@Macha said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
So I got called and blamed because the guy who was not named in any of my paperwork, or invites, called me on a crappy connection, and I didn't take him at his word.
... this is probably not a good sign.
I think you are feeling a lot of survivor’s guilt, and that’s okay.
I guess the way I look at it, I do not worry about how well I treat my partner, no matter how pleasant my last relationship was. Comparing them would do neither justice. It is enough that I liked them both.
Also, I like kitties.
I personally found the concept of categorizing a perfectly good relationship as a “rebound” to be astoundingly superstitious.
I do not yearn for what I have had and lost, especially when its end, though bittersweet, was for the best. I choose to embrace what comes next, and see it without trying to measure its color against a memory.
I am sure this new boy will prove to be as memorable, but not in the same way. And that is a good thing.
@Derp said in The Great PC Death Dilemma:
Actual money says that @Ganymede will tell you the bar exam ain't got shit on trying to remember various RPG systems.
The bar exam consists of three parts, two of which are multiple choice, in most jurisdictions. The other part allows you to bullshit your way through a problem to convince the reader that you know how to argue.
Ain't got shit on trying to remember the differences between different D&D editions or dealing with the personalities that yap about them.
@Warma-Sheen said in The Great PC Death Dilemma:
Bad players and bad STs just look at the dice and say, "Oh. I died. That's dumb." "Yep. Sux bro."
I concur. Sadly, few systems tell you how to play through the situation and many players I don't think have the creativity to look beyond the mechanical result.
The dice can guide the story, but it doesn't have to dictate it. The dice are there to add elements of random chance to direct the story in ways you don't have to decide, not to force your characters into crappy stories.
While this is a truism, I think players differ on what is or is not a "crappy story." I mean, people really like the Twilight series, for example.
What other storytelling medium has 134 main characters.
Apparently, the Stranger Things series.
@faraday said in The Great PC Death Dilemma:
:raises hand:
To be fair to my point, though, you're one in a million.
@Arkandel said in The Great PC Death Dilemma:
At that point, yes, I'd argue the game had been aimed toward the 'max level'. However the effect that had, combined with death being quite possible (especially in nWoD rules where damage was so very bursty) was that most oldbies just didn't risk their characters.
Let me present a different perspective, as someone who very often gets a "max level" PC (because I tend to stick to one game for a long period of time, if I am there for over 3 months).
As an "oldbie," I was never adverse to losing my PC. I honestly have never met any player who said, flat-out: "I don't want to be involved in this because my PC might die." I have stuck many of my WoD PCs, like Maddy (Echoes in the Mist), Clarice (Fallcoast / Fate's Harvest), and Shrike ( ... gah, it was that Mage game) into very deadly situations where they could have gotten gacked easily. And I did this whenever I could because their stories pushed in that direction.
The key term there is "whenever I could".
If I, as a player, am unable to get into plots that could result in my PC's death, then the fact that I seem to avoid risk is a matter of scheduling. It is also a matter of there being a lot of other folks out there who are maxed out or whose power level exceeds my PC's powerhousing their way through a plot (because my PCs -- yes, even Shrike -- tend to be stealth-avoidance tropes). I therefore often find the argument that Dino PCs are risk-adverse to be erroneous.
So I think it is a better policy to:
Under such systems or policies, player-motivation is no longer a factor, in my opinion.
@Derp said in The Great PC Death Dilemma:
PC Death doesn't make the game better. If anything, you're going to end up driving off players who won't take any action because they're risk-averse.
I agree with you, but I don't think that is the dilemma described, even if Ghost insists on returning to it. I think the question is better framed as whether players should have absolute agency over loss.
In jurisprudential terms (which I know you'll love), I would say that players should have a qualified immunity from loss that is waived in cases where they demonstrate a wanton disregard for consequences.
People should be rewarded for investment and loyalty. Period. If new players want to catch up to the older players they can either wait until the natural cycle of attrition takes them there or be more active to get more incentives.
Character growth isn't the only reward for time investment and loyalty, and that shouldn't be overlooked either. Capping XP isn't about allowing new PCs to catch up; it is about keeping power levels at a point where participation is reasonable for all.
If a PC makes it to a cap, that's great. A player can choose to keep playing or retire (but still retain control of the story of) the PC for posterity or into an NPC-ship (which again they retain control of). Reaching the highest level of WoW or Horizon Zero Dawn doesn't make playing the game any less enjoyable, unless you like the challenge of playing at a lower level. And if you do, then I don't see what the problem is capping XP.
