Posts made by Ganymede

@Thenomain said in MSB MU*?:

You absolutely do not to consider before posting any more than you do in posing. Just how much deep thiught do you think I gave before posting this?

Very little, given its poor grammar and spelling.

@Bobotron said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:

• Exosquad

Try BSG. It's like Exo-Squad, story-wise. It just lacks the exo-suits.

The problem is that the source material is impossible to find. They pulled the series off of Hulu while I was re-watching the series.

@Lotherio said in Good Political Game Design:

I agree there are many good potential systems. But which one of these has longevity on/in a Mu* environment? Without OOC drama or people just leaving because of hurt feelings?

I've said it too many times to count: just because no one has successfully executed something does not mean it cannot be successfully executed.

@Sparks' proposal has a lot of merit to it. It's very sensible. It's something that I've toyed and worked with. It's similar to how reasonably successful models have worked. And I can't say this enough, but we have to build upon these ideas and keep trying. If we don't, then all we have is what we've had, which is to say nothing.

You can have PvP competition without butt-hurt. You can have competitive politics without butt-hurt. I've seen it happen in World of Darkness games, and that setting is premised on butt-hurt. So, no, I'm not going to conclude, out of course, that past failures mean that something will never happen, especially where so few games actually attempt serious politics.

@Lotherio said in Good Political Game Design:

TL;DR: Any actual intent of a PvP political game will end with OOC Drama and butt hurtedness. The remaining 'players' of high level don't care who is leaving if they are winning. Just is what it is. This is the main reason my preference is PvE these days. If someone is playing to win, they will play to win, even on an OOC level, despite what anyone thinks.

Simply, not true. Not at all.

What's been said before: politics is, at its hard, based on resources -- necessary, essential resources. Food; water; shelter. These are important things, and while I don't suggest that a MU* gets into such minutiae, it forms an important basis to design your own system.

What will be essential? What is the goal? How do you curb unlimited growth? Etc.

There are many systems. I think Sparks' DICE system has a good beginning for the political game, limiting everything by time. Building takes time; reaping takes time; questing takes time; maintaining things takes time.

@Three-Eyed-Crow said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:

Jesus fuck arbitrated gym disputes. I'm curious how the industry became so mired in contractual horror, but I suspect the answer is just "people are making money and customers don't know any better."

Simple cost-benefit analysis. Arbitration costs around $10K to secure the arbitrator. You do the math.

@Three-Eyed-Crow said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:

Anybody have any experience with ProFitness? There's one on the way home from work for me that's convenient enough that I'd go to it, but I've been burned by gym memberships pretty badly in the past.

Do you plan to go there for the next 5 years?

If you're a casual gym-goer, you may want to consider your local Y. Especially if it has other amenities, like a pool or racquetball courts. Plus, you'd be giving your money to a charitable organization that gives free classes (probably) to underprivileged kids.

And they won't demand you sign a contract that actually lasts 5 years and requires you to go to arbitration if you have a dispute.

Your choice.

@SG said in Good Political Game Design:

A while back I thought of running a game of Diplomacy through a mush. With each move taking a week or a month. People could RP out the battles.

I did this via e-mail once, about 15 years ago. It was quite fun, but my friends didn't take it to heart when I said that I'd been playing the game since I was 12.

@Misadventure said in Good Political Game Design:

Might often makes right RL. However, look at what ELSE matters, what the costs are, the risks. Make those IMPORTANT.

This would ultimately be the message I wanted to tease out Socratically.

Yes, might often makes right. In fact, it almost always makes right. But, as @Apos pointed out, you can't really maintain a large horde of soldiers without substantial resources, and this is why, historically, strong militaries had to be attached to expansionist nations. To do otherwise, you'd have to set them to building monuments like the Pyramids, and that just ends up with them leaving across a neighboring sea and fucking up other civilizations in the name of God.

I've been playing around for a long time, and what @faraday has built -- I've said this before -- is exemplary. Almost visionary.

The auto-combat? Brilliant. You can pound out a complex combat scene in a few hours.

Seriously, I've attracted a couple of folks from WoD, and this game is a welcome breath of fresh air. And the playerbase is welcoming, wonderful, and a gem in our hobby. The best part is that it caters to my hours -- daytime, EST, business -- and it is bloody amazing how such a simple theme and setting can attract bright and brilliant RPers.

That said, I hope poor @faraday isn't swamped with work. But this seems to be her labor of love, and all I can do is profess how lovely it really is.

@Pandora said in Good Political Game Design:

The argument is about a single family being able to flex on their ruling lord solely through military might. If this is able to come to pass, it doesn't matter how the game manages the military stat, it's being managed poorly.

How so?

I don't mean to be obtuse, but this has happened. Historically. It is the tipping point, generally, for the power of the ruling lord when a challenger can muster that much might. But it has happened.

If the player of the ruling lord is so poor at it that one of his vassals came muster up the military might to overthrow him, why prevent it? It seems no different, to me, then when a WoD vampire stages a successful coup over his Prince.

@Auspice

This course sounds extremely asinine. I'd recommend burning it.

@Pandora said in Good Political Game Design:

I loathe the idea of a family stockpiling military assets in order to frienemy their ruling house. Sure it's realistic, but do we really want controlling levels of power in the hands of whoever decides to ignore political maneuvering, social warfare, diplomacy & playing the game in favor of stockpiling the military stat?

It depends on how the game manages the military stat.

@Auspice

What the fuck course is this for in school?

@Olsson said in Good Political Game Design:

We should start with defining what we view as good political play amongst PCs, so we are discussing the same thing.

We should start here, and then move to "will you be implementing PvP politics?", and then move into "to what end and why?"

@Thenomain

It won't be awkward at all. I was planning on getting a couple of box seat tickets to the Blue Jackets, and hauling your ass over there when I'm twelve drinks in.

@Meg said in Date Thenomain:

(Also edit to add that if it becomes a competition over me, I offer hand-written congratulations notes to every participant.)

I don't want a participation ribbon.

I just want BANG BANG BANG.

@Admiral said in Good TV:

I didn't like Sense8. It felt too 'progressive' for me. Like it was trying too hard to be what it was.

That's why I didn't like I Huckabee's.

@Coin said in RL things I love:

You might have a hairball stuck somewhere, I don't know.

@Coin

Here you go, tough guy.

@Coin said in RL things I love:

So you're saying you spend your mornings and evenings licking yourself.

And this is why I'm only on during business hours EST.

You're welcome.