Best posts made by Ganymede

@Misadventure said:

It would be important that death have some teeth, at least in my opinion. Otherwise risk becomes a farce, and the whole lifestyle is based on risk.

As a divergence, I have always believed that great shows have death front and center.

I grew up watching Transformers. The narrative changed when beloved Transformers began to die off; not just Optimus Prime, but also Brawl, Ironhide, Prowl, Ratchet, Windcharger, and Wheeljack (among the Autobots).

What made the short-lived Exo-Squad so good was that death was an overpowering theme in the series. It motivated J.T. Marsh and Nala Burns, which pushed the storyline. When they killed off Alec Deleon, I was all, like, WTF? Because he died in a rather inglorious way.

Death is a poignant thing. I cannot abide by storylines where no one of significance perishes over several "episodes," if they are calculated to be thrillers.

@surreality said in What does advancement in a MU* mean to you?:

Between the two, though, I think learning times still result in the much lesser evil. 'You get rewarded for your efforts' should be a constant. 'You get rewarded for your efforts up to a point, or unless staff gets lazy' is powerfully discouraging and rightly feels unfair. The players who are the most generous with their time and are doing the most to keep your game alive through running things for others are typically the ones most hurt by this.

Going back to the system I proposed a page ago, I do not believe it hinders or rewards people based on their active-time; that is, it is not advancement based on activity. However, I believe it encourages activity because you can advance faster through cooperation and collaboration.

One of the things that nWoD did right was tying everything to XP. By making costs exponential, you had to devote more time to getting an extra point, which follows on the law of diminishing returns. What it does not account for is XP gain on a MU*, which is what I hope my system (which is based on a constant Time allotment) will do is level the playing field further between rookies and veterans.

I think it is important to consider abandoning using XP or advancement as a carrot for activity. While it can be an incentive to be active, a system that links advancement solely to activity is going to lose a large number of good players who cannot be online all the time.

This game looks right up my alley. It's too bad I'm stuck playing The Witcher III. Oh noes.

I should really play this game.

@Arkandel said in What does advancement in a MU* mean to you?:

How does your system handle catching up to oldbies (if it does)?

In other words if you create today and I created three months ago, assuming similar playstyles will you be able to ever close the ability gap between our characters?

Two ways.

First, with exponential costs, it takes more time to develop your skills to elite levels. Since all PCs start off with the same periodic Time allotment, being an oldbie means taking longer to get an extra dot above.

Second, the more you have, the less you get. Holdings; status; high-level skills: all of these can reduce the periodic Time allotment. In a GMC/CoD system, for example, you could penalize Time by a PC's Status or number of Attributes and Skills at 4+. The reasoning: you have to hone your connections, reputation, and skills to keep at such a high level of expertise.

Put these two together, and newer PCs will advance faster. You may never fully catch up with oldbies that are active, but you'll close the gap over time. There seems to be little reason to cripple active oldbies.

At some point, if it becomes an issue for lower level folks to make up the distance, there may be higher starting point allotments.

Two thoughts.

@tragedyjones

Fuck that shit, dude. That's so fucking irritating. Standing someone up is unacceptable under any circumstances ever. Get a pair and tell the guy/girl that you're not showing up by text message or some shit, you horrid prick/cunt.

@Ghost

It was 60 degrees in Ohio in this morning.

@crusader said:

Hardly anyone in this thread seems to understand Werewolf: The Forsaken theme.

You haven't the authority to make this claim, and you haven't demonstrated any sort of expertise that would make your understanding any more valid than another's. I don't accept this premise.

The problem that I have with your analysis is that you have hooked onto one potential element for role-play, and crowned it as the most important. I don't see any reason to believe that playing a game where Werewolves adhere tightly to their spiritual aspects is any more or less acceptable, reasonable, or desirable than a game where that aspect is set aside in favor of a primal pack aspects. That the spiritual aspects complicate, add flavor to, or enhance the game beyond mere survival seems to be lost in your analysis.

Frankly, I don't think any of your "flaws" are, in fact, "flaws." They appear to be aspects of the game that you think are either unnecessary or irrelevant to the style of game that you want to run. Unlike many others I can accept that, but like many others I probably won't be playing with you. I would probably find your setting/game/theme shallow.

@Thenomain

I really didn't like the last battle in the first Shadowrun Returns game. Actually, I just didn't like the ending at all. It was like they were struggle for UGH MEEEEEANING beyond the run itself, and that was lame.

Come on, folks. You don't need to have earth-shattering ramifications to make a game interesting.

@tinuviel said in Races in fantasy settings:

Racism is easy to write, because it's everywhere.

But that means oppression is more prevalent and common, and should correspondingly be easier to write.

I understand why writers fall back on the trope; I just find it boring and overdone.

@Coin

Now, I have this image of Ark's bird.

@sunny said in The Worst Thing You Have Done in this Hobby Thread:

And: I participated in PillowFort.

Remember when PillowFort ran me out of Denver by going to the owner?

Yeah, good times.

@Thenomain said:

It's strange to see a lawyer being honest about the courtroom experience.

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.

@greenflashlight said in Something Completely Different:

If I understand you correctly, you are asking for empathy; for people to understand that their opponent has an identity outside of whatever flanderized sin they are accused of.

(Emphasis added.)

I write to applaud your use of this word.

Also, to add an obligatory Simpsons GIF.

@dontpanda said:

I'm sitting here, hoping Justin! doesn't screw this country up as much as I'm afraid he will.

You make best with what you've got. Mulcair didn't impress anyone, and Harper wasn't an option.