As I have said in the past (several hundred times it feels like) a game can also move the cap upwards if enough players get their PCs there. And at that point the scope of the game can change. But I don't support XP caps just so new players can play "catch-up"; I support them because film noir stories are far less interesting when the "good guys" can obliterate villains with a sneeze.
@Ghost said in The Great PC Death Dilemma:
What DO you do about games and RP systems where "dinosaur characters" are able to simply continue to amass XP with over-the-top RP and zero fear of death/repercussions (as if playing a video game in "god" mode where you can go on a 5-star GTA rampage and simply never die)?
I generally lose interest with these games. If I wanted to just be a witness to others' greatness, I'd rather waste my time watching pro-wrestling. There's little else for me to do about it as a player.
Were I to run a game, however, I can think of a dozen strategies to implement so that this does not become an issue. The first is that you cannot deny consent to a staff-run scene or its outcome.
How do you make it so that PCs actually have RISK as a factor without requiring it to be an OOC matter?
Again, a game owner is the ultimate arbiter of the outcome of any scene. A player may be able to deny another player's attempt to control their destiny, but a game owner has the larger responsibility of maintaining a game environment that is appealing to a wide audience. With the situation you described, the "easy fix" would be to have staff step in to stop the ridiculousness and impose repercussions.
Sure, you might piss off a handful of players with such deliberate, heavy-handed action; however, consider the countless others who are thankful that they are not beholden to the actions of a small group of assholes hiding behind an ill-conceived policy to shield themselves from reasonable consequences.
How do you encourage the retiring of PCs that have so much XP they're spending it on "specialty: basket-weaving" because they're maxed out and hanging around with zero risk of failure/end without consenting to it?
You don't. I would impose an XP cap, but otherwise allow players to adjust their maxed-out PCs' stats as they develop so as to better reflect their recent histories.
@Macha said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:
I had to have his appointment moved up. He's stopped eating, and he's been vomiting up when he does eat. So tomorrow is now the day, and I am not ready for this. I feel like the worst Mom ever. I feel like I've failed.
The goal of every parent, I think, is to ensure that their children have been loved and cared for to the best of that parent's ability, not to be perfect or provide perfection.
If you have done this, then you have succeeded.
So, if I look at the events depicted in the episode less as a representation of truth and more as a mirror that contains multiple clashing paradigms in an almost ironic way, it's a lot more interesting (and forgivable for its dramatic edginess).
I want to interject only to put my own comments in on the "edginess" of that episode.
For 1989, the story isn't "edgy": it's Orwellian-provocative. All of what I believe most people deride as "unnecessarily edgy" was at some point novel and, with this story, we are viewing one of the very first of such darkness in a modern fantasy setting. I have often derided works as being "edgy for the sake of edginess" when what I mean to say is "this has been done before and therefore has lost its edge in my experience."
Tritely, when my partner watched the series with me, her first comment was "looks like they really wanted to borrow from Twilight" and it was all I could do not to choke her.
In my mind, impulse control is derived from truth, and the question 'what is it you truly want?' .... rather than human beings acting like slaves to basic instincts.
The fact we are having this conversation right now suggests to me that this episode did exactly what it was calculated to do.
I am not sure if you have appreciated the nuance of the question in relation to how John was able to compel what occurred.
Wanting people to be truthful all the time is not a bad thing. Wanting people to be truthful to one another is a noble ambition. But compelling them to do so against their will is tyranny, the product of which is hardly ever a good thing.
That said, I enjoyed it. Then again, I grew up around the time when Gaiman's work was just getting noticed, and I undoubtedly have a cynical, if not jaded, view of the hypocrisy and lies that pervade all of our interpersonal relationships.
Like, episode 5 dark?
I must be the only person in the world who didn't find Ep. 5 terribly dark.
Which might say a lot about who I am, I suppose.
That’s a good way to put it.
But, I mean, there were points where I was thinking: “what sort of lazy DMing is this?”
And as an English major: “why did this happen to this character?”
It was like watching The Rise of Skywalker, except knowing that there is probably going to be another season of long-ass episodes and shit writing.
Man, Stranger Things 4’s ending did not work for me.
Well, onto The Sandman.
I am good with that. I suppose I see her as I see her because that’s how I first got to know her.
Honestly, Anne Heche is kind of -- well, no, she really is my favorite gay icon from back in the 90s.
I have no idea what this game is about, but it sounds pretty cool.
