@TNP said in Changes to The Hog Pit:
It's another to do it just because a few people are morons.
Although it's probably fair to say that the recent idiocy was the catalyst for the change, there is likely a large population here that prefers not to get ripped to shreds for saying innocuous but ignorant things. And we do unintentionally dogpile with the ridicule at times.
@ThatOneDude said in Changes to The Hog Pit:
Wasn't this place created to talk freely about "things"? Starting with Mu*'s?
The mods made it very clear that this board isn't the same as WORA or SWOFA.
I fail to see how one cannot "talk freely" about "things," even after moving the Hog Pit to an area that people can elect to access.
@Thenomain said in Fallout 4:
That is, if you see a sleeping bag, hit it up for one hour and keep going.
I never understood why you can't just take the sleeping bags with you like a fucking boy scout.
OBJECTION YOUR HONOR, SPECULATIVE.
Objection overruled; the witness is likely to have personal knowledge of the statement.
Yes, I'm a lawyer, but I cannot figure out if I'm in a dramedy or not.
Shouldn't use "text message talk" if the abbreviations/words don't make sense...
Wait until you read it in e-mail correspondence from opposing counsel.
@thebird said in Good or New Movies Review:
Also, Captain Amercia: Civil War was a bit of a train wreck, too....somehow I think I'm in the minority there.
I didn't find it a train wreck, but I did find it anti-climactic, even though I did not quite foresee the ending.
@Admiral said in The basketball thread:
Because they know he won't get fouls called on him even when he does knock people down? Because for some reason the league doesn't even make him dribble, much less follow the rules of conduct?
Even if the foul is called, would you want to be run over by a full-speed LeBron James?
I'm guessing, no.
You fucking take it to her.
This happened to me once. The guy had six inches on me, and about 30 pounds. Unfortunately for him, my hockey instincts took over, so I leaned into the foul and ended up submarining him.
You don't want to take the offensive foul? Don't get in the way. Lots of people get the fuck out of LeBron's way, for a good reason.
@HorrorHound said in Fallout 4:
http://m.imgur.com/gallery/USvNDq6
...Challenge Accepted.
"If it's any consolation, you've certainly put a smile on my face."
@Lithium said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
Does every character require an optimized build? Absolutely not.
James Bond (just as an example) however /does/.
As does any reasonable special forces type character, or thousand year old viking vampire...
So, if you want to be James Bond, be optimized and do so. If you want to be a thousand-year-old Viking vampire, then so be it -- optimize away. I have never been opposed to optimization or specialization.
But, sure, you have to be careful about XP spending. This is a hallmark of every other WoD game prior to GMC. If you wanted to have a 5 in an attribute and pair it with a 5 in a skill, you're going to need to hoard XP to get there, and this forces a PC to specialize. Call it diminishing returns to XP if you will, but it was built into the system. Want to be James Bond? You're going to blow elsewhere relative to another PC of equal XP.
When GMC went to linear progression, that really tore open the system, whether they believe it or not. Barring arbitrary limits set by staff the arbitrary limits set in the game, anyone could be or do anything if you have the XP. And if XP is unlimited, as is the case just about anywhere, then there's no penalty to specializing, and no real need to plan XP building, except to get to your objective as quickly as possible.
To paraphrase Syndrome: when everyone can be super, then no one can be. And while I appreciate the reasons behind the reluctance or reticence to adopt or accept XP spending caps, I believe that a game that implements them can enjoy the same success as any other game. It'd be even more successful if you provide meaningful avenues to compete that doesn't devolve into punching each other in the face.
So, you're basically saying that if you wanted to be a combat-oriented PC, you had to take advantage of merits that augmented your combat abilities. If this is the case, I thought it a truism.
But the game didn't force you to be combat-oriented, yes? Or socially-oriented? Mentally or magically? That's what I'm getting at; putting XP caps in place do not force you to take a certain build or concept, and, if so, that was likely due to the nature of the game in question.
@Arkandel said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
One of the main problems with the nWoD is how similarly built most physical characters of a certain type are.
Is this due to any sort of XP capping? If not, your example is distinguishable.
To clarify: I have no knowledge of any game on which there were caps and a lot of players with near identical builds. I concede that there are ways to build a PC in CoD to maximize certain benefits, but I think that's true with all systems.
@faraday said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
Should someone be able to reach level mastery in every skill and maintain it? No. I agree, that's silly. But should someone lose a dot from a modest professional-level rated skill they use all the time just because they picked up a new hobby and are at some artificial cap? That's also silly IMHO.
System-wise, then, you didn't reach your maximum potential. At least, that's how I'd explain it.
In the end, it doesn't really matter. My vociferous defense is in response, mostly, to people who claim that my idea won't work. The particular reasons for justifying it aren't as important to me as mechanical aspects, such as when, on a CoD, you should cap XP spending.
@faraday said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
Skills atrophy if not used, absolutely. I haven't done martial arts in almost 10 years, so I certainly suck now compared to what I used to be able to do. But I don't buy into any system that asserts that they atrophy just because you learned something new.
If we can agree that skills atrophy when not actively used, it is not unreasonable for a system to mandate atrophy in the event that a player wants his PC to pick up something new. The shift represents a focus on learning the desired skill over the maintenance of the prior skill level.
Still, this only occurs once you get to a limit. So there's no inherent atrophy, but, rather an atrophy when you get to maximum potential.
@ThatGuyThere said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
From a taste perspective I will likely never be on the side of caps. From a gamer perspective my question would be how to you prevent the game with a cap from becoming a bunch of folks with near identical builds? I know if I was on a game with a cap the temptation to say screw what my character would be motivated to learn ICly these points are a limited resource I need to use them for maximum effect.
I cannot think of a single instance where this has ever happened.
That said, staff can prevent identical builds by providing a variety of effective methods for achieving goals. It has long been lamented that PCs gravitate towards combat builds because MU* RP tends to devolve into attempts to kill.
Regarding WoD games, this is mostly due to the absence of enforced social maneuvering systems or effective mental contest systems. CoD has attempted to change all of that, but I'm not convinced their systems would work well for a MU*.
Other games, like D&D, make identical builds sort of impossible, unless within the same class.
But you can prevent it. You just have to plan a game carefully, devise systems that would work for the MU* environment, and then get a team to work with you to get it done.
CoD does have that problem and weakness, sure. I would argue that you should toss Languages into "Academics," as Supernatural Lore gets tossed into "Occult," but I digress.
I did not explain what I meant by "mechanical growth." By that, I mean "an increase in total XP spent on the PC." I omitted that when I jumped to my argument that there should be mechanisms for "mechanical change," such as a re-spec. So, in response to your bullshit claim, I'd amend my statement to: no form of role-playing requires an increase in total XP spent on the PC.
Of all of my previous reasons for wanting to cap growth, I strongly lean on the idea that PCs should not be able to effectively eliminate all of their weaknesses, which is what unlimited growth permits. If a PC at the limit learns a new language, then they should be able to shift their expenditures to permit that change. Of course, the change means that the PC sacrifices some other ability or merit, but that's not unreasonable, e.g., I probably used to have Athletics 2, but, thanks to age and lack of practice, that's probably down to a 1.
