Best posts made by Ganymede

@Coin said in Social Conflict via Stats:

It's also a bad example within context because we're talking about social (and in a way, mental) stats. So either the PLAYER needs to have a compelling argument, or you can have the dice decide who has the better argument, otherwise, why both rolling? And if you're not gonna roll, why bother with the stat?

I generally don't dice-roll unless I'm trying to achieve a particular result. I think that's a good stick. If you're arguing for the sake of enjoying social RP, you don't really need to roll anything. If you're arguing to persuade someone to do something, then you should probably roll something.

I find this discussion very pointless, as, in my experience, I have had no trouble convincing people with or without rolls to do precisely what my PC wants them to do. Socially, that is.

@too-old-for-this said in Autism and The MU* Community:

...you're not wrong. I have come to despise socks.

I understand, but I meant that I've come to the point where I get sexual gratification from the slightest stimuli.

@Groth said in Social Conflict via Stats:

The game decides what motivates the character, what their emotional state is, what their reaction is supposed to be. We the players would then merely be the actors playing out the actions given to us by the game system which might be fun but it would be a very different kind of game.

And yet, this is what WoD 2E does through Conditions. It's built into the game. If a vampire uses Majesty to inflict the Charmed Condition on your PC, guess what? You're charmed, or you're breaking the rules.

But what does "charmed" mean? We have a system that tells us, mechanically, what our advantages and disadvantages are, but nothing -- NOTHING -- requires the player to perform in a certain way. An actor in a play can portray and express the lines of a scene in many ways, and demonstrate the same general emotion -- but how they do it is, for the most part, between them and the director.

Charmed? A cool, predatory vampire might be a little more cordial. An effusive vampire might gush. A cerebral vampire might be confused and bewildered. But you're still charmed, and still subject to the Condition's system effects.

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

Speaking as someone who is asexual, I find a lot of people attractive, but I have zero desire to actually smush body parts with them.

We can also talk about how we should normalize such thoughts with people we have no actual desire to ever meet in person.

@Groth said in Social Conflict via Stats:

Generally speaking we expect players to follow the rules of the game they're playing. In trivial cases or cases where the outcome is predictable it makes sense to handwave the rules, however players determining an outcome by themselves that go against the rules are cheating.

Litigants determine the outcome of their cases all the time prior to trial by settlement, regardless of whether their claims and liabilities are consistent with the law.

If the core of every conflict is resolution, I see no reason why the affected parties cannot resolve their conflict as they see fit, provided that outcome does not affect others.

@surreality said in Social Conflict via Stats:

If the other actor in the scene demands to be the director, micromanaging every nuance of a pose -- and I have seen buckets of this -- you have a problem, and it's not unreasonable to have some objections there.

If you want to micro-manage as a vampire, pick a Ventrue. Dominate allows you to dictate what the target does, and Majesty does not. Majesty forces a target to generally like you and do some things to you, but it can be resisted in a way that Dominate does not. This is why I'm confused as to why someone would be okay with Dominate, but not Majesty; it's like they didn't read the damn book.

Not only that, but if you stay under the Conditions inflicted by Majesty, you can get beats. Lots of them. Look at Charmed: you get a fucking beat just for doing a requested favor. I'm not one to suggest juicing your PC by being a servile bitch, but ... yeah.

@lordbelh said in Social Conflict via Stats:

The difference between vampire disciplines and social fu is that disciplines you can (or at least I can) easily explain why you're doing these crazy things.

I'll say it here: if more people read and tried to use the Doors system effectively, they would find that it's a pretty decent way to solve PvP social conflicts. It just takes time and patience, and, GODDAMN is that shit apparently in short supply.

@too-old-for-this

That's not the only way to do it, but, yes, it is a way to do it.

I mean, The Last of Us is game storytelling at its finest. Many superhero stories don't have blank, uninteresting characters. And animated series, I think, have to have compelling main characters to survive.

I'm just not sure I can agree with you that blockbusters don't have quotable main characters.

