Posts made by Ganymede

I don't know if it'll be the same. The Babadook has supernatural elements to it, and Who Can Kill a Child seems to be a mundane horror film. Not quite what I'm looking for.

Saw The Babadook the other night. It was pretty good, but it was not as terrifying as I hoped.

All the recent talk of Jews made me spew my drink when I saw HEB.

Unfortunately, Wal-Mart draws the ignorant and the desperate, which are not in short supply in most of the United States.

@crusader

Why not just let us all know? I can provide a comprehensive list of my own credentials, which includes some really, really, really shitty places.

@crusader

Re: Authority

I was commenting on what you wrote here:

Hardly anyone in this thread seems to understand Werewolf: The Forsaken theme.

As you cannot possibly know what others truly know or understand, you cannot judge that they do not understand "Werewolf: The Forsaken" theme. As you lack expertise to opine based on what's been stated, you haven't the authority to make that conclusion. That's what I was talking about.

You're a smart fellow, but your communication levels don't seem to follow. Avoiding making judgments as to others' knowledge will strengthen your arguments.

@crusader said:

I am compelled to address your post point-by-point for the sake of clarity, though I am loathe to do so. (I hate writing piece-meal, but there's no other way to get through your response cogently.)

1. It's not my authority. I wrote the themes nearly verbatim from the book itself. I'm not pulling it out of my ass. If you don't like those themes...fine. But they're at least as equal in importance to the Shadow, which people here claim to love.

That wasn't what I was talking about. I said you haven't the authority to claim that few seem to understand the game's theme. You haven't the knowledge or expertise to make that claim. Regarding the second part, my previous post is premised on the conclusion that all of the themes raised are equally important.

2. While you might find it emotionally cathartic to believe otherwise, I have nowhere claimed that any other way of interpreting the game is less acceptable or valid. I have only defended what I find acceptable and valid.

I find cathartic release in very little these days, except for a good bath and a friendly rub. You very clearly described your interpretation, and have gone to great lengths to defend it. This can be reasonably construed as considering the same interpretation more acceptable than another, if we are talking of interpretation. If otherwise, your point does little to undermine mine.

3. I've already acknowledged that the title could use improving. It was done in a slap dash fashion. I'm not perfect. There's no need to keep retreading it.

If I cannot express an opinion based on the words, language, ideas, or conclusions you've previously raised, then there's little more to talk about.

4. What I took issue with, was the barrage of comments that it was in violation to the 'spirit' (no pun intended) of the game. By way of response, I've fallen back on the authority of the original authors, as to which themes they gave pride of place, to show that is not the case. The people who seem to have the biggest trouble with this, are those that have pontificated the most, while later admitting 'they don't even like werewolf' and have probably never even read the theme section of the pdf.

If you take no position as to whether your interpretation is more or less acceptable than another's, then you must accept that others validly believe that your fixes would violate their interpretation of the spirit of the game. There therefore should be no need to defend your point. Yet, here we are.

5. In the end, werewolf is more than any one theme. It's a constellation of themes. The pseudo Native American cosmology aspect of it is just one theme, and it's the very last theme they introduced. It's just one layer of the setting.

I concur.

6. So please, scale back some of the high and mighty tone about authority, or what rights I have to declare good fun or bad fun. I'm not making any such claims.

I am writing clearly, and pointing out what I believe to be flaws in your logic, reasoning, thinking, argument, position, and writing. That I write bluntly is for the sake of parsimony and clarity.

If you don't like it when some people infer your absence of knowledge, experience, or authority, then you should stop making claims as to others' knowledge, experience, or motivations. In short: don't tell me whether someone understands something or not. I can make that evaluation on my own.

7. My only 'claim', is that Werewolf 2.0, stripped of the Shadow component, makes it even less like owod werewolf, and more in line with other nwod themes of horror and the human condition. That's why I found Theno's comment that it would be more combatty to be ludicrous, since the Shadow only exists to provide an owod-type avenue of mega battles against various monsters, like Claimed/Fomori, or beshilu/banes.

Yes, removing the Shadow would make the game less like OWoD Werewolf, which I enjoy for different reasons. However, I disagree that doing so would make the game more in-line with horror and human condition themes.

