@WTFE said in The Metaplot:
And again, I stress, this is how the game was sold. Indeed when people complained that there was nothing to do, staff explicitly pointed to this and said "you're meant to make your own fun".
Ah, okay. I get it now.
The idea of requiring your players to make their own fun, and then presenting a metaplot seems counter-intuitive.
So, I'll chalk this up to "fucking incompetence staff-side."
@WTFE said in The Metaplot:
Nobody in the Marrach plot wanted to be divas. They wanted to play a game the way it was supposedly meant to be played and to not be bothered by a plot they had no ability to access, even, not to mention actually PARTICIPATE in.
Maybe I'm not understanding. What do you mean by playing "a game the way it was supposedly meant to be played"?
@WTFE said in The Metaplot:
Again, I think it's perfectly fair to look at that situation and say "ugh, the metaplot sucks".
It's always fair to say "the metaplot sucks," but the problem addressed was why the metaplot sucks.
When you have a theme or setting that is loose and, for lack of a better term, "a grand stage," then you will have players scrambling to be the star performer. You get the situation in Pirandello's Six Characters in Search of an Author. But even on a "grand stage," you can have a metaplot, but one has to realize that one must be really tight in setting before it can go off.
So, I think the main problem is the players trying to be the divas. The other problem is the staff having no idea of what makes for, or how to write, a great story.
@Tempest said in The Metaplot:
The problem arises when people expect the entire game around them to cater to the thing they want to do, and they get mad when it doesn't.
Nah, this is the real problem, @WTFE.
I'm playing on two games where the Metaplot is all-encompassing and inescapable, and no one seems particularly perturbed by that. Sure, the setting revolves around the Metaplot, but that's just good implementation. You couldn't escape The Descent's metaplot, and you're not escaping BSG: Unification's metaplot.
Not alive, at least.
Shunning is wildly popular these days, but less so in churches.
This is kind of sad in so many ways.
@Alamias said in Livia's playlist.:
And here I thought Kaleb was into some twisted shit....
You've no idea.
Then you should read the rest of my post. We also have: literal mobs of people rioting in the interest of shutting up anybody right of Noam Chomsky for being a "Nazi," ...
... private citizens. (By the way, I've no love for Chomsky; the guy is a fucking nutjob.)
... CEOs of major companies publicly threatening to fire you for voting wrong ...
... private citizens.
... and cities revoking licenses to stage peaceful demonstrations at the last minute for ideological reasons and then sending in the police to shut those demonstrations down.
... which Charlottesville was enjoined from doing, pursuant to a federal court order.
Literally the only way the American Left could get worse on free speech is if they were to successfully institute a gulag system. It's atrocious. Frankly, it's worrying. Its like McCarthyism on steroids.
Wait, so it's the American Left that threatened to alter libel laws? That argued that corporations should have unlimited donations to political campaigns? That sought an exception based on religion for corporations to deny equal protection under the laws?
No, please, do tell.
Modern, white Americans have no idea what suppression or oppression means or is. I'll wager you haven't had an entire branch of your family imprisoned and then killed for trying to read books that were banned by the government.
But, sure. Go on. Tell me how bad the American Left is, please! Continue.
(Don't get me wrong, the American Left is stupid, naïve, and fascist on a lot of other levels, but this ain't it.)
Uhm, yeah, actually, I did. Literally the only thing Soviets have on us in terms of suppression of right wing speech are literal gulags.
Do tell.
Sure, the Russians suppress dissent. And the Rohingya are being shot at on the border by the Myanmar army.
That's not in any way close to the Daily Stormer being shut down by private interests. Not even close.
In fact, they are the ones being suppressed; notice how the Daily Stormer, a semi-satirical Neo-Nazi site, had its domain names revoked on multiple occasions.
The difference between the Rohingya suppression in Myanmar and the neo-Nazi suppression here shouldn't be difficult to understand.
Keep making false equivalences as you will.
@skew said in Livia's playlist.:
There were two Victoria Roths in fairly quick succession. Not sure which one you were!
I played Claudio (and am more memorable than @Ganymede ).
