@JinShei said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Oddly, I was in the middle of explaining to you that we aren't Arx and that our families have little power when I woke up...
Your motion shall not be considered until you have filed your memorandum in support with a corresponding affidavit.
What are "reduction of harm" policies?
Means a woman who sleeps around. Implications of dirty, or slovenly.
Yeah, that doesn't jive with a mean-spirited Triceratops at all.
@Wizz said:
How? You keep saying you don't like Arkandel's system and that there's another way to do it, but-- as I think's been pointed out before in a similar discussion on WORA-- if the resources aren't somehow meaningful (collect this Stuff! It's shiny!) the players who "want" to fight over them really wouldn't have any motivation to do so.
MET had an Influence system. Players battled it out to take advantage of limited Influence in particular spheres. Those with greater Influence were able to take actions that affected the Domain. However, those actions did not affect the day-to-day existence of players who did not want to get involved in those politics. In that case, the limited resource -- the Influence -- was not a bar to existence or RP, but had enough meaning and importance that it was worth fighting over politically.
How could this apply to a vampire game and territory? Suppose each "grid space" provides a certain amount of Influence in a sphere. Depending on who your allies are, you could combine Influence to take actions to affect others. You could take steps to improve your territory's Influence score in particular spheres. Cap the amount of Influence in each sphere to cap the amount of improvement that can be done.
This is probably the best way to do it, in my opinion. However, it requires a great deal of maintenance. You'll need someone to consistent apply the rules to figure out what everyone's doing, and the effect of each action taken. You need to figure out how often people can "act" on or with their Influence. And so on.
To be fair, Hooper’s version has a cognizable plot which critics apparently couldn’t figure out, despite being plain and bare.
And I have to say that I hate it that modern productions cut out Growltiger’s Last Stand, something which the movie mostly messes up as well.
The sad part is that it is a fairly important play-in-play.
Villains are always more interesting than heroes.
Of course you aren’t a villain for protecting yourself, but even if you were neither I nor any reasonable person would find fault with your decision.
@Auspice said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
just gotta remember she's not yet 21 and still p much a child.
Unsolicited comment: you're enabling the behavior.
Don't.
Please, don't.
This will not turn out well.
As I expected, we were always in agreement.
@Ghost said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
I would be very wary that this has less to do with wanting to be around you at all, but preferring not to spend money on motels.
This is more of a presumption for me.
I'm fine with doing it, as long as we're on the table for our reasons, yeah?
@Rook said in How to Escape the OOC Game:
I know that you think that this is shocking (if you are not being sarcastic or facetious), but it is much more common than you might understand. It happens a lot of WoD/CoD games that I've tried joining. Make a new character and make some page-contacts, looking for people who might want fresh RP in their circles, and almost every time I get asked who I am.
I haven't been asked that question since Denver by Night.
Otherwise, I concur with you. I'm not shocked. I can see from +where and +who how gaming has changed since when I first started.
I don't know what this has to do with masking or not-masking oneself.
@Auspice said in The Art of Lawyering:
Please don't think I'm opposed to helping the wrongly incarcerated.
It was more a question as to whether she could potentially do harm by making a spectacle (TV show) of it without a complete education.
I never thought you were making light of innocents.
She could do a lot of harm, yes. But she could also do a lot of good. She has the resources and connections to make a huge difference, if done correctly. She didn’t need a law degree to do this, but if it means that she can represent these folks in court so be it.
Think about what she could do representing an innocent person in court. And having it televised.
@Tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
It's posts like these that really explain a bunch about how you got to be the way you are.
@silverfox said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
So... parents shouldn't show an interest in what their kids are interested in or support them if they, the parent, aren't having fun?
I will clarify my peeve because I am miscommunicating. And I will do so in typical fashion.
Act III, Scene I
<< Ganymede and partner are sitting in bed on their laptops. >>
Her: Do you know what my sister is taking her kids to?
