Best posts made by Ganymede

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

Now after a couple of deaths from students getting to school on snowy days and changing laws that require students attend school X number of days a year it's better to call a delay/schedule early dismissal than outright cancel.

Or -- and this is just a suggestion because, you know, I know you aren't trying to get under my skin, but this subject makes my blood boil and seethe -- you could do all sorts of things.

Like, maybe, start the school and not be a complete dick about people showing up late when it is snowing so hard polar bears be like "homey, dis is ridic." Forgive the tardiness in the morning, and move the fuck along like, you know, reasonable adults do.

Here's another idea: maybe have your crews start earlier plowing the essential, main streets.

Because you know what a two-hour delay is going to do to road conditions, the cold, and the snow? Jack shit. It's like people think that conditions will magically change if you just give Jesus two extra hours to do his thang.

@zombiegenesis said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

To me there's not much difference between physical combat "fuck, my character is dead" and social combat, "fuck, you seduced my character and now we've slept together ICly" or something like that.

See, I'm the same way, mostly because people who end up succeeding in the second part often find themselves saying what you say in the first part.

@GreenFlashlight said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:

Second, refusing to believe a victim is itself an accusation that the victim is a perjurer who must prove herself innocent of the crime.

Between the opposites of honesty and fraud is a gray area, one that I swim in professionally on a daily basis. If an accuser presents an allegation, I can believe that allegation while still desiring or demanding an investigation of the allegation. More often than not, the accuser's belief in the truth is based on their perception of events which an accused admits has occurred, but for which they have a different perception.

If staff undertakes an investigation of an allegation, that is indicative of a belief in the truth of what has been said. If staff demand evidence prior to undertaking that investigation, then that is indicative of their disbelief. As such, my inclination is to investigate every allegation as they come. But just because an investigation results in little or no other evidence, that does not mean the accused is a perjurer. If people are prone and allowed to make mistakes, then misapprehensions should be seen as such.

In the end, my experience is that there is very often little or no evidence available, and investigations are sometimes handcuffed by the need to keep the identities of the accuser anonymous, so as to avoid collateral damage arising from the reporting.

@surreality said in RL things I love:

You must work for the CW.

I have talent, thank you.

@arkandel said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

What I am starting to think is social attribute should be balanced in relation to their physical counterparts. Not in the same way, because that's comparing apples to oranges. The more we try to shoehorn a more direct equivalence the more we'll be bashing our heads against the wall.

This, this, this is what I'm meaning to get at when I say "there are a million other ways to use social stats than direct confrontation." And, when there is direct confrontation between players, yes, there will be an opt-out provision (for long term things that can have meaningful, character-changing consequences).

Our game will be using Status. A lot. When we said "we wants politics plz," we meant it. I spent the better part of yesterday writing up how Status works on the game, what will cause your Status to go up and down, and so on. Now I'm on the part I called "Political Actions," which includes things like censuring people, allocating a Faction's resources, and so forth. What pools are going to be used? That's right, social pools.

Managing resources? Actual strategic warfare? You can bet that'll use mental pools. Because combat isn't always brought down to the individual level in the Dark Ages, and even William Wallace lost a battle to a foe with a superior mind.

A bully finds few friends in their time of need. Go around smashing things, and everyone'll come down on you hard until they will get political gain for sending you into torpor.

@Derp said in The Great PC Death Dilemma:

PC Death doesn't make the game better. If anything, you're going to end up driving off players who won't take any action because they're risk-averse.

I agree with you, but I don't think that is the dilemma described, even if Ghost insists on returning to it. I think the question is better framed as whether players should have absolute agency over loss.

In jurisprudential terms (which I know you'll love), I would say that players should have a qualified immunity from loss that is waived in cases where they demonstrate a wanton disregard for consequences.

People should be rewarded for investment and loyalty. Period. If new players want to catch up to the older players they can either wait until the natural cycle of attrition takes them there or be more active to get more incentives.

Character growth isn't the only reward for time investment and loyalty, and that shouldn't be overlooked either. Capping XP isn't about allowing new PCs to catch up; it is about keeping power levels at a point where participation is reasonable for all.

If a PC makes it to a cap, that's great. A player can choose to keep playing or retire (but still retain control of the story of) the PC for posterity or into an NPC-ship (which again they retain control of). Reaching the highest level of WoW or Horizon Zero Dawn doesn't make playing the game any less enjoyable, unless you like the challenge of playing at a lower level. And if you do, then I don't see what the problem is capping XP.

As I have said in the past (several hundred times it feels like) a game can also move the cap upwards if enough players get their PCs there. And at that point the scope of the game can change. But I don't support XP caps just so new players can play "catch-up"; I support them because film noir stories are far less interesting when the "good guys" can obliterate villains with a sneeze.

@auspice

I just want Google Images to go back to the way it was.

@derp said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

If you want the kind of character that never blinks in the face of such things, then -invest in the stats that make sure you rarely lose those rolls-, and then when you do lose one, figure out why this time is different.

Super major peeve -- your character doesn't get extra stats/immunity based on backstory.

@faraday said in The Great PC Death Dilemma:

:raises hand:

To be fair to my point, though, you're one in a million.

