Sera kept stealing my PC's fucking hat.
Posts made by Ganymede
-
RE: Whispers in the Dark - A Buffy MUX looking for help
I'm not really familiar with the Buffyverse/Unisystem, but I'm usually full of ideas. Not sure where I'd fit in, though. Must respectfully decline.
-
RE: nWoD City Territory System?
@Wizz said:
How? You keep saying you don't like Arkandel's system and that there's another way to do it, but-- as I think's been pointed out before in a similar discussion on WORA-- if the resources aren't somehow meaningful (collect this Stuff! It's shiny!) the players who "want" to fight over them really wouldn't have any motivation to do so.
MET had an Influence system. Players battled it out to take advantage of limited Influence in particular spheres. Those with greater Influence were able to take actions that affected the Domain. However, those actions did not affect the day-to-day existence of players who did not want to get involved in those politics. In that case, the limited resource -- the Influence -- was not a bar to existence or RP, but had enough meaning and importance that it was worth fighting over politically.
How could this apply to a vampire game and territory? Suppose each "grid space" provides a certain amount of Influence in a sphere. Depending on who your allies are, you could combine Influence to take actions to affect others. You could take steps to improve your territory's Influence score in particular spheres. Cap the amount of Influence in each sphere to cap the amount of improvement that can be done.
This is probably the best way to do it, in my opinion. However, it requires a great deal of maintenance. You'll need someone to consistent apply the rules to figure out what everyone's doing, and the effect of each action taken. You need to figure out how often people can "act" on or with their Influence. And so on.
-
RE: nWoD City Territory System?
A vampire that has no territory, but is repeatedly assailed and therefore blows through their vitae, is at a distinct disadvantage. So, they must either control more territory, or not get into confrontations for fear of being bled out over time. Thus, a bar.
You can make a system of limited resources without making those resources integral to the existence of a PC. Those who want to play the politics game can fight over the resources, and those who don't can still exist.
-
RE: nWoD City Territory System?
It has been mentioned that resource-scrapping isn't what people want to do either. Your proposal would force vampires to claim and protect territory, or else not exist. You're not facilitating a variety of RP -- you're forcing it. And for some players, what you propose is a bar to RP.
That's why I suggested an independent system. If people want to play political games, that's fine; if people want to eschew them, that's fine.
-
RE: nWoD City Territory System?
My suggestion would be to focus on Point 3 of EmmahSue's breakdown. That is, in other words: "what does this territory allow me to do?"
In my opinion, the place to start is to look at a system independent from the PCs. Think about how the territories interact with one another: how do the Docks affect City Hall; how do the 'Burbs affect the Financial District; and so on. Next, figure out the scale of activity you want on the game regarding the territories: do you want it to be the focus of RP; do you want it to be a mini-game; etc. And then concoct your own system.
Now that the territories have their own system, figure out how PCs dominate or vie for them. This may require an entire system of its own.
I highly recommend not using Damnation City. Or Territories. Go with something that is tailored to how a MU works.
-
RE: Twinking in RP MU*
@Wretched said:
Then there are the folks that have the stats but don't actually play them. I'm talking to you every Str 5 waif out there. Under 5 Foot with Maxxed physicals and the scrawniest PB in the world, really?
And ninjamau5 is still a glass cannon, correspondingly.
-
RE: Twinking in RP MU*
Traditionally, minmaxers have been dicks. Tremendous ones. I hold no ire to folks who, mistakenly or not, judge minmaxers harshly.
To reduce the chance of frustration after a rule change, staff should permit players to re-spec their +sheets in light of a rule change.
-
RE: Transparency
I am private to the point of paranoia about my RL identity, and go far out of my way to obfuscate it. I'm not at all the same about my online identities, namely my alts. I actually remember a lot of them.
-
RE: Twinking in RP MU*
Tiered-spending costs reflect the measurable social phenomena of diminishing returns. This is the part of GMC that I don't like.
That said, I think twinking, as defined, is tolerable. Most of my PCs are not maximized in one direction, and have other "outs."
-
RE: Dragon Age: Inquisition
@Insomnia said:
Also, most of the Dragons are level-gated as well, with exception to the first one. So if you got all levelled up and buff and thought "Damn, I'm level 20 now, I can go kick that one dragon's ass!" No. Sorry, that dragon has likely levelled up with you.
Yes, but the Dragon didn't get the ability to have a magical lightsaber or gain Guard and a rechargeable Barrier. That's really what tipped the balance, and allows you to take down the Dragon when you're at a higher level, despite the HP leveling.
-
RE: RL peeves! >< @$!#
@Coin said:
People who give old folks a pass for obnoxious behavior in airplanes, but shit on babies.
Mother fucker, the baby doesn't understand pressurization.
I don't shit on the babies. That's gross. I blame the parents.
-
RE: Dragon Age: Inquisition
I'm a completionist, so it was easy to over-level. I think I hit Level 22 before I finished the Hissing Wastes.
