@SunnyJ said in L&L Options?:
Most groups only have two out of Coding Skills, Long Term Motivation and Good Teamwork, and all of them are required in sufficient amounts to see a proper game built from ground up with all that is needed in the time it takes, imo.
A thousand times, yes. But, as I said, and you said, in the time it takes. And, to be fair, all of the coders I know have good teamwork instincts and are motivated in the long term.
@Derp said in L&L Options?:
These systems don't exist not because nobody's bothered to make them, but because people have bothered to make them and found them not worth the effort when the backlash came back.
That's not at all true. I made and used a system way back on Gilded Promises / Due Rewards. We also did the same for a short period on Denver by Night. They used a system on Requiem for Kingsmouth as well. I maintain that it's not the backlash, but the time needed to create a political economy that fits the system.
As an example, the World of Darkness wasn't made for this level of crunchiness, so you have to adapt the game accordingly. For the Dark Ages game I was working on with Arkandel and SunnyJ, SunnyJ had taken part of Damnation City and adapted it whilst I worked on creating a set of bloodlines that fit the location (Livonia) and the timeframe. (Admittedly, we were really ambitious and started to delve into bloodlines for the Julii and Pijavica, but I digress.)
As another example, FS3 was also not made for this level of crunchiness. In developing a Mass Effect system, my progress essentially ground to a halt when I started to think about how to create a system that'd both the universe and the system. Add to that my ambition to have Advantages make a difference in Action Skills, and that system was tabled.
After I'm done slap-dashing bloodlines for RDC's game, I am probably going to work on something for City of Shadows. More than happy to collaborate with Lisse24 or whomever, but much will depend on future discussions with Taika on how deep she wants to go. And by 'deep' I mean 'getting a coder on board that is willing to create new systems or revise existing systems to automate as much as possible'.
But, no, I disagree, mostly because you know that I don't give a shit about the whining. People will play the game or they won't, and if you make the game simple and easy enough to understand and use players will overlook minor problems.
@Arkandel said in L&L Options?:
You know what's funny though? A lot of us have said this exact thing, and yet it's yet to be done. At some point the-collective-we need to put our money where our mouths are.
You know what's funny? Patience. A lot of people demand it, but few actually have it.
If we all agree that this is something we need, it makes absolutely no sense for people to open up new games without it. I know people have been working on one system or another but, at least as was the case of Fallcoast, game developers simply don't wait.
And, surprise surprise, games go up, games go down, and we all still agree that something was missing.
@Ghost said in General Video Game Thread:
Is it wrong? Ethically, yes. Contractually this play appears to be within the boundaries.
Lawful Evil is still evil.
@Pyrephox said in L&L Options?:
To me, any political game - truly political game - needs to be built from the resources up. The essence of politics is "how do we divide a limited number of resources among people who a) all want more than we have and b) don't want to just murder people".
Hey, we've known each other a long time.
How many times have I said exactly this and in how many ways?
I have labored extensively to create these systems. They take time. If people are patient, this can be a reality.
But few have the patience, and we are left with the Same Old Vampire Sphere over and over.
@Arkandel, @SunnyJ, and I had something going. I know we had a website somewhere.
I was there once. I started a new life by going out and doing new things. It can be kind of scary, but the freedom to pick and choose who I spend time with becomes liberating in time.
Of course there’s nothing wrong with that, unless you are looking at the term “Lords and Ladies” and think of Game of Thrones.
It goes back to expectations, that’s all.
I will still see the movie.
I have some standards to hold the movie against. I saw “The Killing Joke” not that long ago, and while it is not the “definitive” story, it is the one that I remember and consider canon. And in that movie, it was just one bad day that turned everything around.
I really liked “Falling Down,” and if this doesn’t compare, well —
@Lisse24 said in L&L Options?:
Obviously someone needs to work on a new option for a L&L game.
Most people on L&L games in my experience do not really want to deal with the unpleasantness that comes with statecraft. They would rather play with their titles rather than take the steps to earn or keep them.
I’ve had more political fun in the average Vampire sphere.
@Auspice said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Maybe do not suddenly ride up to the single woman at the drive thru on your bike and begin demanding she buy food for you.
