Best posts made by Ganymede

@Luna

But zombie battalions are the best battalions.

@Arkandel said in What do you eat?:

For example even very basic questions such as "how much protein is needed" or "does the timing of meals matter" are answered differently by researchers who often resort to anecdotal evidence ('this is what worked for me') to support their claims.

I don't mind anecdotal evidence or advice. In fact, I think that most of us follow anecdotal evidence and/or advice when it comes to what we believe to be healthy choices. And there's nothing wrong with that.

If someone were to ask me how to lose weight, I'd probably go with the following questions:

1. Do you like to go out with friends to drink and smoke?: If so, there's nothing wrong with that -- well, except for the smoking part. We all know smoking's bad for you, but it's also pretty fucking expensive too. And if you like to drink, consider going with low-carb alternatives that fit your lifestyle; for beer-swillers, you may want to try a sipping whiskey, whereas wine-drinkers may enjoy a liquor-and-spritzer or, God forbid, a Whiteclaw.

2. Do you enjoy snacking in front of the TV?: Seriously, who the fuck doesn't? I do, but I try not to sit around with a bag of Doritos and a bowl of sour-cream-based dip. Instead, I like vegetables with tzatziki or salsa. My favorite? Celery and hot fucking salsa.

3. Do you exercise?: If so, great; if not, you might want to change that. Embarrassed at the gym? You may want to try an online service like Daily Burn, which has a variety of simple, intermediate, and fucking ridiculous workouts for you to load up. Best part? It comes in app form, so you can upload it to a Firestick, laptop, or cell phone and workout anywhere you have Internet service.

4. Do you live with someone else?: Next question -- do you both want to get healthier? Because nothing is better than a little "healthy" (har har) competition. Try what works for them; share what works for you.

5. Are you judgmental about things?: No one ever admits to it, but for those that are you should consider letting it go. Judgmental people tend to judge themselves as well, and that is probably the biggest stumbling block to getting healthy. Let people enjoy what they want; you enjoy what you want. And if getting healthy and losing weight is what you want, enjoy the fuck out of it and don't let anyone deter you on your path to happiness. Fuck that, fuck them, and fucking do it.

@thenomain said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

Why for social situations and not physical situations? Why social situations and not supernaturally-powered situations?

I think I've already explained why, but I'll do it again, in a brief version.

Some people done in the past fucked shit up for everyone, and now we better slip a provision in place to make sure it done not gonna happen again.

RfK proved to me that an opt-out provision isn't the end of anyone's world.

@Derp said in Mage 2E Game - Set in San Francisco:

Corpses are renewable resources! Upcycle.

Concept: Moros Efficiency Expert.

@Derp said in Good or New Movies Review:

Information following an evolutionary pattern does not in any way preclude a careful study of it for viability and longevity.

At the same time, a person's evolutionary pattern for PME sort of precludes the need for a careful study for longevity.

@bobotron said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

I applaud the intent there. Honestly, just outright banning the skeevy behaviors under social conflict is a generally better option than most anything. I hope you have luck in getting the things along the lines of your laid out 'gossip campaign/vote against your own interest/whatever' angle to actually work out.

I know I didn't say it, but, yes, those skeevy behaviors are out, out, out. Will not tolerate that bullshit; I don't got time for it. Similarly, people who are clearly abusing the system for their own benefit -- boosting up one's XP not included because, really, those are the incentives; I'm talking about fools who use social combat to coerce others into banging them, and then whine and cry when their lovers' domitors show up with Gangrel claws popped -- just aren't going to be tolerated.

The systems are so that people can have fun, all right? Not so people can run over other people rampantly with a ha-ha, and a ho-ho, and a "look I have a machinegun too!" mentality.

---

@lithium said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

I was not responding to you.

I'm sorry; obvious robot is busy cranking out situations where Status drops in the Status system, and debating the Territory/Domain system, and is just bwah social cues missed sorry.

