@cobaltasaurus said in Gamertags:
i require your steam friendship
I checked again, and I think the Steam account is lowvirtualmemory. No caps.
My PSN account does have caps, though.
So, to update:
Steam: lowvirtualmemory
PSN: LowVirtualMemory
XB (probably defunct 'cuz I don't play my XBox360 no more): Metamonkey
@arkandel said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:
On a tangent I wonder (some of you such as @Ganymede might be able to answer this) if it's the same for theatrical productions. Do actors root for their characters and try to push for them to win? Do they view directors - which I assume is the closest thing to storytellers - as means to get what they want for those characters, or obstacles to their success?
Darling, actors on stage usually have a script to work with, unless you're putting on The Mystery of Edwin Drood. And improv doesn't really involve characters per se or outcomes that aren't purely consensual.
It's not really applicable to the question of "who wins?"
I mean, it's not even what they do in professional wrestling.
@surreality said in The Death Of Telnet: Is It Time To Face The Music?:
So, no, 'thin-skinned developers' are not the fucking problem.
Very true.
Recognizing that everyone's human is a problem.
It shouldn't be, but it is.
@coin said in World of Darkness -- Alternative Settings:
@arkandel said in World of Darkness -- Alternative Settings:
@coin said in World of Darkness -- Alternative Settings:
Your analogy is bad.
But your mom is good.
Better'n yours, anyway.
Some people like bacon and some people don't, but it's still not good for you, you perverts.
@thenomain said in Good or New Movies Review:
I have never heard this term in my life, and I will Force Choke anyone who says otherwise.
@saosmash said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:
When we ran our Mass Effect game, we had staff npcs in charge of our mercenary company for a long time (although one of them eventually turned out to be the Shadow Broker, spoilers). It worked pretty well although I always wanted players to feel more free to go out and just do things than they were.
Def. I can see this working out well! Also, NPC leaders can spit out plot-foo for PCs to work with. That said --
@arkandel said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:
Once again I will mention resource management. It's the real missing piece from politics on MU*; without it granting favors, making meaningful political decisions and maintaining friends (or creating enemies) due to the cost of your choices bears a lot less weight. If you have such a system then it opens a lot more venues for alliances and out-maneuvering others.
I have been saying this since RfK 1.0 shut down.
An effective resource management system gives a player something to do with his or her PC that can be completely separate from what staff is cooking. Said another way, putting the means of meaningful production (of RP) and the enjoyment of tangible benefits (of RP) in the hands of players motivates their private interests, which only strengthens the game as a whole.
@wildbaboons said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:
Often enough it instead ends up as a group of PC leaders disappearing to Quest for McGuffin using their combined nugget stockpiles while everyone under them is left doing Bar RP.
This will never happen on my ME game, mostly because everyone's supposed to be on the same team. The Company announces missions, tasks, and objectives, and folks can go about resolving them on their own. Success means a bump in status, which may eventually build up to promotions. With promotions may come an expectation of greater involvement, but that doesn't mean others are shut out from involvement.
@derp said in Good or New Movies Review:
You believe there was too much exposition perhaps because you are pretty much saturated in it. Me, I had to spend a good twenty minutes explaining to David why they didn't expand upon it more, since it was run of the mill nerd mythology.
I always question the need for exposition. I've played too many games and seen too many movies that didn't engage in any substantial exposition because it wasn't important.
I mean, fuck midichlorians, right?
@surreality said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:
If there's not someone who has to give a 'yes/no' to most things, you have a basic policy, instead: "here is the list of stuff that's totally OK, go ahead and do it, here's the stuff you should check with staff about first, here is the list of stuff we simply do not do here" -- and you're more or less done. Bonus points if the latter lists are extremely short and straightforward.
This is an issue with the Mass Effect game I'm planning out. Should there be anyone that says yes or no to plans? Who makes those decisions? And this is an important issue because there is a communal set of resources to draw from, and a communal direction set by staff as to what missions are available, what tasks need to be done, and so on.
But I want there to be some sort of personal, individual ambition as well because that's what (in my belief) tends to spur players to being more active. It's all well and good if the kingdom isn't overrun by barbarians are the result of player actions, but players are more likely to act if there is some personal gain for their PCs.
@surreality said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:
I honestly think 'gatekeeping' positions IC are bad news for a game, period.
I think that many game developers don't realize this, and create a game where a gatekeeper is a necessary position.
And it's really easy to get around, especially for World of Darkness games where this shit crops up regularly. Just post the following:
It is presumed that, wherever your character is from, he or she has been vetted by the authorities and has been in town for a couple of weeks when he or she hits the Grid. If you're a vampire, you've met the Seneschal; if you're a changeling, you've sworn the appropriate oath of fealty, which, for this game's purposes, will provide no benefit but also not count against your total oath total. We will not accept any concepts that fall outside of this presumption.
There. You're recognized. End of story.
@pyrephox said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:
I feel like some times people demand too much of others in those positions and forget that the other person is a player, trying to have fun, and not just a dispenser of things your PC needs/wants. If you're wanting/needing something from another PC, take a moment and think about what you are doing to make your needs actively fun for the PC's player.
I feel like sometimes people clamber for positions of power before considering that other players, who are trying to have fun, will require some of their online play time for their PC's needs/wants. If you're going to take on a leadership position, you need to recognize that other PCs are going to need things from you, so take a moment and think about whether you want to compromise your funtime to help others make their time fun.
