Posts made by Derp

@Livia said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:

@Ganymede said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:

@Auspice said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:

If you have only 1-2 days a week you can RP and you know Bob over there, RPing daily, is hitting the XP cap every week and people are making it really obvious ('yeah you'll need like, 20 dice to be able to manage this PRP') that you NEED MORE XP......

Why the hell are you worried about Bob?

I used to be a huge advocate of flat advancement, but it was because I didn't want to fall behind XP-wise. No one likes to feel that way. But when I came to the conclusion that the disparity in XP is largely unimportant on most games, I stopped worrying about it.

XP did not help Wes get the Seneschal spot in Las Vegas. XP did not help Maddy take over a chunk of Portland's night scene. XP did not help Cai become Hierophant on RfK.

I did that.

The funny thing is I'm not really worried about being behind on XP, or having less XP than other people.

Hell I came in fresh on F&L when your Wes and your Circle were in power as Jehanne and immediately started messing with what was going on, making alliances and making things difficult for the Circle, as my tiny little Jehanne (XP wise at the time at least).

The issue is I do feel bad when I'm not optimising my advancement. When not using the system hurts me.

As I said, I'm 'gamey' enough and 'competitive' enough to want to get the most I can when it comes to game systems.

But Aspirations have literally actually made me decide not to make a character when I got to the part in chargen about setting up some aspirations. I decided not to play instead.

Alright. So, let's say that xp is capped at, say, five beats a week from any source. Plots, conditions, etc.

That means that you don't have to use aspirations, and you can be gamey and whatnot and still not have to worry about this one system. It just means that you have to utilize others more.

Would that be acceptable?

SENUA SEQUEL!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TR0gaG01do

@surreality said in The Crafting Thread:

If you ever decide to look into something along those lines, give me a nudge. I may be able to track down one of my old textbooks on it that was SUPER HELPFUL and explained how to manipulate that basic pattern (also one for pants, one for skirts, princess line styles, etc.) pretty well, and I'm betting you could still find a copy out there.

As someone interested in this dark Sorcery, what book is that? I might not ever use it but it would be fun to know, and I have lots of bookstores around here.

ETA: Asked and answered before I finished reading!

@Auspice said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@Rinel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@Auspice

Thanks. I do appreciate it. I just, you know... wish I passed.

I know. And I'm sorry.
But here you do.

I mean, if it helps, in my head your PB is Rihanna. So. There's that?

@Pyrephox said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:

But I think the solution to that is capping XP gains very low, honestly.

This is still one of the things that I think haunted memories got right.

MU's are a not a tabletop. Your character should not advance nearly as quickly in a persistent environment as on a tabletop. XP gains should be a slow trickle, rather than a steady stream.

MU's are built, by design, for the long game in most instances.

@Arkandel said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:

My point here is that there are players - many - who don't.

I'm not saying that people have to use them. If you refuse, then you refuse, and my options on that are limited. I'm saying that if you refuse to engage with a core mechanic of the game system, then the problem is that you aren't utilizing the rules of the game, not that something extra is being put upon you.

If places want to HR out Aspirations, cool, but it is how the game works until made otherwise. Refusal to utilize them really only hurts you, not anybody else.

You don't get to fix people until they fit your system, though. No amount of explaining why this would be good for them if only will do any good past a certain point.

I'm not trying to "fix people." I merely said that if you are using them as a passive tool, then you aren't using them to good effect, not that you are wrong and broken.

@Auspice said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:

feel they absolutely must achieve one every scene to keep up with the XP overachievers

Which is why there is a cap on totals.

@Auspice said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:

and so they sit around waiting for scenes

This part is the problem. Your aspirations are not passive. They are active. You shouldn't be "sitting around waiting," you should be using them as tools to go out and do things, find people, get RP. Etc.

If you're using aspirations as a passive tool that just requires more paperwork, then you aren't actually using them to good effect.

@Arkandel said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:

What's to be uncertain about the idea two people can be in the same scene but only one of them likes to file aspirations about it afterwards?

Because that's a part of the advancement system, the same as plot xp. It's not 'tedious extra step', it is 'basic mechanic of the game system'.

Basically, it's an important part of the game, just like advancing through plots and ST'd scenes would be, so I'm not sure that I want to reward people for not engaging with it.

@Arkandel said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:

The thing is many players don't like filing for things on a near constant basis. That gives an advantage to those who do.

I mean, I agree with the 'get xp from various sources but make sure it is capped' part.