---

@thenomain said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

The thing about social combat (or social systems; I think calling it all "combat" is undermining what it can or should do) is that it allows people who are not themselves social devas to have their characters manipulate on a scale implausible in real life. This is true of physical, mental, and supernatural abilities, so it doesn't surprise me that anyone would focus on the social as an unusual exception.

I see what you're getting at here, and I guess I'm somewhat exasperated about plaintive resistance. To wit: can I opt out of physical combat?

But I promise -- like, really, I am -- that folks that make a social PC are going to get mileage out of that decision, even with this opt-out provision. And folks that make brainiacs for PCs (we will be putting Kiasyd out there as a Mekhet bloodline) are going to have some solid advantages (like, seriously solid, I expect to have a flood of Mekhet) when it comes to Territory/Domain building/keeping/developing.

And now you know why I put the deadline to open so far into the future. There's a lot to do.

@Tinuviel

To be clear, authority is the limit given by a client to settle a matter, money-wise. A bit different from what you meant, in context of settlement.

@thenomain

Here's the current draft write-up:

IV. Social Combat

There are three “levels” of social combat: (1) immediate; (2) scene-length; and (3) protracted. The appropriate level depends on how difficult or quickly the challenge can be resolved; a little white lie or appearing to be honest would be immediate, whereas convincing another to support you for an election may require a number of rolls over time. (Note: The following rules are optional, but should be used where parties cannot agree on an outcome.)

A. Immediate

Telling a lie and getting away with it. Convincing a police officer you are telling the truth – and you are. These are challenges that must be performed in an instant.

The first step is for the aggressor to determine intent: what are you trying to do? The second step is to determine what pool should be used by the aggressor and the defender. The final step is to roll, and determine the result.

For example: Arkandel needs Ganymede to believe him on an important issue, for which he is telling the truth, but Ganymede is suspicious and stubborn. The Storyteller determines that Arkandel rolls Presence + Sincerity, and Ganymede rolls Composure + Etiquette. Arkandel gets 3 successes, and Ganymede gets 4. Despite Arkandel’s best effort, Ganymede does not believe him, and, because the result was in her favor.

Unlike other forms of social combat, a defender cannot opt-out of the result. This is because the scope of the roll is not calculated to include actions that would lead to behavior that might trigger a player. If this form of social combat does end up with a result that causes the defender to suffer some sort of discomfort, the next step is to call in a staff member to mediate the situation. A single roll may be used to get someone’s attention, or even their favor, but should not be used to determine an attempt to seduce.

B. Scene-Length

Attempting to win the favor of the Prince over a rival in court. Trying to shame someone in front of others in Elysium. These sorts of challenges take some time to complete, generally occur where others can witness the fight, and work very much like physical combat. Each participant calculates the following three scores:

• Dominance: Presence + Manipulation. This is your PC’s social initiative.
• Guile: Wits or Manipulation, whichever is lower. This is your PC’s social defense.
• Nerve: Composure + Etiquette. This is your PC’s social health.

The participants then determine their intent, and then engage one another. This system is generally similar to the Social Combat system found in the Danse Macabre, starting on page 127.

Like physical combat, each participant determines initiative by rolling a die and adding their Dominance. Next, each participant decides how they intend to act that round. There are three different kinds of actions:

• Antagonize: (Presence + Sincerity or Manipulation + Chicanery) – Opponent’s Guile, if the opponent is not deflecting (see below). The roll depends on how the PC intends to go about wearing down his opponent; attempting to prognosticate or compel the crowd to the PC’s side would use Sincerity, whereas belittling, browbeating, or making fun of the opponent would use Chicanery. The PC may add his or her Majesty score to these rolls. For each success, the opponent loses 1 Nerve. On a successful attempt to antagonize, the PC may also add a veiled threat to further wear down his opponent’s Nerve; by spending 1 Willpower, the PC may automatically cause the opponent to lose Nerve equal to the PC’s Intimidation score.

