@surreality said in CofD and Professional Training:
You lose other things with almost any template change by default, even if it doesn't make logical sense, per the above example.
But your examples are supernatural-related. Professional training isn't supernatural.
I think I'm splitting hairs, but there's a difference. And it doesn't answer the question of how a vampire can't have professional training.
SEE I'M CREATING MY OWN HEADACHE. 
@surreality said in CofD and Professional Training:
Which is why I'm saying: don't mix them. Make it m/m+ with no sphere affiliation only, as a 'this is your pack of freebies for choosing this template'.
What if that M/M+ gets turned into a ghoul later? I suppose we can do a Sanctity of Merits thing and remove PT, but I don't see how to reasonably explain how vitae strips away a person's contacts with their profession or ability with it. In fact, a vampire might want to ghoul a M/M+ professional because of their training.
@Arkandel said in State of Things:
But the escalation here is where the paradigm completely shatters. If I fuck up in my job in the worst possible way then maybe data will be lost or there could be private information leaking - that's bad. But it's probably not "a guy got shot in the face"-level bad. And you better believe it if I figure out one of my peers is... I dunno, selling data I'll turn them in, no questions asked.
Let me try to explain briefly with an example. Considering the following excerpt from a fictional police report.
After receiving direction from dispatch of a domestic violence incident involving firearms on Main Street, I proceeded by cruiser to the area in question. I was informed that the suspect was a young black male, 25, dressed in blue jeans and a black hoodie. As I came to the area in question, I saw a person matching the description walking southbound on James Street. I stopped my vehicle, exited it, and then called out to the person, who stopped. As I came closer, I noticed he smelled heavily of cigarettes and marijuana. I loosened the buckle on my sidearm as a precaution. I asked him for his identification, and he refused. I asked him again, and he reached into his pocket. I pulled my sidearm and advised him to stop and remove his hand. When he did, I saw something in his hand that was silvery. I thought it was a firearm, so I discharged my weapon once, hitting him. He fell. When he did, I noticed that he had a pack of cigarettes in his hand, not a weapon.
Now suppose the victim filed a complaint against the officer, which read like this:
I was walking south down James Street after visiting a friend that lived on John Street when I heard someone yelling at me. I stopped. When I turned to face the person, I saw Officer Smith with his hand on his gun. I froze. He said something to me, and I didn't understand, so I was nervous. When I'm nervous, I like to smoke, so I reached for my cigarettes, which was in my pocket. Without warning, Officer Smith shot me.
Let's suppose there are no other witnesses.
The "blue code" doesn't exist precisely, but it is an implicit understanding that cops tell each other the truth. So, if you're a cop, you're probably going to buy Officer Smith's story over the victim's. From another perspective, the victim has no motive to lie because he didn't do anything wrong and he admitted to reaching for cigarettes.
But who would you believe? And why?
That's kind of how this shakes out in my head, at any level, for any occupation. Lawyers stick up for other lawyers, generally, even though we have mandatory reporting guidelines. Same with doctors. Nurses. All sorts of professions. So, I would say the "blue code" is, more often than not, a common, societal issue, where our empathy for one another blurs or objectivity.
But if I know another lawyer has done something wrong, not only do I have a duty to report but I would do so because fuck you how dare you make my profession look bad. I don't have time to deal with lawyers that I know have broken the law or ethical code. I have enough problems dealing with clients that lie to me.
@surreality said in CofD and Professional Training:
@surreality said in CofD and Professional Training:
Personally, I'd make it the 'this is the collection of crap you get for choosing the template' for M/M+ (not ghouls or WB, but just 'mortal with supernatural merits' sort of +).
^ is relevant to the whole.
No, I got that. I get it. If you'll note, I thought it was appropriate for a M/M+ game like BITN. But for a mixed-race game (har har har), I simply believe that implementation creates peculiarities when you look at what lines like Werewolf provide. And then the argument of "why can't my vampire have it when his masquerade is a security guy / lawyer / professional stripper?" when you ban it for certain races because you don't want to give them too many advantages, and it's just not for me.
It's for everyone or no one on mixed-race games, for me.
@surreality said in CofD and Professional Training:
I don't see the nightmare here. I really don't.
The nightmare is having to explain to people why certain races get it and others do not. The 9-again and Rote ability cracks open a lot of benefits for being a Werewolf.
I mean, go for it, if you want to, but I find that it sort of gnashes the system to pieces in peculiar ways. Lemme just go ahead and take Brawl as a Trained Skill.
@Ghost said in State of Things:
To be honest, the one who's being a prick about it is @Ganymede.
You're right; I was. I was a self-righteous asshole for it too, because I read the comment incorrectly at the absolute wrong time. I wasn't trying to be argumentative; I was trying to be argumentatively inflammatory.
That's my transgression, and I'll own it. I apologize for the misreading, which is severely hypocritical, and would like to move on to address substantive points.
@Derp said in State of Things:
Black Lives Matter did more damage than good.
I disagree, but only from a matter of perspective.