The quoted part, though, I'm not so sure about. That's like saying 'players don't like being in scenes, and shouldn't get advantages over those that do'.

There is a certain point where you just kind of have to say 'well, this is the system and the way advancement works, so if you opt out, you lose out'.

@Sunny said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@Derp

Other people prioritize the comfort of the anxious over the comfort of the people making them that way. They have different priorities than you do. This is ok. I promise it is.

You don't actually read a single thing I write, do you?

@Sunny said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@Kanye-Qwest

I just want to know why it bothers him SO MUCH that people are talking about addressing this issue. Like cool, he doesn't want the people who need a tool like this on his game, but there are plenty of games that actually do?

It bothers me so much because I legitimately don't believe that this is being used as a good faith measure.

It bothers me so much because as we continue to play in this hobby, I'm witnessing the normalization of a much more insidious form of manipulative social control, along the with the expectation that you aren't allowed to question it or disagree with it, while people ask for tools to empower it.

It bothers me because those of us who say 'wait, this is seriously open to abuse' get reminded that the form of abuse that we are most concerned about is being normalized and is much harder to detect than the abuse this tool is supposed to prevent, and we are not allowed to draw lines and say 'here, but no further' in a thread about people being allowed to draw lines and say 'here, but no further', which is the hypocritical high-water mark that most of us look for when looking to see if a discussion is actually being had in good faith and a tool is being asked for for its theoretical purpose.

That in a discussion thread about limits being put in place to prevent abuses, those limits are only allowed to go one way.

@Ganymede said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

Maybe we ought to add in our character applications a little section where people can inform staff as to RP that they do not want to experience or be a part of. I'm thinking about the Arx thread and the post which triggered trauma in a player. I don't intend to victim-blame at all, and the section should not have to explain why that RP makes the player uncomfortable, but that little section might at least give staff a heads-up as to what might be inappropriate in a game-wide setting.

...until when? You have a massive list of stuff that people aren't allowed to engage in and everyone must completely memorize?

This is the problem with universal vs individual. Individual has a crazy ability to aggregate and require tracking and ...

@surreality said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

Then stop participating in it.
What this topic is about is right there on the tin, after all. Why are you here discussing it if it's not for you?
Is the complexity of the problem becoming clearer to you?

Look, I you and all, but you have basically been equally refusing to engage in discourse and just telling people that if they don't agree with you they're bad and wrong when I have what I feel are legitimate concerns about this system, and I do not want it to see widespread use as yet another tool for manipulative assholes to use to try and control others.

But we don't want to actually talk about that, because every solution comes back to "YOU HAVE TO COMMUNICATE WITH OTHER PEOPLE", which this tool expressly bypasses -- and that is its whole intention.

Is the complexity of the problem becoming clearer to YOU?

Just because someone doesn't agree with your solution doesn't mean that their wrong, or bad, or that they don't deserve a place in the discourse that you insist this tool is not a means to replace.

@surreality said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

Come on already with this nonsense.

Which is exactly how I feel about this entire topic.

But cool. You're right. Discuss amongst yourselves. I will absolutely not be implementing this, and I advise others to do the same. I don't have much more to add here.

@Ghost said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

CITING NOT LIKING GUNS

Except that this concept does not require citing a reason. No questions asked, remember?

Or situations in which you suspect that this command is being used for abusive purposes if you can't ask them what their motivation for using it in the first place was?

Nah. Pass.

@Ganymede said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

What's the default level of play?

This is why I make the default level of play gamewide, and players have to opt-in before playing.

Which is why I normally, repeatedly, say 'it is right there on the tin'.

I do not have the time or the resources (or really the desire) to adjudicate the levels of every player and come to an individualized assessment. I put the things that you should be likely to expect right up front.

Beyond that, short of some kind of extreme situation, you (at least should have) read the rules, and you definitely signed the paper acknowledging that you read the rules. Everyone should be on the same page.

@Ghost said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

So...
...Silver Kanye.

Do I even want to google this? I think... no.

@Arkandel said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:

I raise you Arx; it's crazy complicated (people playing there for years post they still don't know enough about the setting) but it's also crazy popular.

Arx has custom built everything. There are no books you have to go out and read. Everything is on the website, and it is literally learn-as-you-go. WoD is not those things, and people cannot be bothered to even so much as read their books, much less the website -- because it's not learn as you go. They expect to be taught the relevant parts.

Which is why I always include 'you are expected to know at least the basics of this material. It is a requirement for character approval'.

@Auspice said in The Work Thread:

That table has some nice rotation on it.