The Wicked Eyes, Wicked Hearts quest was painful. The poorly-executed PS3 version was poorer still, I'd reckon. If you're going to make a social scene wherein you have to gather rumors and piece together clues, mini-games make for more entertainment than butchering people.
-
RE: Transparency
Thenomain hit the nail on the head well, but I'd like to add further thoughts.
Presuming they have not been doctored, logs are excellent proof of what was said. However, if there is no argument that something was said that caused a negative reaction, then what was said is immaterial.
I used to think that evidence was necessary to make a decision. I used to think that staff should act as a judge would. I was wrong.
Staff should act like a bouncer at a bar would, unconstrained by notions of due process. Figure out who's telling the truth to the best of your ability, and take action. If you make a mistake, you make a mistake and own up to it. Just do yourself a favor and make a considered, reasonable decision.
-
RE: Transparency
You could do that, but you won't. I know you won't because I know you well enough. You care enough about your reputation to defend it.
Anyone can undermine anything on a game. As the price of freedom is, so is the price of a good game. The players must be confident in policing one another, but I realize the goal will be difficult to attain because of years of top-down oppression.
That doesn't stop the marches in New York or Ferguson.
And, yes, the system is a step. Transparency is a part of the puzzle only. There are a lot of pieces to consider.
-
RE: Transparency
Actually, I'm not making guesses. I am fairly certain the system is a benefit. I base this off of my experiences from other games, as staff and a player, and my observations of "successful" games. It is not a panacea, but, as you said, a step. More properly, it is a stone for a foundation.
You are correct that it will hasten a death cycle if the game does not have the right staff. This is a good thing. I do not believe it will hasten the death cycle of a game with the right staff. And that's equally as important.
As you admitted, what we have now isn't working. We should try something else. The issues you've raised exist, regardless. I do not believe those would be exacerbated by the proposed system. I therefore posit to you that it is a preferable choice, and should be implemented.
-
RE: Transparency
I understand your concern, but you are asking for answers without a question. That is, you haven't asked an actual question; you have only made statements. I therefore can only presume your question, which makes it difficult for me to pinpoint the response you seek or communicate directly.
I believe your question is: how does the "justice" system protect players from the consequences of their complaints? The only fair and honest answer is: it doesn't. The follow-up is: it isn't calculated to do that. The next follow-up is: that's not its purpose. My admonition therefore is: what protects the players from the backlash is the responses and decisions of staff regarding the complaint.
I have been in a similar situation, which occurred on Victorian Reverie. I never saw the conduct complained of, but only heard, second-hand, that the behavior was driving players away. I directly confronted the accused, who did not deny the behavior, and her reaction to my questioning led me to conclude that she was not a good fit for the game and that the allegations, though second-hand, were true. I removed her from the game, and the players that had been driven away returned.
Apply this to the system: the complainant alleges the accused is stalking other players. Upon learning of this, staff makes inquiries of the accused, whose reaction to the questions leads them to believe that the allegations are true. If the staff is satisfied that action should be taken, then it should be taken. The only evidence necessary is your word and your belief.
Some may cry out: "this is unjust!" Yet I have specifically declined from truly considering the system "just." This is because justice isn't the point of the system; transparency is. While it is admirable to cling to precepts of fair and substantial justice on a game, the fact is that a game is not a nation and staff is not the government. Staff is, at best, like a corporation's board of directors: it has a duty to act in the best interests of the corporation, and can act without regard to "due process."
Staff needs to stop resorting to those notions if it hopes to be effective. Instead, "due process" when dealing with complaints ought to be discarded in practice in deference to "doing what is right." And what is "right" ought not be more than what one's experience and knowledge informs them of.
What transparency demands is an explanation for that action. If your action is justified in your mind, state so. The people may criticize your decision, but no decision will ever escape some scrutiny. And the people should appreciate that you are willing to take responsibility for the choice, rather than hide behind a curtain of confidentiality to "protect" those involved.
-
RE: Transparency
@Thenomain said:
I want to agree with you, but we need the right staff to be consistent and just (not fair, but just) to everyone. The idea that we can go through a revolving door of staffers, or that staffers do not act in a timely manner (because this is a hobby) undermines this from the start. The thought that players won't approach staff because they don't want to be outed undermines it. People should feel safe from retribution for their concerns.
You always need the right staff. How do you plan on recruiting them? With good systems. I would posit that if this system were implemented, you'd have good staffers lining up at your door. Why? Because the system protects good staffers by showing the players that, indeed, nothing nefarious is going on behind closed doors.
People are never safe from the petty, weak, and jealous. To expect it is to expect a fantasy. It's nice to dream, but that doesn't mean that one should not strive for a better reality. As you said, right now, we have nothing, so unless there is evidence or argument that the proposal will undermine what security exists, I'm not sure if your doubts are founded.