@tragedyjones said in CoD - LFG:
I want to find a solid group to make a Coteria/Pack/Cabal with on a Chronicles game. Some group large enough to be self sufficient, not to say "fuck YOU, game runners" but enough that we don't gotta rely on them.
Requiem for Kingsmouth's back up. And its Off-Screen System is off and running, sort of. Staff will need to work out the kinks, but I'll bet you can find a good group to play with there.
I think the sentiment is sound, but the practice has left us cynical. There are countless stories of internet charity cases gone wrong, and countless stories of guilty victims, all of which are verified and relatable.
Ms. Lewinsky's sentiment unfortunately comes off as a sound-bite. It wasn't her intent. And someone out there will hook onto it, and ride it into the oblivion of meaninglessness.
To me, the real shame is not how the internet can make you feel worthless, but how the distance therefrom can make you feel forgotten.
@faraday said in Attributes or No?:
Earthdawn was weird
I'm sorry, I believe you meant to say awesome.
Earthdawn was epic stupid fantasy before Anime made it super, super stupid.
@Coin said in Attributes or No?:
If I am rolling 1d12, I am a super talented person who is barely trained, and my range of success is anywhere between 1-12; but if I am rolling 3d4, I am nowhere near as talented as the former, but I am much more trained, so my actual range is 3-12. Same maximum, different minimum.
This is what I was hooking on to. In Earthdawn, a step might give you 1d12 to roll, but with the addition of a skill, that might become 2d6. Plus, there's the potential for an exploding die, which is how one could explain how an unskilled, super-talented character might take down a dragon in one shot.
@faraday said in Attributes or No?:
@Coin's system is similar in principle to Earthdawn, but different in execution. Does that count as mining?
It's not really that different in execution, from what I can tell.
I'm not accusing him of doing anything wrong. I'm suggesting that he look at a pre-existing system which closely resembles his. It may help him tweak his system to where he wants it to go.
@Kanye-Qwest said in Kushiel's Debut:
Seems like they knew it would be a problem, since they scheduled it during a huge thing that would hopefully keep people occupied, and didn't at all acknowledge they were starting the limited availability scene.
I'm going with @Skaldia's line that he had no idea there was a problem, and that there was some sort of sewing circle of complainers.
I've been doing this for a long time. On a game where there are staff alts, I find it very difficult to believe that there were no signs of trouble.
I find it very hard to believe you are truly as dense as you're seeming here.
Let's pull out some undisputed facts: 2-year plot; limited seats "at the table"; game-wide effect. I hope you can see why other long-term players might be miffed at being excluded.
There was a million ways to address this maturely. Apparently, no one has decided to take it. Staff should never, ever hide behind "I didn't know there was a problem."
We've known each other for a while. @Sunny's not the issue here.
@Coin said in Attributes or No?:
b) because I want as much of it as possible to be my own idea before I start actively mining other systems.
Then you have unintentionally mined another system.
@Coin said in Attributes or No?:
This is one of the reasons the system I am working on works the way it does.
Based on what you wrote, why don't you just adopt Earthdawn's Step system?
@Lithium said in Dragon Age: Smoke & Shadows:
Trying to set inside any of the games is inherently limiting imho.
You're right. They could overcome this by setting the game after DA2. After all, Inquisition occurred after the Mages decided to rebel as a whole, and I'm lead to believe that there was 2 years separating Meredith's fate and the explosion at the Conclave.
@Lithium said in The Shame Game:
I am just saying that opinions in and of themselves have only as much value as an individual places on it.
I didn't really get to this conclusion from what you wrote, but I concur.
Different things make an opinion valuable to different people and the only thing we can say, is what makes an opinion valuable to /us/.
Nor did I get to this conclusion from what you wrote, with which I disagree vehemently.
That is self-righteousness on an epic scale, the kind of thing that suggests they know better than anyone else what is best for everyone else.
And I don't think that this is the logical conclusion from pointing out what should have weight upon consideration.
It's not self-righteous for me to point out that you should probably consider a certified appraiser's opinion of your property value over that of a police officer that has seen it once, never seen comparable properties, and never undertaken a rental-value analysis. Some would call this "common sense."
Flat-earthers. Birthers. Anti-vaxxers. They all adhere to opinions that have been repeatedly shown to be contrary to science, law, and ethics. If you're suggesting that I should consider their opinions equal in weight to scientists, lawyers, and ethicists, I cannot agree with you.
Rush Limbaugh's opinions do not matter to you, and they should not matter to others. The last bit is an opinion, but it is one that I will bet you can and would defend.
I am not content in letting people wallow in ignorance. That may make me self-righteous, but I'd like to stand for something.
(Edit to add: I don't mean to suggest, @Lithium, that you are ignorant. Far from it. But there are others who are; very much so.)