Black Lives Matter opened up a wound that, as you aptly put it, is suffered by minorities of all kinds, including poor people regardless of their race. It did good by forcing a dialogue and examination, and provoked a response within the law enforcement community that would likely not have happened without. At least now, law enforcement agencies are strongly considering or adopting the use of cameras, if only to protect themselves. The use of body cameras has been debated since I was a prosecutor.
Where Black Lives Matter falls down is by attempting to twist each and every incident of law enforcement violence into a shit-show that makes the victims look as bad, or worse, than the police officers. Where Black Lives Matter falls down is by indiscriminately picking up incidences on video which actually exonerates racist cops who happened to beat up a not-so-sympathetic victim. And that has turned Lily-White America against what should have been a cause they could support: increased scrutiny of government and law enforcement.
Unfortunately, like Occupy Wall Street, I think Black Lives Matter attracted the wrong support base and took a wrong turn. I do not necessarily fault the founders of the movement -- one of whom tragically killed themselves -- because these sorts of movements so often fall apart when there is a lack of leadership. Thankfully, the movement helped propel people like Bernie Sanders and other progressives to the forefront, and put some pressure on the government to police themselves. But the movement has fallen short, and will always fall short, in getting adequate support to address the issue of discriminatory or disparate law enforcement and application of force because by its very title, it is divisive.
(I'm a huge law enforcement supporter and a actively-voting Republican at state and local levels, and have a number of law enforcement friends who would agree with @Derp.)
@Ghost said in State of Things:
So, my rhetorical moral quandary is this: How can people strive for equality in a society where setting yourself apart from others as being more valuable is the main element of securing stability?
To be clear, my objection was to any suggestion that Black Lives Matter movement and the Everyone Gets a Trophy! group are similar. You did it here:
@Ghost said in State of Things:
So with the everyone gets a trophy or black lives matter or omg white privilege people, I tend to look at it all with a slanted brow.
That aside, to answer the previous point directly: the "equality" movements out there are not looking for actual equality between people, but equal treatment under the law. You can provide people with equal treatment under the law while promoting fair, actual competition. For example, you and I can promote our differences and superiorities without the law granting favor to either one of us.
If you're talking about people who want everyone to be treated just like everyone else because, well, that's the right thing to do, I haven't the time or the energy to try to understand the myriad of mental issues and failures those folks have.
(I highly object to Trophies for Everyone! people.)
@Ghost said in State of Things:
I hear ya on those points. Maybe I'm slightly nihilistic about this, but even for the people who want all people to matter, there will always be a leaning towards but I should matter more than that guy.
You're not being nihilistic here. It appears that you are being willfully ignorant.
There is any of a million difference potential sources for this information, but let me try to repeat what @Thenomain said, but differently. Black Lives Matter was a movement to protest how the death of black people at the hands of law enforcement was being swept under the rug or chided without consequences. The purpose was to shed light on something which is horribly ignored out of spite or contempt.
This isn't in the same league as Trophies for Everyone! or White Privilege Sux!!!. Minorities of all stripes can live with being beleaguered, underappreciated, and unpinned, but when you cannot live there is a problem that needs to be addressed.
I seriously wonder if you've been living under a rock or something.
@Arkandel said in Brainstorming: Hybrid/Homebrew Werewolf Game:
What was the problem with it?
Everything.
My thought? Don't police someone based on your suppositions of their thoughts. It's just asking for drama that no one needs.
I wasn't. My solution is to stare right back. Maybe the fellow doesn't realize he's staring, as you've pointed out. But, if he is, and he has something to say, he'll say it when challenged.
Bigots look for ways to exhibit their bigotry. Always.
@Jennkryst said in Brainstorming: Hybrid/Homebrew Werewolf Game:
If we drop Red Talons because furries and combine the black furies into the CoG as a all womyn lodge, we're down to 10!
Yes, but the Talons/Furies are the basis for the Hunters in Darkness. And the Fury and CoGgie ideologies are radically different.
@SunnyJ said in Brainstorming: Hybrid/Homebrew Werewolf Game:
Not all Renowns need to be represented equally! I would do something like...
Black Furies: Wisdom
Bone Gnawers: Cunning
Children of Gaia: Purity
Fianna: Glory
Get of Fenris: Glory
Glass Walkers: Cunning
Red Talons: Purity
Shadow Lords: Cunning
Silent Striders: Wisdom
Silver Fangs: Honor
Stargazers: Purity
Uktena: Cunning
Wendingo: Glory
Maybe not, but balance and equity is kind of what the new system aims for. What I would do is merge a few of the Tribes together based on origin and outlook, and eliminate the Stargazers altogether (because they are fucking stupid orientalist bullshit).
Black Furies: These chicks are closer to the Hunters in Darkness than any. Purity.
Bone Gnawers: Surviving in one's environment is the key to understanding it. Wisdom.
Children of Gaia: Following a different, knowledgeable, sensitive path to victory. Honor.
Fianna / Fenrir: Two sides of the strange, romanticized warrior-poet. Glory.