• Deflect: Guile x 2. A PC may defend himself by deflecting the attempt to antagonize him. Like Dodging in physical combat, roll twice the PC’s Guile. The PC may add his or her Animalism score to the pool to roll (which is not doubled). Each success reduces the opponent’s result to antagonize by 1.

• Regain Composure: Composure. A PC may roll her Composure in order to regain Nerve; for each success, the PC regains 1 Nerve. The PC may add his or her Animalism score to this pool.

At any time before his final Nerve point is lost, a PC may surrender to his opponent’s intent. Doing so means that the PC gains Beats equal to the amount of Nerve he has remaining, up to 5 (or 1 XP). If the PC loses the challenge, he may still decide not to abide by the result; if so, his opponent gains a number of Beats equal to the amount of Nerve remaining, up to 5.

C. Protracted

Winning patronage from a noble. Trying to convince the Prince to call a vote. These sorts of challenges take a lot of time to complete, and implies more than a few meetings between the PCs involved. This system should be used by a PC against an NPC, but can be used on another PC too. Generally speaking, this system is similar to the Doors system proposed in the Chronicles of Darkness, starting on page 81.

First, the parties involved determine their goals, if any; sometimes, one party has a goal but the other does not. This system should be used for attempts to seduce other PCs and NPCs, if one wants to resort to rolls to determine the outcome.

Second, each party determines how many Doors they have for the challenge. A PC has a number of doors equal to the lower of the PC’s Resolve or Composure, but may add her Animalism score to that amount. If the goal would result in a breaking point, add another two doors. Other complications may add doors; see the Chronicles of Darkness, page 81.

Third, each party determines how they intend to accomplish their goal, if any. A party may try to use their personality and honor to open up her opponent’s Doors (Presence + Sincerity) through pleas and accomplishing tasks, or she may try to spread rumors and falsehoods in order to trick her opponent, and thereby open Doors (Manipulation + Chicanery). Their opponent contests this by rolling his or her Composure. If a party has no set goal, she may elect to resist only, and contest instead with Composure + Etiquette.

Finally, resolving the challenge. A PC may spend an Action Point to roll to open a Door, using either of the pools above, depending on how they are accomplishing their goals. She may add Majesty to her rolls. Their opponent then contests that roll, as above, and may add Animalism to her rolls. If the PC spending the Action Point prevails, her opponent loses a Door.

At any time before his final Door is lost, a PC may surrender, which means her opponent accomplishes her goal. Doing so means that the PC gains Beats equal to the amount of Doors she has remaining, up to 5 (or 1 XP). If the PC loses the challenge, she may still decide not to abide by the result; if so, her opponent gains a number of Beats equal to the amount of Doors she has opened, up to 5.

<< END >>

@Auspice

You can crack a rib by coughing too hard. Or hurt some of the tender tissue holding your ribs in place. Not much you can do for either situation except bear it, but you could get some steroids to relieve the coughing and swelling in your airways.

@apos said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

So imo the way to stop min-maxing is to make strong, effective ways of designing characters be very, very, very intuitive and what someone would do anyways.

In my opinion, the way to stop min-maxing is by providing multiple avenues of "attack." In a competitive PvP game, give people more than one way to knock their opponent on their ass.

In order for this to work, though, you have to guarantee some sort of advancement cap, or else people will increase their stats until there is no weakness.

In the Chronicles of Darkness, capping stats at 35 XP is reasonable. That allows for min-maxing if you want, but doing so is going to open up vast holes in your PC. If you go combat-masher, you're going to get capped badly by sneaky (filthy hobbit) types, politico-make-you-look-dumdums, and double-up-ungh-ungh seducers.

@Auspice said in Arty stuff and Writey stuff:

The Veldt was also a TV episode on a Twilight Zone-esque show in the 70s. And it was terrible.

When I think of the Veldt, all I can think of is FF6.

@faraday said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

1. It expects that people will be familiar with the dice mechanic and associated statistics to figure out what those pools give them in practice, which is often not at all obvious when you factor in modifiers, merits, etc. Especially for new people.

