@Arkandel said in Rick Sanchez' Banning:
@Lithium What puzzles me is that on a forum where people get personally flamed to hell and back in no uncertain terms anyone would care about a little number going up or down. It's not even in your face, you need to look pretty hard to see the totals.
It's weird.
Uh, bro...
http://musoapbox.net/users/sort-reputation
Easy to look down on the rest when you sit at the top of the pile. 
So, after several pages, I think so far we've agreed on -- some people like xp caps, some people like timed spends, and between both of those, never the twain shall meet.
So, there are two alternatives there. I think Ark may have mentioned doing away with auto-xp and making people work for beats and whatever, but then you get into situations were those folks who can live on the game end up with all the shinies forever -- not necessarily a great thing.
Someone mentioned skill points or growth points instead of xp.
Do we have other options? Are there mergers of those things in there somewhere that could be considered?
@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.
@Wodchelle said in How to use Potato MU Client:
^(To (|From afar, |Long distance to .+?: |\S.{1,20} pages:|You paged .+? with).*$
Since this thread is still relevant, I don't feel bad necro-ing it up a bit.
Interestingly, this pattern doesn't seem to do anything when I put it in Potato under the regexp option. Is there a change that needs to be made to this to make it work properly?
@Cobaltasaurus said in Grid building theory?:
Derp, with all due respect, there shouldn't be that many things in one grid square. Or not all of those exits need to be public. That shit is spammy without having short-descs. This isn't a matter of "oh no too much because you added BLAH" that's a matter of "what the fuck are you people doing to your grid?"
Another grid square should have been made, or something should have been done about the exit parent long before that mess happened.
Well, it's not my game. I didn't approve that. As a build staffer I would have done something about it long ago (not that I'm a build staffer on -this- game, but that's what I started as, for clarity). But the point I was trying to make is, you're trying to introduce a syntax standard for exits, and these things do exist. Whether you agree with the premise or not, some games think that this is perfect acceptable. And as such, I think that a brief version of the available exits, with an optional longer version command, would be the preferable method to do that.
Your syntax is good. I like it. I'm not sure that I like it as the default, though. Bobo's idea of making an exit transparent is good, but limited, as it'll give you the room desc beyond, and not the desc of the exit itself, which tends to get spammy in a real hurry.
At-a-glance should be your default, with various levels of detail available as players want them. The KISS method, etc.
In an effort to keep the Mage thread actually, you know, on the point of Mage, I vote that we move the discussion about XP systems and whatnot over here. 
This might work, but it also comes with its share of problems that might have to be addressed.
First, the look of the thing. Exits in two columns with their alias directly after them managed to still look clean, but on these, you're going to have to worry about the length of the actual exit name, the length of the alias (which is usually no more than 3 or 4 letters, so not a bit deal), and -then- the length of the short-desc, or else you're going to get into very unpretty things eventually. It might be more helpful to arrange them as a table, if you're doing a top-down list.
Second, the number of exits in any one location could quickly become staggering in a list format and lead to a hell of a lot of spam. For instance:
----> +Views in this location <----------------------------------------------- Build Guide Twilight Network ----> Directions <------------------------------------------------------------ University City <W> Pigeon Hill <S> Commercial District <N> Historical Waterfront <E> ----> Exits <----------------------------------------------------------------- Out of Conetrol <OOC> Six Feet Under <SFU> Medical Examiner's Office <MEO> Flow Dynamics Gym <FDG> Von Braun Life Sciences <VBLS> Catholic Church <CC> WFRE Building <WFRE> CHIME Museum <MU> Waxen Wonderland <WW> Pay It Forward Pizzeria <PIF> Atlantica Mall <ATL> Public Library <PL> House of Spirits <HOS> Regus Tower <RT> Sinful Temptations <ST> Lockerbie Condominiums <LC> Lovelace Couturé <LOV> Uplifting <UL> Presbytery <PRE> Dippin Donuts <DD> Cavanaugh Design <CDG> Municipal Building <MB> Cavanaugh Building <CVB> =========================================================> IC Area - B02 <====
Can you imagine how that spammy monstrosity would look in a list format?
Perhaps a better option would be to simply code an alternate look command, much like brief, that provides that handy list format at-a-glance to reduce on the amount of screenspam?
I know that we're getting into old hat territory here, but the Doors system already has rules for compromises built into it. If your character totally and just would absolutely never do a thing, but the other guy still won, then it's time to negotiate. Not necessarily time to get up in arms about it. If the negotiations seem to be going in bad faith, on either side, that's when it's time to call in staff.
That said, as far as certain topics being absolutely consent only -- they sort of are already, in a lot of systems, but not consenting to a specific thing doesn't necessarily mean you get to completely call the shots on how that scenario turns out, either. Again, why I like Doors -- compromises are built into the system, and both players have to negotiate something in good faith if one of them just really isn't feeling the scenario on the table. Neither player gets to dictate in absolute terms how it turns out, but they have to find an agreeable middleground, which is fairly easily done in most situations.
But i'm seriously kind of digging @Coin's suggestion of being able to spend willpower to lock doors for a scene. That's... a thing I might tinker with some.
Oooh. This sounds like a system worth reading, then. Especially if it can be adapted to WoD in some kind of sensible way.