Me: << impersonating Jack Nicholson >> I'm an educated man, but I'm afraid I can't speak intelligently about --
Her: -- she's taking them to see Don't Let The Pigeon Drive the Bus.
Me: They made a movie about it?
Her: No, it's a live musical.
Me: Aw, fuck no.
Her: They love that book.
Me: They love KISS, but we aren't taking them to the concert.
Her: That's different.
Me: Of course it is. That's at least mildly entertaining.
Her: But my sister is taking her kids.
Me: Do we have to do everything that she's doing for some reason? If she were pushing her kids off a building --
Her: So, you don't want to go.
Me: No, I don't fucking want to go.
<< Pause >>
Her: They'd love it.
Me: They don't even know about it! How do you know? Frankly, they will go to anything you are dragging them to because you are dragging them there. That's not the same.
Her: They'd love it.
Me: You don't know that right now. You can't know that. They can't sit through a movie for longer than an hour.
Her: They'd love it.
Me: They love ripping farts! They are six and don't know shit about shit.
Her: They'd love it.
<< Pause >>
Her: All right, you don't have to go.
<< Pause >>
Me: Just get me a fucking ticket.
Her: You're a good parent.
Me: I'm a good spouse. I'm a shitty parent. But I never pretended to be a good parent.
Her: So you're pretending to be a good spouse?
Me: Pretty much.
I am more than happy to go to t-ball tournaments. I help out with my boy's basketball team. I go to PT conferences. But we're talking about a fucking musical show which I know my kids never, ever, talk about after the fact. This happened when my wife dragged us to the Paw Patrol show and the Monster Jam rally. My kids are into Disney dolls and Transformers, and any pretense to the contrary is just utter bullshit.
Don't get me started on the Cub Scouts, something which the boy didn't even want to do in the first place.
Also, evidence that I'm a good spouse: she's seen The Rise of Skywalker, but I have not. Then again, from what I've heard --
@Lotherio said in GMs: Typical Player/GM Bad Habits:
And now we come to willpower, clearly the most important stat in the game...
I always hated being Gerard for this reason ...
@Tinuviel said in The Work Thread:
And those that can't teach go to Law School.
In my case, I did both.
I'll admit that I'm new to this genre, and I don't have all the answers.
My first superhero that I got any mileage out of was Dr. Freeze on @RizBunz's game. I constructed him as a super-intelligent bio-technologist and physician who froze her wife to find a cure for her. He had the usual powers and the robotic suit that he needed to live, and it took a little bit of time to twist the system that the game used to the character's concept.
I ended up falling back on the system precisely zero times because I knew the character well-enough to know his weaknesses and strengths. And none of the GMs I had plots with ever quibbled with his power set because we all knew what it was. Anything that wasn't unclear from my stats and descriptions was discussed and resolved shortly.
Now I'm playing on Empire State, and I haven't run into any problems yet. Maybe I will? I don't know, but I don't think so. I'm pretty sure I know my PC's power levels, if such exist, and what she can and can't do. And I'm pretty sure anyone who GMs a scene I'm in will know the same, or can figure it out.
@ZombieGenesis said in Empire State Heroes Mush:
I think it boils down to this. You're saying: Why not just always be reasonable? And others are saying: Not all people are reasonable all the time and dice based/level based systems help compensate for that.
You've simplified the statements accurately, but the issue is actually: if staff is the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not allowed, why are the players fighting? And I believe my argument, which isn't expressly stated, is described by Faraday and Coin well: no conflict resolution system is free of staff adjudication, so it all falls to staff to figure this stuff out, make the rules, and stick them.
There's something to be said about the lack of consistency, of course, but, news flash: judges do not always come to the same conclusion based on the same set of facts and law either. So, as I've pointed out, I just sort of roll with things, and that strategy has worked on pretty well so far.
And that’s why I torture myself by making a difficult meal when I’m depressed.
@Ghost said in Sexuality: IC and OOC:
- SIT DOWN.
"Umppff."
"Whats wrong?"
"Nothing...nothing..."
This has happened. I have RPed this.
And good times were had by all.
