Posts made by Ganymede

@Wizz

I think he's only a producer, but he might have a hand in it. Not sure yet. Maybe JGL does as too?

@HelloRaptor said:

Not having a TL also means there's no one person who has final say over a particular sphere, which means anything that requires escalation to that one person instead tends to end up in committee.

You don't need a TL to make a call on the interpretation of a rule, if necessary for a scene. You just need someone with sufficient knowledge and authority to make that call.

For a WoD game, you probably want TLs for particular races if your staff aren't versed in all of them. Or, as has been done elseMU*, the staffers can list what spheres they are comfortable making rulings on. If the rulings are incorrect, they can be appealed to those with greater authority, which are probably the game administrators.

If it makes you feel better, Theno, I concur with that decision.

Set reasonable alt limits. You'll be fine.

I claim dibs on Invictus Larry Hagman.

Oh, shit. That was Dallas.

@Eerie said:

I agree, but at the same time I’ve been on staff channels with staffers who were convinced they ‘couldn’t’ do anything about this or that thing because technically it wasn’t against the rules. Most of us are pretty conditioned to follow ‘rules’ as normative concepts.

We are conditioned this way, which is why there ought to be fewer rules in place. The important rules relate to responsibility: e.g., if a player has a problem with a staffer, go to Staff X. Everything else should only be considered expectations; staff should have free rein to react to situations, and, if they do not do so reasonably, the game operators should step in and ameliorate.

@Luna said:

Any one at any time can start a cps investigation for any reason. And it's anonymous.

Anonymity is not the same as immunity in Ohio. Under R.C. 2151.421(G)(1)(a):

" * * * [A]nyone or any hospital, institution, school, health department, or agency participating in the making of reports under division (A) of this section [which relates to statutorily-required reporters], anyone or any hospital, institution, school, health department, or agency participating in good faith in the making of reports under division (B) of this section [which relates to elective reporters], and anyone participating in good faith in a judicial proceeding resulting from the reports, shall be immune from any civil or criminal liability for injury, death, or loss to person or property that otherwise might be incurred or imposed as a result of the making of the reports or the participation in the judicial proceeding." (Emphasis added.)

Furthermore, the confidentiality of reports is codified in R.C. 2151.421(H)(1), which can be abrogated under certain circumstances:

" * * * [A] court may conduct an in camera inspection of child-abuse records or reports and also has the inherent power to order disclosure of such records or reports where (1) the records or reports are relevant to the pending action, (2) good cause for such a request has been established by the person seeking disclosure, and (3) where admission of the records or reports outweighs the confidentiality considerations set forth in * * * R.C. 2151.421(H)(1). “Good cause” is defined as that which is in the best interest of the child."

Johnson v. Johnson, 134 Ohio App. 3d 579, 585, 731 N.E.2d 1144 (3rd Dist. 1999).

So, it's not absolutely anonymous, and an elective reporter can be held liable for making a bad faith report. Since "good faith" and "bad faith" are nebulous concepts, making a report with less-than-clear facts will open you up to a potential lawsuit, regardless of your chances of a successful defense.

@Eerie said:

Meanwhile, let’s say @Ganymede was also playing a demon and had a big legal hoosits at work and her parents were in town and various other things and she was going to be scarce for the next couple weeks. The player thumbing his nose at the intention of the rule is fine, but all of a sudden I’m constrained in making a judgment call about @Ganymede, who is a great player and has contributed to the sphere before and will doubtless again, because we have 'rules' and the person next on the waiting list is now pointing out that, according to the rules, she should be unapproved.

There are plenty of fixes for this, but you're right: adhering to a particular rule strictly is stupid.

I have long since espoused the fact that all good games are run like a benevolent dictatorship. The game operators create and enforce the rules, but you really don't need rules. When they act fairly, people are happy; when they act capriciously, less so.

Rules set the expectations of staff. Sure, it's nice to know for sure what staff will and won't do, but it's patently unreasonable to expect staff to not consider every case individually, and measure "justice" against an ephemeral, shifting concept of "fairness."

I have been asked to step aside, as a player, based on my activity. As I've gotten older, I've been more comfortable doing so. I've been staff too many times to not appreciate staff doing what staff thinks is best, and trusting in that judgment. It's nice to know that I'm valued, but I don't want to be (ever again) the reason why a game is losing players or not growing.

I've thawed out my Vampire here, and I'm looking to make it my home for vampire goodness.

I'm looking for corporate, regulation-hating Ventrue to join a small cadre of high rollers looking to take over the town with the simple message: "Greed, for lack of a better term, is good."

If interested, find me there as Max. Ghouls, Mortals, Psychics, other Vampires -- all good. Don't need nothin' but a good time!

@Arkandel

There's a RTB condition in both cases, but you take more risk if you do so in the lottery draft. There's also something called "fan support," which dwindles if you keep on tanking all the time. No support, no money, no team. If you're at least guaranteed a pick based on your standings, then you have a more certain chance of eventually pulling out.

@Thenomain

When I ruled Denver with an iron fist, I had to close shop a number of times, if only temporarily. Same on Haunted Memories. I didn't seem to have any problem remembering who was in line because I made a line in my @mailbox.

When you close the gates, advise people to send a @mail to reserve their spot. Keep the @mails. They have a timestamp on them.

@Creepy

Your equilibrium will be reached when certain players get fed up with their +requests being neglected. I'm not sure if that's a good policy to stick to.

@Thenomain

In the NFL, your draft picks are determined from where you end up in the standings. If you end up in last place, you get the first pick.

In the NHL and NBA, your draft picks are determined by lottery, but your chances of picking first are increased based on where you end up in the standings. If you end up in last place, you may not get the first pick; you may end up with the third or fourth.

