poisons the water table somewhere.
Bob the water manager was "in charge" of this aspect of the company.
Can Bob be sued for damages? or is this a case of doing my job, I didn't know and knock it up to the company level?
Is Soda company sued for damages just because they have bigger pockets?
I mean, based on that, I would agree with @Ganymede for the most part, but I would also add (and IANAL, remember, I just work for them and do the research):
"It depends" is pretty much always the answer to these questions. Were water manager's actions intentional, or at least reckless? Did the company present him with sufficient information in order to ensure the safety of the water? Were all items properly marked as to show their contents?
Those types of cases are always really dependent on nitty gritty facts, so you need the nitty gritty facts in order to make a proper determination (or at least, projection). Without knowing all the contours of how it went down and who knew about about it and when, it's hard to say, because there are defenses that can be made based on a whole slew of information.
They can both be sued, but whether you're successful or not is an entirely different story.
I've never understood this thing where the ST's PC can't be involved in the story. Most often, the groups that I end up largely running with/for are groups of people that my own PC is affiliated with. Cabal/Pack/Whatever. It doesn't make a ton of sense for one of us to always be mysteriously missing when it comes time to run a PrP, and in large part, we mostly sort of ... just ignore it, I guess, because we always end up there anyway.
The ST's PC is never the center of attention, or anything. At best, they're somewhat sidelined, at worst, they're the diversion for the rest of the group. They're never quite 'in it' as much as the others are. But they're still -there-, often. Not always, but often. And it's never created any issues, in my experience. It's a very good way to get the group to bond together over something.
Deliberate exclusion has never seemed to be a good way to balance things for me. Either you know how to make it work, in which case ST on, or you don't -- in which case, have someone else do the heavy lifting.
That said, I've found PrPs to be a great way to forge lasting relationships.
@Rinel said in The Work Thread:
The district court just ordered the DA to produce the entire trial record of the case.
I am positively gleeful.
We may not win but now some poor bastard has to do what I did last year.
Dark, girl. Dark. 
@Thenomain said in Finding roleplay:
Coin got it. Where I play, a PrP has become systemized. There is an expectation that it have a point, an ending, or at the very least a risk/reward setup. Some people are good at winging it, but the last five years in the realms of WoD that's been discouraged.
I think we're seeing a reversal of that, but I still see the letters "PrP" and cringe.
I kind of hate it too, really. I'd much rather just do something organically in the moment than have to plan every little detail of something out, make it open to everyone who wants to come, try and work on scheduling and crap. It's terrible.
@ThatOneDude said in Finding roleplay:
Nothing stinks more than staff not following their own policy for PRPs. I mean when something reads clearly as: All you need do is step 1 , step 2 and step 3 for rewards like X, Y, and Z. PRPer does said steps then is told "I/We as staff don't FEEL <insert some stupid shit here> gives you the reward(s) as posted, though you followed what we posted as rules to the letter." Do we still use hashtags? #Winning? >.>
Pretty much exactly what happened, yeah. Finally something we can fully agree on!
...are we best friends now?
@Quinn said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@Ominous Oh do I have a treat for you--each Daisy Scout gets a website and you can just order them online and have them shipped to you! Cookie time next year even if we're quarantined we are hitting people up hard through email.
You provide the link. I provide the cheddar.
One thing that has always bugged me about WoD PvP:
PvP != PK
It's possible to go up against a player and just beat the crap out of them without actually killing them. In fact, this should probably be the standard, with an actual PK being far less common. Having someone beat the hell out of someone is far less likely to result in blowback than if you kill a member of some faction.
But people just sort of naturally assume that death is the only outcome of combat. So weird. I have nothing against PvP, but I think that PK should be somewhat discouraged unless it's really the only logical outcome for the scene.
But then, people just come up with a reason to try and do mental gymnastics to justify why -their- character is some sort of frenzied maniac. It goes round and round.
I'd be interested in a game where PvP is actually encouraged, so long as actual PK is kept to sane levels.
@Kestrel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Having a really light-hearted, fun, casual, jokey conversation about ordinary and not even passably problematic things.
Some rando butting in: I see you are all talking about things that make you happy. Let me tell you about the sadness that plagues my life and why I myself could never experience such happiness as you are currently enjoying. It all began when I was a small child ...
I have recently been acquainted with a person like this. I really just want to give her a Personal Raincloud code object.
Fuck, man.