Your concept of horror may be different than mine. I enjoy many different kinds of horror stories, but I lean towards classic horror, and most of those stories involves spirits, supernatural creatures, and other things that might lead to what you might call a "mega battle." That said, I rather prefer simpler stories of personal, human horror, but that doesn't mean I'd prefer to pull the Shadow from my Werewolf campaigns.

8. What makes a setting, game or theme 'shallow', isn't something so ridiculous as to whether or not the Shadow or spirits are involved, or what the tribes are called. It's how the story is told. I'm surprised you of all people, can't acknowledge this. My greatest beef with the Shadow is that it's handled in such a shallow manner by so many people, and of which there is really no way around without expecting an unrealistic level of familiarity with the subject matter from all players.

First, just because a set of rules is handled poorly by ignorant or lazy players doesn't mean that rule-set is bad. To wit, Wraith: The Oblivion.

Second, you are proposing to remove parts of the game that could add other levels of horror to a game. Auspices can provide a lot of potential for horror: what if a pacifist discovered she was a Rahu? Or Tribes: what if an Iron Warden were forced to hunt down and kill her own mortal family?

I think that a skilled GM can use these elements to create stories of horror and the human condition. And I'd rather have more tool-sets and potential around than to pigeon-hole a campaign.

9. A story is hurt when not all of the players are on the same page in understanding its very various elements. Whatever idealized opinion people have of nwod werewolf, the fact is, most every nwod werewolf sphere has sucked, and been anything like what the original writers could have intended.

Again, dumbing things down isn't the right answer. I didn't find the systems presented in NWoD 1.0 or 2.0 Werewolf particularly difficult to get through (unlike Mage -- holy fucking shit). I don't equate shitty execution and understanding with a shitty game.

10. Totem spirit demands, loci maintenance, and gaining gifts from spirits has always been ignored and handwaved (95% of the time) so how central can they be?

Once more, I don't place a value on a part of the system based on others' incompetence or ignorance.

At the end of the day, the only werewolf sphere I've seen semi-competently run, was AQ's when Haunted Memories first started, and it almost killed him. I've never seen anyone since put in even half the effort to fully engage with and tackle the subject matter. There's clearly too much there for the average MUSHer to cope with or keep in their mind.

AQ was never good at delegating.

Frankly, I've found that Werewolf tends to attract a certain kind of player that lends to eschewing the complex in favor of the simple. That's fine, to a point. To me, as a GM, I would find it very frustrating if my pack of PCs ignored the demands of their other nature.

On a personal note, Changeling is a fairly complex game too. I play a Changeling on TR that leans more heavily on the human side for reasons that include her choice of Court (Winter) and low Wyrd score. Note, however, that I chose this path based on how RP shook out. I still would not advocate for removing all of the Hedgespinning and Token-Making mumbo-jumbo that I don't deal with regularly. And if I were staffing the sphere, I would make a concerted effort to please people by drafting and enforcing rules related thereto.

@TNP said:

[N]on-consent assumes that players can't be trusted to play honestly (using consent to refuse consequences) and a host of similar situations. Both situations assume that most players are assholes without ethics.

I don't see it that way.

Non-consent provides a way for players to resolve conflict between characters where the players cannot agree on the outcome. Non-consent does not mean that players cannot agreeably resolve a conflict's outcome.

I perceive consent games as providing a mechanism by which one player may prevent the consequences of the actions of another's. I disagree with that. If there is a system of impartial conflict resolution, there ought to be no reason to eschew its use where there's no agreement.

However, I know, probably better than most, of the value of an amicable resolution prior to having it solved by an "impartial" system.

@crusader said:

Hardly anyone in this thread seems to understand Werewolf: The Forsaken theme.

You haven't the authority to make this claim, and you haven't demonstrated any sort of expertise that would make your understanding any more valid than another's. I don't accept this premise.

The problem that I have with your analysis is that you have hooked onto one potential element for role-play, and crowned it as the most important. I don't see any reason to believe that playing a game where Werewolves adhere tightly to their spiritual aspects is any more or less acceptable, reasonable, or desirable than a game where that aspect is set aside in favor of a primal pack aspects. That the spiritual aspects complicate, add flavor to, or enhance the game beyond mere survival seems to be lost in your analysis.