@faraday said in Attributes or No?:
Can you elaborate on what about Silhouette/L5R's attribute system you like?
It's honestly been so long, I'd have to go back and look at both. What I recall of the former was a single, simple roll where Attributes add to the die results and Skills determine how many dice are rolled. With the latter, you had a pool of dice determined by Attribute + Skill, but you kept a number of dice equal to the Attribute, and then compared against a difficulty number.
@Cobaltasaurus said in Retail "Horror" Stories:
I hate being an administrative assistant.
You can be mine, if you want. I'm thinking of getting a replacement.
All I ask is that you be there during business hours, and tell me when I need to take the fall for you.
@Coin said in Attributes or No?:
Also, why is "martial arts" Finesse and Unarmed Combat isn't (or vice versa)? There are a lot of martial arts that I would argue are a lot more about physical power than finesse.
Just because it requires Dexterity *** doesn't mean it's all about finesse. And Dexterity isn't really just about finesse.
I mean, as far as I understand those words.
That CoD breaks them down as such appears to be more of a game-bias or choice.
I think there should be more emphasis on Attributes, and less on Skills, personally. I like Dream Pod 9's Silhouette system, and the newer L5R mechanics.
@Thenomain said in The Shame Game:
I'm going to let Ganymede to the heavy logical lifting on this topic, but I was having problems biting my tongue.
There are times when there is no purpose in engaging. Here's one of them.
My opinion is worthless to @Lithium, and I've already made it sufficiently clear. As I'm confident my opinion is buttressed by generations of jurisprudence, philosophical musings, and writings that I care not to cite to, I am comfortable in resting on what I've said.
@mietze said in Retail "Horror" Stories:
WIC does not cover diapers (or at least didn't when I was a foster parent). That's why there's always a huge huge ask for diaper donations to private foodbanks. Food stamps doesn't either, IIRC (or didn't then, but I never used food stamps only WIC vouchers, but I seem to recall other longer term fosters saying it didn't).
This, I learned from Eminem.
No, it's not.
I never said anything about absolute objectivity. I voiced my opinion (ha ha ha) that some opinions are worth more than others.
You said otherwise. And I think that's wrong.
Sure, we have emotional reactions to people. Those with a modicum of critical thought suppress that emotional reaction and can make a judgment contrary to that initial reaction.
If we didn't, we wouldn't have a viable justice system. Judges would simply make judgments based on what they feel: not according to law or facts, but emotions.
You say it's hard. I disagree. And I disagree with people who make snap judgments without consideration of available information.
And, yes, that's why we have Trump. Because many people are making judgments based solely on emotions. And their opinions are ignorant and therefore worthless.
@Zobi said in Retail "Horror" Stories:
Women Infants Children if I recall correctly.
Sounds like the best recipe for a stew for trolls.
I have wanted to chime in, but I'm not as big a Shadowrun buff.
I am, however, a big Earthdawn buff, and I never saw it as a prelude to Shadowrun, for some of the reasons @Thenomain pointed out, and for a number of my own. It just seemed that was some sort of FASA concoction that was hard to believe, in the same vein as how the same accident that caused Daredevil's blindness also created the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
I'm somewhat fascinated by the concept of a less sprawled setting -- a place out of the city from which Runners launch their assaults. If modern terrorism has shown us anything aside from the terrifying things we will do to each other, it is that it is possible to wage war against a megalithic monstrosity from the borders and shadows. You don't have to be in Chicago to launch an attack on a Corporation located there; much of your prep work can be done through hacking from a remote location like Dayton just prior to a surgical strike from within.
Anyhow, I'd support efforts to make the game. It could be very interesting.
@Lithium said in The Shame Game:
It's a simple matter of perception.
You know, we've clashed civilly on a couple of topics in the past. I am compelled to engage here because I hear this all the time, and I cannot agree with it. Weighing an opinion based on whether you like a person is probably the main reason why Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, and why any number of previous, disastrous conservative candidates somehow became the cream of the crop.
You don't have to agree with a book. If your disagreement is not based on something other than "I don't like the person," then your disagreement is founded upon an ad hominem attack, which is fallacious and ignorant. If you don't agree with a book because it runs contrary to your personal experience on the same topic, that is at least based upon personal perception and experience.
And you, of course, have plenty of personal experience. Your disagreement with Brene Brown or anyone else is likely based on something more than "I don't like this motherfucker." I find it very, very difficult to believe that you would ever judge a person's belief based solely on whether you like or dislike the person.
But if you do -- IF -- I will seriously wonder what happened.
Politics shows us what crazy things people put weight on because people are generally willfully ignorant as to the complexities of politics. If they would spend a few minutes every day thinking about the news -- not the editorials -- we would all have a better political system.