You're right. Merits and things like that throw everything off a little. But the Storyteller system, at its basic, is Attribute + Skill. This is what you should expect for your pool, and all situational modifiers and merit adjustments are frills that apply sometimes, but not all the time.

So, I've described the basics of the Storyteller System in three sentences. That doesn't mean it's a good system, of course, but I concur with The Sands in that it is pretty basic.

I like it better than THAC0, at least.

2. It doesn't provide any consistency across players. Two people may intend for their characters to be comparably skilled (let's say... both modestly successful pilots fresh out of flight school) and end up with wildly different dice pools completely by accident because they're just not on the same page as to what's appropriate.

On BSG:U, the +census feature was great because it allowed you to see how others built their PCs. I strongly advocate for open sheets on all games, even PvP ones. This is a good way for folks to meet expectations.

Also, staff. As I've said countless times, I carefully look at applications when I'm staff, and I offer up suggestions to folks where I feel it is appropriate. Because sometimes a person is a newbie, doesn't know how to strategically allocate points, and genuinely appreciates it when someone takes an interest in their enjoyment on a game.

But I think that they can provide a lot of value if you can manage to get them right.

And I agree. That's why I like L5R's roll-and-keep system or DP9's Silhouette system. In fact, the latter is probably the best system I've found to accurately describe skill level, skill complexity, and attributes. Basically:

• You roll a number of d6 equal to your Skill Level, generally 1-5 (although it can go up to ten).
• You pick the highest result if you roll more than one die. If you roll more than one 6, you get a +1 to the result for each additional 6; so, if you rolled three dice and got 3, 6, and 6, the result is a 7.
• If unskilled, roll 2 dice and pick the lowest result.
• If your result is a 1, you fumble.
• Apply your Attribute modifier to the result. An "Average" attribute gives you a 0.
• Apply your Complexity modifier to the result. If your PC's Skill Complexity is equal to the Task's Complexity, you get a 0 modifier.
• Compare the result to the Threshold or opposing roll. Determine Margin of Success or Margin of Failure to determine outcome.

It sounds more complex that it is, but, really, the Silhouette system is light and very versatile.

@Ghost

Honestly, The Mandalorian has not stuck with me. I intend to see the entire series, but the first episode did not pull me in the way I thought it would. Beautiful visuals and gun-play is great, but I find it difficult to give a shit about the main character.

Contrast that with The Witcher. It was easier for me to understand Geralt; I described him to my partner as "Wolverine with a sword." The writing was better -- it helps that they stuck the "best" line from Sapkowski in the first episode -- and the later episodes increase the interest in the main characters.

With The Mandalorian coming out with individual episodes, I can understand why people may have wanted to wait until the entire series was out before watching it. That might have been the strategy. But I also think that Disney is really most popular in North America, whereas I think The Witcher has a more global appeal.

@faraday said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

If your source material tells me what a doctor should have, then groovy. The reason I brought it up is because multiple people in this thread have said "the descriptions in WoD suck so just ignore them" and it sounded like you were agreeing with them and saying that the mechanic alone should tell you what you need to know.

... but they do suck, and they are misleading.

Let's take Cate, for a moment. Based on your description, she should have Intelligence 3 and Medicine 3. That gives you a pool of 6 dice. But let's say Erin is really, really smart and gorgeous, like her player, but she hasn't the same training. So, she has Intelligence 5 and Medicine 1, which also gives her a pool of 6 dice. The skill description for Medicine at 1 is "Novice", Erin has the same pool as Cate, who is "Experienced." Thus, it is easy to get misled looking at the skill description and this is because the attributes are put on equal footing with them, in this system. The only way to figure out who is better in the Storyteller System (statistically speaking) is to look at what pool you have doing what.