Fuck you. You've had it in for me since I turned into a cloud of spiders after giving Claudio head.
@ShelBeast said in Eliminating social stats:
Am I the only person who sees that declaring an FTB (not just talking about the seduction angle, but literally using FTB for damn near any "undesirable" social influence) as still having agency?
It's not really the same thing, or supposed to be. FTB is used when you accept the consequences, but don't want to play through them. Seizing agency to deny the result of a roll in order to preserve your vision of your PC is another thing altogether.
Let's get real, people. This happens to literally every single one of us. Every. Single. One. And most people, it happens to on some small scale nearly every day. We are always being talked into things we don't initially want.
That's fine. I think that most players (that are here) don't care much if someone intimidates their PC into submission or uses persuasion to con their PC into paying money for something the PC doesn't really want or need. The issue being addressed is situations where the PC is being forced into a path of RP that the player is uncomfortable with, be it adultery or rape or something even more unsavory. These incidences are rare, but when you have the unspoken rule of "play the game or you're a bad person," some players may take advantage of that mentality to coerce other players into playing situations that they don't want to, and that may force those others off the game.
Inserting "agency," or the fallback that you will always retain a measure of control over your character's actions, is intended to be a way to check that ability. This, like all things, can also be abused. So, you can put in incentives or systems that encourage people not to exert "agency" all the time, and accept some unpleasant consequences, in order to balance out the entire "consent" feel.
At the end of the day, it's just a way to strike a balance between folks that want a safe place to play in, and folks that prefer a realistic simulation.
@Lain said in Eliminating social stats:
I think the players who bitch about muh agency would have such a high time preference that they'd pass on the Beats just to pout about how their character would totally respond to successful intimidation with violence instead of just putting their head down. They think about nothing but right now.
Sure. And that's fine. Let them bitch all the way. Meanwhile, they'll see me rollin' while they hatin', an' I'll be having my beats and ridin' dirty.
@Lain said in Eliminating social stats:
B-but my character would never fall for that! She's above the bullshit, just like me!
You could provide a reward to characters that use social combat, only to have the targets refuse to comply based on agency. If in nWoD 2E, give them a Beat.
You could provide a reward to characters who give in without a roll, or where they knowingly accept a negative consequence as a result of going along with the desired result. Give them a Beat.
Cap the beats, and people will still play the social combat game.
Lots of ways to make it work for as many people as possible.
@Arkandel said in RL things I love:
The issue is with stores like Best Buy or Walmart there's very little variety, especially for tech products; they have what they have.
I go to Best Buy when I know what I want and I want it now, or when I'm looking for Blu-Rays or DVDs. That's about it.
@Thenomain can shove his neckbeard up his ass.
I ain't old, bitches, but I am angry.
@WildBaboons said in RL things I love:
I was going to say you could tell Ganymede is old because of the shopping at Best Buy
Go fuck yourself, you millennial twat. (I mean this in a good way.)
I think a big difference is that where Catholics tend to spend a lot of time focusing on matters of conscience, with the need for regular confession, strains of guilt, and a fearful respect for a God who don't suffer no bullshit when he knows what was in your heart at the time, other strains of Christianity have bypassed that into the theory that sudden "re-baptisms" suddenly wash the slate clean, and that you can flaunt your "blessings" as victories and signs of God's approval.
I think the difference between evangelical Christians and other Christian faiths is that the others have a deeper history to contemplate from. For example, what history does Joel Osteen's mega-church have? What's the 700 Club have behind Pat Robertson?
I grew up with a healthy skepticism of religion, thanks to Lisa Simpson. But I also grew up with a healthy individual of faith: my father. He always went to church, and still does go every day. Still married to my mother. This is despite the fact that, as far as I know, he has always been gay.
Faith is a funny thing.
With Pope Francis, I feel as if the Catholic Church is turning a corner and coming back in line with the core of Jesus' teachings: be good to others; love your neighbors; turn the other cheek; sit with sinners; be charitable to the less fortunate. Maybe his continued influence will cause some of the barriers to break further, but we'll see.
