Posts made by Ganymede

@Miss-Demeanor said in The 100: The Mush:

Uhhhhhhhh, because its NOT just me personally? Have you... been paying any attention at all or do you just pop up now and then to troll the thread for giggles?

I've been paying attention.

Just because staff have a vision that they want to adhere to doesn't mean the game is a sandbox.

Just because staff does not execute that vision well doesn't mean the game is a sandbox.

Just because staff seems to favor the more active and vocal players doesn't mean the game is a sandbox.

What makes a game a sandbox is where the game appeals and pleases only the staff and the players that they favor. This does not seem to be the case. Your impressions, measured against the experiences of others, leads to an inconclusive impression.

My personal tastes don't give me license to declare a place a sandbox.

@Arkandel said in RL Anger:

Cat decided having less than 30% food in her bowl wasn't acceptable at 4 am. She came and whined at me until I fixed this atrocity.

Last time my cat tried this, I poured cold water over him.

@Kanye-Qwest said in The 100: The Mush:

You can't fight drama with drama.

This isn't drama. This is bad comedy, Starscream.

@lordbelh said in The 100: The Mush:

People are supposed to not play bitchy/assholey characters on a game full of delinquent teenage PCs, because some people would like more IC conscientious characters?

One should expect a game of teenage experience to contain plenty of bitches and assholes. That's why I have no interest playing here.

I play the Game of Lawyers in real life, and let me tell you whut --

@Lotherio said in Survival/Apocalypse Genre Survivability:

My question boils down to … while apocalypse style games seem great for a Mu*, is it better suited to smaller group styles of play, even if OTT?

These games are great for a MU*. What seems to be lacking is a system that permits players to build the world around them. If all staff does is present insurmountable situations, you should not be surprised when the players and PCs end up fighting each other or otherwise walk away from the game.

There is more to these sorts of games than the odds of dying. Try putting some effort into collaboration, cooperation, and creation, and such games might actually thrive.

Hooking up with an old RP buddy, and realizing how much I missed her all this while.

@Lithium said in RL Anger:

In as much as a diseased chainsaw inserted into an individual can be considered sexual intercourse... yes.

You're just inviting one of us to find an appropriate Google image.

@Glitch said in RPG Percentile Mechanics:

I'd probably adjust the progression a little on this myself, but I like this system. It makes it a bit more beneficial to be a small bit better than someone and not as much benefit to be tremendously better, but as a quick and simple system, it's pretty great.

Thanks, but it's not really my system, completely. Nothing sucks more than when your Star Blocker muffs something, but that element of randomness places less emphasis on maximizing certain stats. You have a distinct advantage of having a huge score in something, but the fact that you can still fuck up makes the game interesting, in my opinion.

That said, there are Merits/Boons/Advantages that give you a +1 to your rolled score under certain circumstances, so the progression is adjusted that way. But if you roll 3 1s, you're sort of fucked, and that's the way it's supposed to be.

@Bobotron said in RPG Percentile Mechanics:

This is what I'm fiddling with, using a number comparison to get the percentage. For example, attacker has a total of 10. Defender has a defense total of 10. Net 0, so you end up with 50%. Same scenario, but defender has a defense of 6. You have a total of 4, and the attacker then has a net bonus. So saying 5% increase per difference, you have 70%. Conversely, Attacker 10 and Defender 14, removes that down to 30%. 5% per differential is probably too high in most situations, and then you have to account for anything and everything you have that gives a bonus.

I've brewed up a simpler system based on Blood Bowl's mechanics:

In combat, compare applicable stats. If the attacker's total is greater, he can roll 2 dice and pick the one that applies; if the attacker's total is double or greater, he can roll 3 dice and pick the one that applies. If the attacker's total is less, he rolls 2 dice and the defender picks the one that applies; if the attacker's total is half or less, he rolls 3 dice and the defender picks the one that applies. If the totals are even, one die is roll, and the result applies. Each die is a d6, and you must roll a 4 or greater.

I wanted a system that: (1) was easy to figure out; (2) always had a chance for failure; and (3) always had a chance for success.

I've wanted to implement it because ... it's easy to figure out. The overpowering party is likely to win, but there's a small chance of victory for the little person, always.

@Arkandel said in Comics Stuff:

Speaking of trust, there are comic writers who are fairly celebrated but I don't get it. Jeph Loeb is my go-to guy; just about anything he puts his hands on turns to shit.

Except when it comes to putting out comic book adaptations to Netflix, apparently.

That shit has been gold. Like, serious gold.

My only input is to bring up the portrayal of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. There are a lot of stories, and some of them conflict with one another; however, there are core attributes that do not change. What they did to Captain America is the equivalent of Jesus returning with a bad comb-over and an orange spray tan.