Going to Bored's example of first aid response versus surgery, the Silhouette System does consider this disparity in its skills (even though, you could, as suggested, make two different skills). A First Aid Responder might be highly skilled at resolving basic injuries (high Skill Level, low Skill Complexity), whereas a Doctor might have less expertise, but can handle treating more complicated injuries with more complicated medical techniques (medium Skill Level, high Skill Complexity). This sort of complexity isn't easy to reflect in the Storyteller System, but that's also why, before 2E, there were Secondary Skills, for which GMs were directed to lower the difficulty for rolls.

---

@d-bone said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

So in systems like Faraday/WoD/L5R/Etc I tend to always min-max because they have multiplicative xp costs.

WoD 2E fixes this by making costs linear.

@surreality

Well, if she wasn't going to let him plow her, I suppose her country and people were reasonable surrogates.

I'm not really horrified. And I don't think her people died for God. I just think it's wrong for people to go to war over bitches they want to bang. And if there's a lesson to be learned, it isn't that you should let yourself be coerced into a relationship because someone wants to stick their dick in you, even if that means thousands of people die.

That girl in Santa Fe did nothing wrong, even if it may have resulted in her death and that of her classmates.

That said, valorizing anyone for their religious beliefs is vainglorious, at best.

@the-sands said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

Both characters went through CG. Both characters have earned the same amount of XP. However, Sam has Brawl-5 while George only has Brawl-3 because Sam has taken advantage of a flaw in the system. Other than that they are completely identical.

I follow what you're saying, and I agree. Mixing the two concepts leads to min-maxing. It's just a matter of mathematical optimization, and this benefits the veterans over the newbies.

So, as long as we continue to dodge value judgments, we can progress beyond the current quagmire, right?

@surreality said in RL Anger:

Typically these folks have these ideas of what the reality of sex/romance/intimacy is that's hopelessly skewed. This bit in particular isn't necessarily gendered, either. As in, a lot of guys may expect a relationship that looks like their favorite porno, but that's not much different than the women who expect a relationship that's like their favorite romance novel. Both are not standard reality or a reasonable expectation to have from day to day life.

Thankfully, my romantic life was guided by Calvin and Hobbes.

@the-sands said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

I would dearly love for someone on the 'it's a rule' side to explain where I am mistaken, but explaining doesn't mean just stating 'it's a rule' and asking 'why don't you want to follow the rules?'

It's not a rule.

But, as Faraday pointed out, a Storyteller probably would not permit or heavily penalize an attempt by a Medicine 1 person to accomplish what a Medicine 4 people could do more easily, even if the former may have Intelligence 5 and the latter Intelligence 2. It's a judgment call, one that a Storyteller can easily justify using the skill descriptions.

The book expressly mentions that a person's expertise in a mental skill may not track precisely with the dots in a particular skill. (Chronicles of Darkness, p. 31.) But I don't think it's unfair for the Storyteller to make that call. There is a higher emphasis on knowledge, and the lack thereof, in the game, which is built into the increased penalty for an unskilled Mental skill roll. (Id.) In other words, Mental Skills are different.

XCOM 2: The War of the Chosen.

Ah, to play XCOM 2 again, and make it a joyfully-stressful experience. So much to do, so little time.

@the-sands said in Make it fun for Me!:

As deep and philosophical as that is, hockey is still a competition and not a collaboration (with the other team).

My initial point is that you can be both competitive and collaborative. These are not mutually-exclusive concepts.

Others have already made my counter-argument, but, to be succinct, the game has rules everyone agrees to play by. When those rules are breached, there are penalties. Penalties tilt the competition in favor of the non-offending party, so there is a benefit to play by the rules that the teams, before the game, agree to.

But even if you don't agree that this is collaborative, at the very least the sportsmanship element sticks. People drop gloves and punch each other in the face, but they don't engage in snarky off-game attacks and shit, as we sometimes see in this damn hobby. And most of them don't bitch and whine at the officiating.

If you don't believe one can be competitive and collaborative, let me take a moment to explain how the practice of law works nowadays.