@Lithium said in PVP games/elements?:
If I wasn't afraid of Palladium I'd make a RIFT's game that was no holds barred sandbox, but, I'd want to automate it so not everyone needed to have every book and to make chargen not a nightmare.
makes grabbyhands
RIFTS game waaaaaaaaaaant.
@Seraphim73 said in What do RPGs *never* handle in mu*'s? What *should* they handle?:
I also think that the point @Arkandel made about social systems is a good one too. No one (very few people) wants someone +rolling Persuasion at them, posing shouting something about 'beer-flavored nipples' and then expecting your character to suddenly love them. But schmoozing an NPC? That's fine, NPCs don't have (the same) rights, and on a MU*, you're dealing with other PCs, especially in a non-teamwork manner, a lot more often than your standard tabletop game.
But then that brings us back to the age-old question of which matters more, the xp that the player has put into their dice pools (vs. your character's resistance pool) or the player's actual social skills? It's a debate that we've gone back and forth on before on a MU.
I think, in my ideal situation, I'd want a mix of the two. I want social dice to matter. I want character to be able to be persuaded to do things that they might not normally do, through charm or force. But I also respect that people have their weird quirky areas and such, and that they think their beliefs are all that matter because their characters' beliefs are their own.
I'd probably split the difference, if I were running a game. Allow people to have a list of pre-approved things that they are absolutely immobile on (maybe, let's say, 5 big things to keep the list reasonable, with some kind of really good justification as to why these things are never ever possible ever, perhaps related to their individual backgrounds), and then use whatever social systems exist to resolve others. That way, you have to really choose the areas where you're going to be immobile, and social rolls determine the rest, with the caveat that a player who wins a roll against yours still wins, so you should provide guidance as to how something like that could come about -- mutual cooperation.
And even then, social stuff is so touchy with people. I'm sure even that system, a middleground between 'nuh uh forever' and 'dice are king', is going to make someone's eye twitch on both sides of the aisle.
@Coin said in Dead Celebrities 2020:
@Derp said in Dead Celebrities 2020:
Naya Rivera, aka Santana Lopez of Glee.
Fucking tragic, man.
That whole cast is cursed, I swear.
@ShelBeast said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
To use D&D as a an example, the game is actually built with a cap with no advancement. 20th level, bro. Can't go past it. But you're free to keep playing past hitting it.
Untrue. At least, in some editions. There is an entire book on characters past 20th level.
@Kanye-Qwest said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
aren't staffers usually chosen from players who have risen to/performed well in leadership positions?
That seems to have been the general position once upon a time ago, yeah. But of the two places that I've staffed at, I've been chosen staff both times by a process that (paraphrased) went something like this:
Staffer: We need staffers.
Me: Do you not have enough people?
Staffer: None that are willing to do it.
Me: ...I mean, I guess I can do it, if you don't mind? I think I've got enough knowledge to pull this off without too many hiccups.
Staffer: You're hired.
Granted, the first time I was hired, it was as a build staffer, and then my positions sort of... blossomed out from there as I saw holes that needed to be filled. But in my experience, staffers are selected because... there's nobody else that wants to do it. I think part of this is because of the sort of philosophy of penalization that the games I'm currently on seem to use. Nobody wants to do the staff work because it's demanding, and unforgiving, and in large part requires you to sacrifice your time, as well as your fun, to try and make it work, or walk the constant tightrope that starts to get headachey after a while.
So merit-based systems only really work if you have people that are still willing to do the job after they've shown they have the skills and the knowledge, which seems to be lacking on some games.
@JinShei said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
wondering if I'm imagining that I've upset someone, or if I have and don't know how, and ... argh.
I feel this lately. And then some. Solidarity.
@Lotherio said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
Folks are saying if a game is setup for the general public, but then the general public is ignored, its not really a game for the general public is it?
Are they really, though? How democratic should games be, really?
You log into a game, read its theme, read its mechanics, and decide to play there based on preconceived notions of what is already there. Someone has already determined a direction for the game, determined the kinds of themes they want to see in it, determined the kind of feel that they want for it, and then they open it up for the general public to enjoy along with them along those specific guidelines.
If a game were truly open for the general public to decide the fate of, then someone would open a mush, take a poll on what people want to play, and then build the game that way. A mush is not a democratic organization, usually. Nor really should it be, if it's going to remain true to the theme of things. Players should have some sway on the storylines being told, yes, but they shouldn't be able to take it completely into the weeds, either.
So when we talk about 'player choice', how much player choice are we talking about, here? And if their choices are so far divergent from what the staff of the game wants in the first place, why not set up a new game? More games are never bad.