Conceptually, there are different rationales for either system. The first is justified by the idea that, by giving the worst team the highest pick, they are more likely to become better faster, thus increasing competitiveness. The second is justified by the idea that, by not guaranteeing the first pick to the worst team, teams will continue to try and be competitive because there's no strong incentive to be last. Ultimately, each system professes to be more "fair" to all teams.

But the second system introduces uncertainty. In my opinion, it's not fair, and it does not promote competition. What it does, though, is create a great deal of frustration, as teams hovering around the bottom -- but not at the bottom -- may consistently choose first or second over time.

What my analogy was meant to illustrate was that I prefer certainty over uncertainty. I don't care if I'm #45, but I would care if I were #1 and didn't get in.

@Coin

I really hate the NBA and NHL drafts. I prefer the NFL draft.

Being #45 sucks, but it's got finality to it. Not being able to get in when you're the first in line is frustrating as hell.

@Spitfire

Today's objectionable parenting seems to arise from the typical short-cut thinking that pervades all levels, from political stances to "educated" discussions on the Common Core standards.

In my opinion, when the child is acting up -- and that means he/she/it is acting like a shithead for no discernible reason -- that's when you "ignore" them. "Ignore" does not mean "let the shithead do whatever the fuck he/she/it wants"; it means "do not give the attention that the shithead desires." When that behavior escalates, more direct punishment should be employed; when it degrades, the behavior will atrophy over time.

Much like puppies, children can be trained and conditioned. In fact, that's what we are doing through parenting; we just prefer to call it "parenting". Frankly, the only difference between my little ones and the cat is that the cat's a lot smarter than they are: he knows to shit in one area.

@mietze said:

Bringing your child to an inappropriate and marked place and then ignoring them to the detriment of the many other people using that space appropriately is not luck though, that's a choice.

Don't forget about the gym staff that should have guided the parent and child to the well-staffed day care.

I can honestly say I don't give a shit about Marvel right now.

Mostly because I just found out that Joseph Gordon-Levitt and David S. Goyer are team-producing The Sandman movie, slated for 2016, with Jack Thorne, who was a writer for the UK series Skins.

And Sam Raimi is producing an adaptation of The Last of Us, whose script is being overseen by Neil Druckmann.

I mean, I can't wait to see Avengers: The Age of Ultron, but I get the sense that the creative direction is heading towards pewpewpew and away from that which made Iron Man, Captain America: The First Avenger, and The Dark Knight so interesting.

My favorite of all is FF8. It falls way outside of the mold. I never found it confusing, personally. Then again, I'm Asian.

If you have an iThing, you might want to look up the FF games on it. They go for around $15 a pop, if I recall, but you can pick up FFT (which is probably the strongest game) and FF6 (aka FF3 in 'Murica), which is by far the best game insofar as the plot is concerned.

All games after FF6, if I recall, use an ATB system -- or active turn-based. That means that the enemies will keep coming after you, and your PCs can act "out-of-turn" based on their relative speeds (e.g., you have Haste cast on them).

I miss Silas. He was awesome.

@Coin

I am assuming much, but my assumptions are based on personal knowledge and repeated observations over time. Pedantically, this isn't a mistake; this is how people think. But I am assuming a lot, which should have been clear from the start.

You seem to have confused my examples with my polemic: that's your mistake. My message is simple: your XP policy favors one group over another. And like any policy that does so, the disfavored are going to feel disenfranchised. I know of few people who enjoy feeling that way, so your policy may drive them elsewhere.

If you're not concerned about that, that's fine.

@lordbelh

I'm not a dullard; I know you need people to do that. I do it all the time. But I will admit that I get disenfranchised when I see others outpace my PC who do little but mill about socially getting XP.

When it comes down to it, I see no good reason to reward people who simply have more RP time or live in a timezone where there is bound to be more activity going on. Everyone connected to the game ought to have some desire to go out and play -- so why offer a reward to do so? Just fucking do it. Darkwater is fine example of a game that offered a flat reward of XP, yet had plenty of activity going on.

@Coin said:

I'm running a game that needs activity to thrive.

You don't need to offer a carrot to get people to generate the activity that you want to see. No one ever has. You merely need to enable the people that want to tell stories. Worse, you don't want to encourage people to tell shitty dramas just to earn carrots.

That creates a whole lot of resentment among those that are active.

There's that word again. "Active." What the hell does that even mean? And is that really want you want?

I will posit: no. What you really want is quality players that will generate their own stories and plots, and participate in what's offered. You want players that have the requisite social skills to get along and work with others. Those folks, by and large, are also the same folks that have full-time jobs, families, and other responsibilities.

The Reach keeps a lot of these players because those players know that they will eventually end up with the characters they want to play, regardless of the activity they put in. I believe this to be why The Reach retains a lot of quality players, despite the open-and-obvious shittiness going on there.

I have played on all sorts of games, and have for a long time. Your system will attract players, yes, and you will have activity. I fear, however, you will not attract the players you actually want, and that, in the long run, will become a problem for you.

@Coin said:

Explaining my rationale a little, there are a few reasons why I chose this method: 1) the one @Arkandel mentioned above; 2) I prefer people gain experience actively, even if it's a lot, to passive; 3) and the limit is mostly to have an idea of where the ceiling is, you know? I need to know, as the game runner, just how high people can be at any given time.

Your rationale reflects a bias towards players with a lot of time to actively RP without consideration of what the player brings to the game. In kind words, I find this rationale narrow-minded and short-sighted.

You really need to re-think how you treat XP, and not adopt policies which essentially cripple players for reasonably handling RL obligations.

@HelloRaptor

I don't drink blood, per se, but I'm totally the Prince of Darkness, per se.