@Coin said in Exalted Third Edition:
I'm just gonna leave this here.
THE RED RULE
In almost all aspects, Exalted doesn’t mechanically distinguish between Storyteller characters and those the players control. Here’s the exception: A player-controlled character can only be seduced or otherwise put in a sexual situation if the player is okay with it.
Otherwise, any such attempt fails automatically. This is completely up to the player’s discretion, and they can waive this rule’s protection if they want their character to be seduced, if they think it would improve the story, or for whatever other reason. This is entirely up to the player, and on an attempt-by-attempt basis—waiving the rule once doesn’t void your ability to call on it later against the same character, or even in the same scene. If no one in your group ever invokes this rule, that’s also fine—but players don’t have to watch their character put into a sexual situation they’re not comfortable with.
Groups that feel comfortable in doing so should allow player characters the full range of their seductive prowess when entangled with Storyteller-controlled characters… although remember that the Storyteller is also a player and their boundaries should be respected.
Does it say anything about any other sort of social persuasion / leverage? Does Exalted have a system that even covers that? I'm not familiar with the game system, but this rule seems sensible if you're still allowed to try and persuade them to do basically anything else that isn't related to sex. Otherwise, I see this rule devolving into a lot of the same arguments we see here about whether a character can get persuaded to do basically anything at all.
@Seraphim73 said in What do RPGs *never* handle in mu*'s? What *should* they handle?:
@Derp said in What do RPGs *never* handle in mu*'s? What *should* they handle?:
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.
Heck, it's a debate I've gone back and forth on inside my head. Repeatedly. I think that I've come down on the side of "Social skills are for influencing NPCs, and RP is for influencing PCs." But that's far from perfect too. It certainly doesn't line up with combat skills at all, which can generally "influence" both NPCs and PCs (unless you're on a consent-based game). But I'm one of those people who thinks that you can change a PC's body if you've got the stats (it may be FTBed), but you should never be able to change the PC's thoughts unless the player chooses to allow it. I realize it's an odd line to draw, and I think it comes from the point of view of a writer.
That line has also frustrated the hell out of me. There is very little that infuriates me more than static characters, where it doesn't matter what you do, they're never going to change their view on the world. I realize that this is at odds with my belief that only the player should be allowed to change a character's thoughts, but... I've never claimed to be perfect.
Oh, for sure. I can see both sides of the debate, really. I just think that this kind of thinking violates our separation of IC and OOC that most games come to rely on, even as an unwritten rule. How you feel OOC is not necessarily how your character feels IC, etc, so this is the line that I tend to fall on, the happy middleground. Some things, sure, but too many times I've seen people just flat-out ignore social dice as if their character is some sort of socially omnipotent being who just can't be swayed to even so much as snicker by a dice roll.
It's also why I think that there is no one universal way in which it should be done. The thing listed above? That'd be my choice, for my game. I'd also like to see a game where dice are king, period. And I think all the games currently running are pretty much in the camp of 'social dice mean only what the player thinks they mean', whether they've got that written in a policy or not.
There should be games of all shades, and people can take the mixture of the rules and decide where they want to play. Unfortunately, there is not (and probably never will be) a One True Right and Only Way, as much as we love to shout across the table at each other as if we know it.
@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.
SOMEHOW, I managed to lose a cell phone between exiting my job, walking twenty feet in an open parking lot to get into the car, and then walking twenty or so feet to get to my apartment, and it is MAGICALLY nowhere to be found.
Grrrrrr.
As a person who has done this a time or fifteen...
I hope you didn't have any nude selfies on it. 
But that sucks.
@tragedyjones said in The State of the Chronicles of Darkness:
Mage: The Awakening Second Edition will be released next Wednesday, the 4th May
Squeeeeeeee!
@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.
And also:
This is the Announcements thread, as mentioned before. This sort of discussion/behavior is best suited for the hog pit, as @Lithium said. I originally posted in this thread again just to make @Glitch aware that a forum feature was broken, but it's spun way out into left field.
@ThatOneDude said in PVP games/elements?:
If you want to /finish him/ there is a tiny hoop to be jumped?
If it were up to me? This is how I would do it:
Basic rule of the game: PvP can happen anytime, anywhere. However, if things escalate to the point where you think a PK is required, then you should either submit a job ahead of time to a staffer, in which case approval would be needed for a PK, or call for a judge right there on the scene if things have escalated unpredictably, and attempt to make your case for such an action.
Otherwise, PK is flat disallowed. Find a reason for your character to back off. Maybe he got a text from his wife saying there was an emergency, or he remembered he left the iron on. Whatever. But unapproved PK will not be upheld.
This way, the random troublemakers can be screened, and the act itself will be less frequent because oh god, there could be a form you have to fill out!
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.
Well, I guess I should tag the guy, since we've now gone through four pages of debates about downvotes (in the Announcement thread) with tons of trolls being trolls and random downvote streaks, so it's probably somewhat important to be able to see this:
@Glitch, the ability to see downvotes with the clicky thing is not working. (I mentioned this four pages ago, but you can see where it went from there... sorry, bud.)
You on here? You around?
Barring that, anyone know how to get ahold of him? I'd appreciate it if you point him in my direction. 