Glass Walkers: Who'd deny the Iron Masters aren't derived from them? Cunning.
Red Talons: Another side to the Hunters in Darkness. Purity.
Shadow Lords: Who'd deny the Lodge of Crows isn't derived from them? Cunning.
Silent Striders / Uktena: Well-traveled and well-learned. Wisdom.
Silver Fangs: The traditionalists at heart, bound to their rules and methods. Honor.
Wendigo: The other side to the Blood Talon equation. Glory.
As for the Siskur-Dah, you could probably broaden its approach a bit, and have it apply to any hunt or mission undertaken by a pack for any kind of prey/target.
@SunnyJ said in Brainstorming: Hybrid/Homebrew Werewolf Game:
Well, I would just adapt the Apocalypse Tribes into that model!
There are thirteen Tribes, right? What Gifts do they get access to? What is their primary renown? How are you going to balance those options, as 5 doesn't go into 13?
Also, I would just get rid of the Siskur-Dah.
The Moon Gifts are dependent upon the Siskur-Dah. How are you going to untether them?
Dear MSB, what was the correct response here? (I did nothing)
I wasn't there, but I am using my memory of the TTC trains.
Sounds like there may have been a spot next to them. I would have sat there, if I could, and glared at the man across from the two, just as he was looking at them. If he asked what my problem was, I would tell him: it's not polite to stare.
I would hope the irony wasn't lost.
My kid, has learned this lesson multiple times, but continues to believe that he can leverage his pimp hand into the business agreement, which usually ends with some kind of explosion.
I was raised by Chinese immigrants. They punished ignorance harshly.
@SunnyJ said in Brainstorming: Hybrid/Homebrew Werewolf Game:
- I would get rid of the Forsaken Tribes and Pure Tribes altogether.
I think this is problematic, as it may apply to the Forsaken. The Forsaken Tribes are built into the system of character creation, and they are specifically balanced as far as Gifts and Renown go. How are you going to re-balance the system if you remove them?
Also, the Siskur-Dah is an essential part of W:tF 2E. How are you going to adapt that to W:tA?
I was a teen once and I thought I knew everything then.
When I was a teen, I never gave anyone any money that I expected to get back.
My family had a rule: never loan money to friends. Any money given is a gift.
If you get something back, great. If not, you understood the consequences.
Not surprisingly, I rarely gave anyone any money. I had enough friends.
If you are in a place where no one needs to be in, where there are plenty of other similar places they could occupy that you are not in, then yes, the onus is on them or me or whoever in this case to take a step however many feet away and find their/my/god's own place.
This is true. I'd roll it into the first tenet in the five rules, and modify it thusly:
Kind of, like, don't fucking fart in the elevator, even if no one's around.
Can we all agree that anyone who smokes marijuana in public should be shot on sight? (Just in like, the foot.)
Around people that don't want that stink on them? Sure, that's a dick move.
You walking specifically to where someone is happily smoking their weed, and telling them to stop or buzz off? That makes you the asshole.
Is vaping anything like using a hooka? I've come across articles that claim hookas are worse than smoking simply because the sessions last much longer, so instead of having like 2 cigarettes an hour, people are constantly hooking(?) over the hour.
They are not the same thing. A hooka is basically a bong through which you smoke flavored tobacco.
No. We can agree that vaping, pot smoking, and tobacco smoking should all be regulated by the same rules, mores, and laws, regarding where it can be done, though.
I think it's pretty simple.
If you're going to do something that makes you smell like shit or downright pungent, don't start it up around people who do not want to be around a powerful stench.
If you come upon someone doing something that makes them stinky, don't walk into their space and demand that they leave you fucking cunt.
Whatever you might think about the stench, don't be a fucking uppity prick about it like most of the fuckwad vapers that pop up where I enjoy watering myself.
Although vaping is not the same as smoking, if an establishment is non-smoking don't fucking vape in it, you cockjobber.
Tone it down with the perfume, Janice. You can't cover your stink of failure with some Liz Taylor shit.
I mean, it's pretty basic etiquette among smokers that you don't light up around a non-smoker without asking them if it's okay first. That's where this all stems from, for me.
@Thenomain said in General Video Game Thread:
But if you have to create a system with fast-travel, then you're saying that travel is boring after you reach the destination, which implies some negatives to this design decision.
Whether you find it boring or not is subjective. In an attempt to be objective, I will say this:
A lot of open-world games have a lot of side quests that don't mean shit to the world. In FF15, for instance, there's a lot of these monster quests which appear to simply be XP and loot grabs. In DA:I, it is mostly the same. And this is boring as shit to me too.
The Witcher 3, however, has side quests that meaningfully break off into a story. In many cases, you have to figure out what the monster is and how to defeat it, meaning it is somewhat less of a gut-and-kill. In other cases, no one really needs to die, and you can finesse your way through. This is not boring to me.
So far in ME:A, the side quests have positive effects on my ability to create a settlement. Granted, I'm in Eos, but I've enjoyed the game so far. Except for going into that gravity well; that bit, as pretty as it was, can bite my ass.