@surreality said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
I didn't get the impression the cat was quite at that point just yet.
I don't know the cat from Adam, but I can't think of a better way to die than choosing to do so in the arms of a cherished loved one. That said, you're absolutely right -- the vet knows better than I.
@derp said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
What are you teaching, sensei?
Real property law.
@sunny said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
I think @Ganymede was suggesting kill the people, not the cat. ^^
No, I was suggesting the cat. Hear me out on this.
I am of the firm belief that every person should have the right to determine when their lives will end. This is the fundament of my anarchic beliefs. I am also of the belief that some people, in their desperate need for attachment and connection, cling to others beyond the point where it is healthy for them or the others.
Animals can't really speak for themselves, so it's hard to know when they would rather take a nice long nap. But I've seen animals -- blind, deaf, struggling to breathe, suffering from cancer, or all of the above -- who more likely than not would rather visit the Great Litter Box / Cornucopia of Treats in the Sky than to continue on with their miserable, lackluster owners. And I think that we, as their caretakers, need to sometimes take stock of when we're curing them for their sake or for ours.
That said, people who neglect or toss their animals to the side for convenience do need to fucking die horribly deaths.
@aria said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Why can't I just be an unfeeling bitch?
Feeling for someone else sometimes means understanding when they need the Greatest Release of All, and then giving it to them.
I don't have a lot of friends OOC. At least, a lot of friends that ask me stupidly for this.
Like, no, bitches, I have a partner, I have kids, and I have a full-time job, which will be complicated by a part-time adjunct instructor job in February.
I'm mostly convinced that the reason parents' friends circles shrink over time is because they are merely shedding people from their lives that ask them for stupid things.
Stupid people suck.
@derp said in World of Darkness -- Alternative Settings:
I don't really know the history behind option 1. But it sounds neat. The only thing I would worry about is the setting would be much more lethal to mortals and much less lethal to vampires, given a lack of firearms and technology. Without magic or some other balancing factor, that could end up pretty lopsided.
In 2E, firearms don't mean shit to vampires, and their regular banes are diminished if the vampires happen to be of low Blood Potency. That said, it would be more political, and mortals have the advantage of having more Time to Do Shit (TM). Plus, XP will be capped, which means uber-Vampire are unavailable.
Toying with the idea of slipping mages in there, but ugh mages. Mortal+, probably.
Option 2 sounds interesting, but ehn. I'm not feeling the appeal of Spokane. The story sounds cool, but why there? What is the appeal to players to want to work there? What cool things does it have when they aren't actively being threatened with fire and angry spirits?
Spokane's an isolated, but successful community. You're pretty far away from other cities, so isolation is a real thing. You're surrounded by mountains and forests and reservations. Everyone is going to have to start as a Spokane native (to answer @tinuviel's question). And the point is to keep and maintain your little, carved territory against predation from the insane Prince and other threats. I was thinking about Alaskan communities and Reno, but I really just wanted to find a place that is physically isolated and far from other major communities (Dayton, Ohio didn't really fit).
In both cases, the game will be heavy into politics. This is currently being hashed out with my collaborator(s). There will be substantially more automation than other games through a number of proposed code-bits, like a Territory system and a Resource system. There will be some mini-gaming involved to keep the politics going. But, as with all things, whatever we come up with will be typed out and open for discussion and peer review, I hope, before we start looking around for code-help. It's a long-term project (like most of my projects).
Sorry to break up the argument here.
Two settings have been discussed between I and my collaborator(s). They are as follows:
Wolves at the Gates
1359. It has been two hundred years since the Duke of Saxony took Lubeck from the Count of Schauenberg and Holstein. The cities along the Baltic have flourished under intrepid merchant trade and loose regulations. The success of the burgeoning Hanseatic League has not gone unnoticed, however, and barbarians from the East and Catholics from the South. Meanwhile, the League has turned its eyes to Denmark after the Kingdom attempted to cut trade through the Skaggerak. Kindred fangs are sunk deep into the chapterhouses and guilds, however, and monsters pull the strings of puppet-princes in this high-time of intrigue.
The Siege
The Strix are here. Archbishop Aloysius Gonzaga has sealed off the borders to and from Spokane: no communication, no travel, nothing. All Kindred must present themselves to his Scourges every week to be examined; every Kindred that fails to do so is burned in public at the stake. All Kindred that attempt to break the siege -- either by departure and causing others to arrive -- are burned at the stake. But some say it's not the Strix at all that threaten the gates, but a more insidious enemy from a place called 'The Land of Worms', who have come to avenge the white man's seizing of their lands. Nothing is safe and nothing is secure, even though the Archbishop's Scourges patrol the valley every evening -- not when the Archbishop is said to be insane.
As for the argument at hand, my thoughts: WoD is an easy system to understand, but it has so many exceptions and powers that a novice can get very lost very quickly. I don't mind helping people build their PCs, as I know the system and exploits fairly well. On a vampire game, it is not unthematic for a player's PC to learn as he or she goes; however, he or she cannot, and should not, expect complete safety as they do so.
@magee101 said in Mass Effect MU*?:
Is there a website or connect info for this project?
No, there is not.
Project remains in progress. The holiday season has made life difficult. The partner demands time with me, and I must oblige.
After that, sure.
@tinuviel said in RL things I love:
@surreality said in RL things I love:
fuck me to tears.
Paging Dr. @Ganymede.
Tears don't sustain me. Anguish and chagrin do.