I may or may not have opened my door into this kind of person repeatedly, and then left them there.
Everyone likes them for reasons I do not understand.
@RDC
Will do the legwork. Will want to talk to you about the setting and theme you’d like to see, though. I’m a proponent of making sure the bloodlines match the theme and setting.
@Autumn said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:
I'd really enjoy an action-oriented fantasy adventure game in a D&D setting and making use of all the D&D tropes; I just don't think any of the D&D systems are especially good for multiparty, heavily multiplayer venues.
I’m working on it, all right?!?
@Arkandel said in Staff scrutiny during CGen:
"Joe is a regular person. He wants to make a decent living, get good dental and perhaps retire in his forties to focus on his real passion which is gardening. He was never exceptional at anything but decent at a lot of things so since the paycheck for this Stargate program came with great benefits he decided to join it".
Candace wanted to make a decent living, but she didn't have any marketable skills. One bad decision led to another, and life eventually deposited her into a strip club outside of Madison, Wisconsin. On a cold Saturday in January, she happened to give a dance to an engineer that found her enrapturing. He eventually hired her into his firm as a secretary-with-benefits, where she learned how to juggle the personalities of all of the eccentric brainiacs she ridiculed in high school. After her love child made it into college, she left the firm to join the Stargate program as a personnel specialist.
@Ghost said in PC vs Player Assumptions:
Fair 'nuff. I think we are speaking the same language here.
Right, we are.
However --
-- keep in mind that many, many, many MUSH players don't really like it when staff tells them what their PCs know or do not know. Clear expectations hardly ever seem so to a person who is adamant of their vision of their own character.
Experience tells me to simply let players determine what they know or do not know for most situations, like the rust monster. When it comes to knowing the solution to a problem that is central to a scene or plot, however, that's a different issue.
@Testament said in General Video Game Thread:
It's weird that The Last of Us 2 isn't pulling at me nearly as much as the first one did.
I think that's mostly because the end of the first game was idiotic.
I suppose Forrest Gump was right, then.
@Ghost said in PC vs Player Assumptions:
If you're running a game and 3 players are using OOC/Player knowledge to solve problems and 3 other players are taking the time to build what their character does or doesnt know, then your game has a problem.
I agree, but my previous response was a direct one to the question of whether a player's decisions for a character be based entirely from the character's perspective. As you point out, players have different preferences.
You would essentially have 3 players powergaming it and 3 other players taking a slower, more methodical approach.
You absolutely want to try to make sure all players are using similar playbooks to solve IC issues.
Sure, you do, but this is a staff issue, not a player issue. Either staff has failed to set their expectations clearly or failed to enforce the same. And I clearly agree that a player should follow whatever staff decides is the way to do things. You'll note that my ultimate conclusion is directly in line with your position.
Not sure on what you're actually disagreeing with me.
@Ghost said in PC vs Player Assumptions:
If you are playing a role, then should your decisions for the character be based entirely from the perspective of the character itself?
This is a matter of personal choice.
I have been able to solve this issue by focusing on perception/knowledge rolls to help feed information or determine what the PCs know. This leads to successes and my players have stopped trying to "guess what the GM is up to" and now focus on "the PCs solving the puzzle".
This is a matter of GM fiat. This is unrelated to the dilemma identified, which is not really a dilemma in my opinion. No matter which way a player decides, it is a matter for the GM to decide how success on tasks shall be determined and how conflict will get resolved.
If you, the GM, want a player to roll to see if his character knows not to hit a rust monster with a sword, you have the right to ask; if otherwise, then the player decides that outcome. If the player complains that her character knows not to hit the rust monster with a metal weapon, and that she should not have to make a roll, you, the GM, can determine if the proffered explanation is sufficient or not.
Not really seeing a problem, sorry.
@surreality said in RL things I love:
It really is pretty good. (And he is neat to listen to.) I don't know if I'd call it $$$/bottle good, which it seems to run these days, but the bottles are probably not cheap to make, and it is admittedly good.
Meanwhile, I drink my Johnnie Walker Blue Label, and scoff.