@Arkandel said in Social Conflict via Stats:

These are all possibilities even now, right? I mean I could go to one of @Ganymede's scenes and "@emit Ganymede eats a bag of dicks" couldn't I? It's the perfect crime, no one can find out it was me! Mwahahah!

I'm pretty sure that this is the most terrifying image you could have ever described.

@saosmash

We have those.

@Apos said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:

Yes, arguing with players can be a huge red flag. But let's also not forget how many games croak run by super sweet and nice people.

Your staff didn't come off sweet or nice, or even professional and level-headed.

In fact, there is no requirement your staff even had to react on this thread.

It is not a surprise that any number of us don't see any logic to having an e-mail requirement to log-in. For the most part, I still don't. Your game was an exception because I just don't know Evennia.

Nothing that was said required KQ to say anything at all. And no response would not make you appear soft.

You are under no obligation to respond to anything by anyone here.

So, no. I don't buy your defense.

(P.S.: You also don't need to respond to this post.)

(P.P.S.: Your game is pretty badass, but I'm not into the system or the setting.)

@rinel said in Good TV:

It's rare to find it outside of very serious humanist, philosophical or religious adherents.

Or Etheria.

@Goyim

Actually, I did play at Arx. I created and played Grim for a short while. After playing, I realized it wasn't for me, so I left. My decision to leave had nothing to do with the e-mail requirement, as I'm sure you read (if you read) my comments.

I've been saying this since before this board again, but I'll say it again: staff is under no obligation to respond to criticism made here. Letting negative criticism of game policies go untouched is not an indicum of softness.

And if you are going to respond, do so with some semblance of decorum, no matter how absurd or unreasonable the critic sounds.

@rinel

That may be why I prefer TLOK over ATLA.

@Arkandel said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:

ANOTHER one?

The fuck you on, pal? I don't play them often!

Only recently.

And Galina's not a slutty-bunny. She's just played that way. If it's wrong to be sexy-vampire-Hitler, I don't want to be right.

@derp

Look at how toxic we are.

I’m glad this is helping and that we could help.

Now, I go back to moaning about how fucking broken I feel because of yard work and age.

@Killer-Klown said in Rate A Concept:

@tragedyjones I actually think there's a canon Bloodline based around that kind of thing.

I'm pretty sure he's played that concept before too.

@aria said in RL things I love:

I dunno, bro. If you can't make a buck without breaking basic accounting and investment principles, maybe you're just shit at this?

Or maybe accounting and investment principles aren't the only way to make money.

@Warma-Sheen said in House Rules vs Rules as Written:

And does anyone really believe these people who are contributing writing to WoD books have never considered that gamers aren't going to play splats against each other? Or that there won't be players using these systems against other players?

In the past, games have tried to balance the splats against one another. This is arguably necessary for oWoD, where PvP is built into the system.

In nWoD, there is less of an emphasis to PvP, so one may argue that House Ruling for balance is unnecessary.

But, seriously, the Autumn Court's Changeling 1E boon is shit. No one disagrees with this. It tends to be House Ruled to something with some application.

I have my doubts about the writers after seeing Secrets of the Covenant. That book sucks.

@derp

Cool. First, read Agrarian Justice by Thomas Paine. Then, read Adam Smith’s writing on the value and taxation of real property; it is in The Wealth of Nations.

Bottom line: the value of real property is entirely speculative, and therefore should be the basis of all taxes.

@Warma-Sheen said in House Rules vs Rules as Written:

I understand getting rid of the merit or lowering the cost or whatever. But my point since the beginning is that I think that it is much more personal choice of whoever makes those decisions than necessity.

You could call it personal choice; I would call it "setting an interpretation based on experience."

And, as @Sunny points out, that change would be a House Rule, in my books.

I don't really like House Rules much, but I know when to apply them. And, yes, I do so with some explanation beyond "I don't like the Winged Merit because flying pixie faeries are so lame."

@solstice

That is super awesome. Go get it. We’re (me, royally) are behind you!