@auspice said in RL things I love:

He is like the personification of 15 year old boys in their bedroom playing WoW on a Saturday night.

My partner finds him rather attractive, actually.

Shows what she knows.

@marsgrad said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

Or at the very least you should work with Space Cowboy to make your awesome intimidation/persuasion/seduction check believable.

That's Rule No. 1 for me when it comes to just about any game.

Try to figure things out before resorting to dice.

Because, man, dice totally suck sometimes.

@ZombieGenesis

I appreciate you providing the explanation that you did not have to, or want to, provide.

I know everyone involved. I have known them for a while. I’m just sad.

@cupcake

Oh, not you, no. Don't worry about that. But I have been told by family, many times, that I should love someone because they are family.

Fuck that shit.

I love someone because I enjoy their company, I empathize with them, commiserate with them, and so on. I don't love someone if I find them misogynistic, ignorant, unnecessarily combative, or, worse, abjectly stupid.

Family isn't by choice. Stupidity is. Ain't got no time for dat.

@arkandel said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

However the one compelling argument I've found people who support dice and mechanics have, and which I am swayed by, is to facilitate the possibility of occasional failure and provide a scale to success. Even the practiced politician will misread a situation or say the wrong thing at the wrong time after all, so a roll could make for an interesting scene since the result is truly unexpected by all participants.

Then agree to use the dice. Do that.

Or don't, and agree to an outcome.

Like, just do something? And stick with it. That's totally fine. And when there's a system available, use it if you want -- or don't.

But if you opt-out of a result of social combat that I engaged in, and I don't feel your reasons are justified, that's probably the last time we'll be doing that, and I'll make sure that whatever plans I come up with work around you.

Or, maybe next time I push your PC's face in instead.

@Runescryer

I think that your approach was just fine. You held a genuine belief that turned out to be untrue. It won’t be the last time you do this.

Reputations get hurt. This happens. You made a mistake. This too happens. Everyone with torches and pitchforks is as absurd as you would imagine.

@auspice said in Good or New Movies Review:

Unfortunately, around the time of Saw, Hostel, et al... the blockbuster films fell into the laziness of the gore sub-genre. And about a decade prior to that they'd given over to the laziness of overusing the jump scare*. Which means true, good horror has been really hard to come by. We've had a few. Some of my notables are The Others, Babadook, Paranormal Activity (the first one, but a couple others haven't been bad).

The Babadook is on my list of must-watches. My partner loves horror movies, and she's sort of pulled me into watching some real shit, but she doesn't mind going to see things that look interesting.

In the past couple of years, along with The Babadook, there are other movies that look more like classic horror films that are getting recognition. It Comes At Night is another must-watch. A Quiet Place has made it to the list, along with Get Out. Raw is delightfully squicky, and Split pretty much revived James McAvoy's career. I also liked Maggie, which included a surprising performance from Ahnold.

I'm really looking forward to Hereditary. A24 is my new favorite studio.

@apos said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

So to be more productive and thinking about system design, what about... a player defines an inclination, defined with a descriptive string and then an integer for magnitude. So 'Total Coward: 10' and then defines a will and won't, for something they won't do because of it, and something they will do because of it, for a vulnerability and defense. Could be a secret, or could become known and publicly viewable due to their reputation. Players could have fun with defining them.

That sounds pretty close to what Pendragon has. It's a system that I liked.

@Kay

I have also joined. It helps that I know the person who runs it. And that I helped write some of it long ago.

I can be found there as Madison.

(I don’t hide well.)

@Wizz

You don't need to remove anything, no. That's not what I want.

I just want people to be cognizant that others may want to know absolutely nothing about it before they have the opportunity to see it.

Some of us have very demanding jobs, children, fussy spouses, or circles of friends that just won't shut up about the movie, and I can see how it would be aggravating to see yet another place where people tease just a little not-spoiler information.

I don't have my hackles up, I assure you. And I probably would not have said anything but for the fact that this movie is several years in the making, as far as anticipation goes.

I'm just suggesting a bit of empathy for those who cannot get out to see it immediately, for whatever reason.

That said, I did see the movie opening night. And I'm trying very hard not to say anything about it.

Just a couple of weeks, please. No ramifications if otherwise, y'all, but it doesn't cost us not to say a thing, right?

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

The idea that anyone is complaining about not being able to go from total noob to expert in no time flat is an obvious and egregious strawman that no one but you is raising.

Actually, you're the one that brought it up. Unless I'm misreading things, your criticism prior to Faraday's last was that FS3 hurts your RP because you like playing lesser-experienced PCs and growing them over time. This implies that you have an issue with the progression in FS3.

Frankly, I like FS3 because the experts don't always win. I can't tell you how many times I saw Spectre missing or not damaging Cylons, and Trash Panda miraculously made it through a frontal assault. It does what Faraday wants it to: simulate a modern combat situation. And it does it really well.

It's much worse in WoD[.]

As stated before, WoD 2E adjusts this and makes everything more-or-less on equal footing. The benefit to min-maxing rests only in the dice, not on the XP costs, due to linear progression.