Frankly, I don't think any of your "flaws" are, in fact, "flaws." They appear to be aspects of the game that you think are either unnecessary or irrelevant to the style of game that you want to run. Unlike many others I can accept that, but like many others I probably won't be playing with you. I would probably find your setting/game/theme shallow.

@crusader said:

I fully agree that the XP/incentive system is just one part of a greater whole of why something succeeds or sucks, and is far from the biggest part. Great ideas, great motivation and great leadership often overcome in any setting.

Conversely, poor ideas, poor motivation, and poor leadership trump the wisdom or strength of any XP system. This is why I am compelled to speak up when people decry fixed XP systems, or why I speak out against implementing any system that benefits activity.

Make a good game and people will come, regardless on how you set up your XP. Just realize that anything but a fixed-system is inherently inequitable.

@crusader said:

Reno seems to be a good example of a fixed XP system not working to provoke much RP on the grid. I know on Reach, there were many people who only logged in to play with a couple other people, who on past games, I'd known to be much more active on the grid to hoover up votes.

Reno is a terrible example.

The players on Reno seemed to think that RP will just spring up and suck them in. It doesn't. My opinion of the players there, largely, is that they can't be assed up to start their own stories. It's part-laziness and part-apathy. It has nothing to do with the XP system.

Look at the Reach. Same thing: people are lazy and apathetic. Over there, it's due to the staff largesse and stagnation, despite the size of the player base; on Reno, it's due to the small player base, and minimal staff.

My point: you cannot with any certainty lay the blame on the XP system. How XP is delivered is usually of minimal concern. To make a game work, you need to be able to attract the right kind of players. Those players will gravitate to games where the activity, community, and rewards fit their vision of comfort.

@crusader said:

Fixed XP promotes idleness and insularity.

Prove it.

Oh, wait. You probably can't. No, wait. You can't.

Fixed XP promotes idleness and insularity as much as having shitty staff, bully players, and restrictive rules. The presumption that an absence of activity-related inducements means a reduction of RP on a grid is absurd, and countered by several games that enjoyed substantial activity over a period of time.

I concede there are players who want a reward for being online and roleplaying above and beyond the enjoyment therefrom. I question if I want to set any policy to favor those players.

@Wizz

Are you sure you aren't disappointed that you learned before you sealed the deal?

Again, I find +watch functional, and I use it all the time. On the Reach, folks on your +watch are highlighted when you use +where. This helps me figure out who's on and who's active, and is useful on a game that can have 100+ logins.

I have no idea why anyone would want to date someone substantially younger or older than them, save for the moneys.

Good on you, @Admiral.

@crusader

What Admiral said.

The sentiment is an interesting one. I'll admit that I'm actually intrigued to play a Bone Gnawer. What I'm concerned of is that the local Get, Fangs, and Lords might start being "sympathetic" to my plight, and that sort of ruins things too. It's really hard to play a character that is marginalized for nothing more than being part of a tribe when everyone's singing kumbaya and shit.

@Luna

I use +finger to figure out if my alts have any unread mail, or if my potential PCs have any. It has been useful recently, as I've been waiting for Ripley to get approved after re-spec for almost two weeks. I connect as Clarice, +finger Ripley to see if the +job system has sent her a @mail saying that she's approved.

Why? Because when I log on as Ripley, I get asked if I've been re-approved yet, and I have to say no. That, and I get excited to play, and then realize my re-spec has been going since mid-February. It's a little demoralizing, and I'm doing my best to be positive.

So, I wait, and use +finger to determine if I should hop on as the Ripster.

That's actually a functional tool.

@icanbeyourmuse

Why don't you page me on the game? You'll want to talk to Galiana about getting in, if you're interested. Maybe we can put together some sort of connection to get you into the family smoothly, and provide immediate RP hooks?

Yes, that would be me. I'm resurrecting Ripley, actually. Just waiting to get re-spec approval.

More than happy to play with Nicky once I'm out and about again.

Lawyers are still tremendous assholes who will waste your time on a whim.

I guess that's not good news, but it's good to know that, no matter the vagaries of life, some things remain the same.