I realize that there were many apocryphal tales that were removed from the New Testament, but a lot of us prefer to forget Mina Harker having sex with Allan Quartermain.

@Jennkryst said in Kinds of Mu*s Wanted:

Let me rephrase. I will be your Time TS-slut.

It's still not 5 PM, so I don't have time to reciprocate.

Go make me a sammich.

@ThatGuyThere said in CoD - Victorian - Penny Dreadful-ish.:

Yeah I remember this game, can't remember the name of it though.
There was also after that one a game names Penny Dreadful, that was mortals, Sin-eater and changeling, run by different people though.

Close, but no.

I was involved with Victorian Reverie. I was one of three head staffers. Two of them had a falling out, and one went to start Penny Dreadful.

That is all.

@Coin said in Core Memories Instead of BG?:

Did you miss that bit, later on?

No. I read what you wrote after, and it does not match with what I'm trying to convey.

You stated that the concept of "Defining Moments" is integrated Chronicles of Darkness character generation, and it isn't. While some "Breaking Points" may be deemed "Defining Moments," the purpose of "Breaking Points" is separate and distinct from what is being discussed as "Defining Moments."

I took a very specific snippet for a specific reason. Again, describing "Defining Moments" is not the same as describing "Breaking Points," and any analogy is fallacious.

@Arkandel said in RL Anger:

Then they go on and on about how there's a wide world out there and it's the summer! Just go out and have some fun!

They don't say this where I live. Where I live, the news tells people not to go out due to allergens that are so bad that folks who have never been diagnosed with seasonal allergies collapse in unconscious, mucus-leaking heaps.

Fuck you, southwestern Ohio.

@Coin said in Core Memories Instead of BG?:

So really, this entire concept is already part of the CofD chargen process.

Not exactly. The Chronicles of Darkness asks players to describe the traumatic things in their life, which can lead to the loss of sanity (Integrity). What is suggested here is the listing of "Defining Moments," which need not be traumatic. A person's successes can be just as important as their failures, just as sadness can be a part of happiness -- which is the driving point with Inside Out.

Defeating Ganon and winning Zelda is probably one of Link's defining moments, but I don't really think it describes a Breaking Point.

@Arkandel

You wouldn't want it to be. Mouse + KB peeps would have a distinct advantage.

@Arkandel said in Overwatch, anyone?:

Wait, this just occurred to me. Is there PC/console cross-play in Overwatch or is it exclusive to each platform?

I'm pretty sure it's not cross-platform. I could be wrong.

@faraday said in How does a Mu* become successful?:

I thought it was allowing them to start RP before their app had been reviewed and approved. I.e. before anyone on staff has told them "what you have created is OK."

In my opinion, when staff lets a PC onto the Grid, they are implicitly stating that the PC is OK. Putting clear policies up regarding provisional RP is a good thing, but that provisional RP can still impact other PCs on the Grid. And, as you mention, could lead to a retcon later, which can be a hassle.

It is easier, simpler, and more sensible to require approval before hitting the Grid. As @surreality said, many games allow for "provisional RP" in OOC areas between unapproved and approved PCs. That seems like a good compromise, as it allows people to generate a PC and play immediately, while protecting approved PCs that may not want to interact with a provisional PC.

@Arkandel said in How does a Mu* become successful?:

Again, BITN is doing this, are they flooded with 11 year olds and vengeful PKers?

Things may have changed, but when I applied on BITN, I had to wait for them to process my 5 XP of spends prior to hitting the Grid. It was probably child's play for them to look me over and stamp me with the sign of approval.

And you really can't use BITN as a blanket example. BITN is based in the modern day with a system that isn't terribly complex. Games like Kushiel's Debut require some knowledge of an alternate fantasy world, and games like Requiem for Kingsmouth are so different from the average WoD game that staff-checking is not a bad thing.

You wanted reasons; I gave you reasons. And if you've never tried to retcon the damage that a single PC can cause in 24-48 hours, then you probably do not know how bad things can get. When you have a political game where status, titles, and influence mean something, then you either have to heavily-restrict it or review PCs as they come through.

@Arkandel said in How does a Mu* become successful?:

For instance there's no reason CGen checks, assuming staff still wants oversight over the characters, can't take place after the PC hits the grid; that dramatically cuts down on the initial bottleneck before players get to the good parts and they can be processed when convenient.

There's plenty of reasons not to do this, actually. I can think of:

1. Blocking prohibited PC types, such as children and anthropomorphic skunks.
2. Blocking revenge PC types, created to PK specific folks.
3. Avoiding retconning scenes involving the above.

These sound like good reasons to implement a system that allows you to check over PCs before they hit the Grid.