Justin!'s done a good job with his Cabinet, as far as I can tell. Harjit Sajjan is as good a choice as any for Minister of Defence. And Marc Garneau as Minister of Transport seems like a good idea. Native-Canadian Jody Wilson as Attorney General? Good idea. Catherine McKenna as Minister of Environment and Climate Change? Maybe not so much, but a social-justice lawyer isn't a terrible choice. Dr. Jane Philpott for Minister of Health? Another good choice.

I don't know. The change has been drastic, but Trudeau seems to have surrounded himself with people who are more qualified than him to lead in particular areas. Not a bad idea. Also, 50% women, and a substantial number of racial and religious minorities. It's like he went out of his way to create a diverse Cabinet.

Meanwhile, under the Obama administration: Secretary of Defense Ash Carter is a civilian who has never been in a field of combat, and whose expertise is in theoretical physics. I shit you not.

As I said, you make best with what you've got.

@hobos said in Something Completely Different:

Honestly I think you should delete the Hog Pit altogether and not even leave it as an archive, and just move out the threads that are warnings about predators.

We will not be doing this, but I understand why you think it would be a good idea to move the forum forward towards a less-toxic community.

@Admiral said:

And I was told if I file a lawsuit against her, I'm fired. This is Texas, so yes. They can do that.

Depending on your state's laws, it may be required that you report a felony. And what she did may qualify, so you may be legally obligated to file a criminal complaint against her.

If you get fired for filing a criminal complaint for a felony, you can likely seek recourse, despite Texas being an at-will jurisdiction. I believe there's a public policy exception to that rule where you are required by law to take an action, and are fired for it.

@faraday said in Too Much:

So for instance we did a big awards party, and there were a couple different locations - the beach, the bar... I forget the others.

And then DWOPP got with my PC, and we TS'd, and I found out later, and I was, like --

Anyhow, it was still fun, and I have no regrets. BSGU was one of the best experiences I've had in 20+ years. I wish it was still around.

@kk said in Too Much:

2. A two person sex is sort of standard and a good size for a tinysex scene, but rping sex scene after sex scene with the same characters (without breaking it up with other rp) can eventually become a pretty dull shade of gray.

I hate to think of ever being thought of as a dull shade of grey, dear.

The Witcher III Sountrack.

This version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6FotzVt9Ak

Unbelievably good.

@il-volpe said in RL-Friendly Game Design:

I find it more fun to RP a round of poses every day or two than to wait for three weeks. This is particularly appropriate for debriefings, Q&A sessions and reconnaissance trips that aren't too likely to get action-packed -- some scenes are really more fun to RP about after than they are to RP.

I do not think async RP is great for active-shooter type scenes, but is good for debriefings for missions. The commander should pose once a day after reviewing the scene, to keep it moving along, but other players can chirp all they want meanwhile (within reason).

@Duntada said:

Don't worry man if you get too stressed out by the peace we can always give you ad homonym attacks to help you feel like you're dealing with normal debates again.

You did this on purpose, right? If not, I am very sad.

@Ghost said in The Case Against Real PBs:

don't mince fuckin words with long paragraphs trying to act like making an insult about your opinion of my ego and stating that I seem unable to accept an addiction as some worldly statement about everyone but it just happens to include me. You're playing around with attacks on a specific person's emotional center as well as playing armchair addiction advice to a specific stranger. You really think that's appropriate and/or responsible?

If this is your takeaway, then I'll take ownership for being unclear and misleading. Let me break down what I said a little better (hopefully).

@Ganymede said in The Case Against Real PBs:

You may feel that tall and above things, but I think that's due to your pedestal of self-righteousness.

I think you're acting self-righteous. I'm not the only one. I don't think you're taking umbrage to this part, though. I could be wrong.

We've both participated actively in the hobby. And if we liken it to a vice like an addiction, the first step to actual recovery is to admit that you will always be an addict.

I said that if we are going to liken participation in this hobby to a vice, like an addiction, then admitting that one will always be an addict is an important step to recovery. I say this from personal experience as an addict: breaking addictions is damn hard to do, but the first step is reminding yourself that you will always be an addict as a reminder that you can always lose control.

I didn't say you are an addict; I have no idea if you are or ever have been. But if you are, then I apologize. It's a day-to-day struggle; I get it. Addictions suck like cancer.

If you disagree with the premise of likening participation in this hobby to a vice, then this entire comment falls apart like wet drywall.

I think you're just as much of a creepy weirdo as the rest of us, no matter how long you've spent outside of the hobby. The difference between us is that I accept this, but you apparently do not.

I still think we're all creepy weirdos, but that's a personal opinion that I'm comfortable with.

@Ghost said in The Case Against Real PBs:

Now, gross analysis of other people's mental diagnoses may be the tits on that other forum (aka the same place that talked shit about you for months for not following their mutual bargaining directives when ownership changed), but here... it's against the rules. Probably because it could be truly damaging to complete strangers; perhaps even to the point of being dangerous.

The reasons for this forum taking the stance are well-documented. As for "mutual bargaining directives," I have no idea what they may have been going on about. The only "mutual bargaining" I can recall is someone -- I can't recall if it was Tributary? -- wanting to make sure that the Hog Pit was accessible here, or that links from the Hog Pit here was linkable over there -- something like that. And it's not really "mutual bargaining" if I'm not asking for anything; to my recollection, I've asked nothing from BMD's administrators, except for having them tell me if there's some sort of creeper going around to keep an eye open for. Anyhow, if shit's not working, no one's informed me about it.

If the folks over on BMD have an issue with anything over here, they can pretty DM me here. I know a handful of them have my personal email address. I can also be reached via Discord. I mostly just keep the lights on here.