Posts made by HelloRaptor

Same here. Masquerade was my first WoD MU*, around the same time, @DarkDeleria. Then on to Texas Twilight and a host of other insanity.

If you're presenting this as a large part of your PCs thing in the IC world but make it OOCly clear that you won't abide any RP that might address the hooks presented, especially if it's overtly sexual, and there's not much else that appears left over in terms of hooks, it leaves the other player at something of a loss.

If something is listed as a hook, but they don't want to RP about it, that would be strange. The only thing I read in your post, though, was people using sexualized PCs who don't TS.

If a PC has, say, 'Prostitute - This character is known to be one, but I don't engage in TS.' in their wiki I don't see why it's substantially different than 'Hit Man - This character is known to be one, but I don't go after PCs.' or 'Bodyguard - This character has worked for X, Y, and Z NPCs, as a bouncer at this club, but I won't take IC jobs guarding PCs as the time constraints are too awkward.' or really anything else.

The PC is still a prostitute, or escort, or just a super promiscuous person, they just aren't RPing through the bump and grind. The PC is still able and willing to murder faces, just not those of other PCs. Etc. In any of those cases, and so many others, those hooks still exist to play off of. If you can't see why someone would want to play any of those things with those caveats, or how you would engage a character without crossing those lines with them, I'm not really sure what to say. Aside from all the stuff I already did.

Does this make it hopefully clearer what I meant?

It does at the very least make you sound way, way less creepy, yes. I get what you're saying, I just don't know why it's the stumbling block it appears to be to you.

@Coin said:

@HelloRaptor said:

@Coin said:

@HelloRaptor said:

I'm more than a little weirded out by the fact you seem to think that softcore pics of a sexual PC are ok if the player is going to engage in TS, but not if they aren't.

Srsly.

It just reads like "How dare you get my hopes up and then not follow through on my expectations!"

And also a little like, "having a sexualized PB entitles me to approach you for sexual roleplay".

Unfortunate implications abound.

As long as there's a statement of preference to the contrary, sure.

@Coin said:

@HelloRaptor said:

I'm more than a little weirded out by the fact you seem to think that softcore pics of a sexual PC are ok if the player is going to engage in TS, but not if they aren't.

Srsly.

It just reads like "How dare you get my hopes up and then not follow through on my expectations!"

@Arkandel said:

@Thenomain said:

I have come to hate the Apple Store.

N.b., I am loving my new MacBook Pro.

... Stockholme syndrome?

I haven't looked at this thread in like a month, so missed this, and I just had to reassure @Arkandel that I did actually laugh out loud. Just the once, but still.

Don't let Thenomain's humorless disapproval weigh you down!

@7wonders

The wiki goes on to say that the PC loves to nail anything with a pulse in game but the out of game information goes on for several paragraphs how they don't TS so don't ask and don't try and don't even look at my PC like that.

Maybe for the same reason people play murderous assholes or other potentially high violence types of characters and then put OOC disclaimers about how they (we, because I've had to do this) aren't looking for or interested in PVP/PK situations so please don't feel you need to avoid the character out of fear of such.

Sometimes the OOC impression given, or the one people are going to get regardless of intentions, is the wrong one and clarification is needed.

Don't want TS? That's cool, a lot of people aren't that into it. Playing a PC whose sexual exploits are all FTB, offscreen fun times? No problem here! But why then would you make this way sexualized wiki with soft core (or sometimes hard core) skin shots only to vehemently and often combatively make it known that you refuse TS on a blanket level? Wouldn't telling people on your PC wiki page that your PC likes to love their fellow man a lot without all the over the top visual aids just uh, be enough?

...what difference does whether or not someone wants to TS make on the kind of pics they use? Wiki pictures are there to aid in visualizing a character. If somebody wants to play a hyper-sexualized character who fucks around with 90% of the people they meet, and the other 10% just happen to be PCs, a very sexualized wiki is still just as appropriate as it would be otherwise.

I'm more than a little weirded out by the fact you seem to think that softcore pics of a sexual PC are ok if the player is going to engage in TS, but not if they aren't.

@Tempest
I'm not sure how things like can't or "need* come into it. You don't need a PB with blue eyes, even if your character has blue eyes. You could just mention it somewhere. But people still photoshop blue eyes onto the PB they want to use. Or whatever other details.

Presumably if they're going out of their way to use pictures, they're meant to evoke something about the character, whether it's direct appearance or a suggestion of behavior/demeanor.

Hell, people don't need a PB pic at all. Or if they do, they don't need more than one, but plenty of people (myself included) certainly seem to like having a gallery.

If you don't like sexually suggestive pictures on people's wiki pages, more power to you. I don't think that makes you a prude at all, just someone who'd prefer it was otherwise. But criticizing wiki picture choices by saying they just can't do without or that they don't need to be one way or another is pretty presumptuous.

DISCLAIMER: I once had a shirtless pb pic.

Is anybody else fucking around with this? I started messing with it on Friday around 4pm and I think I've probably put like 20 hours into it. It's like Minecraft only with better graphics. And less stuff you can build, but hopefully give it time. >_>

why don'we just add something to whatever log template we're using where we can put a rating on it?

Because rating systems are stupid and don't work for shit? See the difference between PG-13 and R today, and between either and the same rating on movies a decade ago.

If people want to make assumptions about what NSFW means beyond 'The person who tagged this figured you probably wouldn't want to get caught reading it at work.', fuck 'em.

@Derp said:

@Wizz said:

@Thenomain said:

@HelloRaptor said:

@Thenomain

Except that it's literally a machine.

In reading her comment back over I'd guess she means that if she had her way she'd strip the 'it is literally a machine' from it? Maybe.

You've got to stop flipping between super-literal and being forgiving of context. But yes, I agree. I was offering a gentle tweaking that she is basically re-writing the idea.

I'm coming back with page references and all that later (...probably), but I'm actually like 87% certain @Ganymede is right. I remember reading through a chapter in Demon that explained the God Machine isn't like a literal physical machine somewhere in the bowels of the earth or deep space or whatever, but basically the sum of all of the output from all the occult matrices running across the face of the planet.

Like 87% certain.

It's somewhat contradictory. It does make reference to the fact that the God Machine is really a machine that is embeddd into all of reality, complete with gears and the whole nine yards and so big it can enfold space into itself. I don't think it really ever gives a complete definition that isn't contradictory, but they often do that on purpose to give the St something to use as mystery fodder.

There's also this, which I was reminded of at talk of Angels, after mentioning that the God-Machine is entirely native to the material world, built from mechanisms, blah blah blah:

GMC pg 217
When angels are reused, they spend the downtime “resting,” dormant, in storage facilities hidden by the very deepest Infrastructure. Sometimes, cultists and prying outsiders who witness the gears catch glimpses of these facilities — cavernous chambers folded neatly into impossible spaces, filled with hydraulics, gears, and the hissing of machines surrounding the angels while keeping them fed with Essence. They’re always guarded.

Just to add to the pile.

@Thenomain

I do prefer that it not be responsible for the modern monotheistic religions that feature angels and demons, but for reasons that my Atheist ass cannot immediately explain, probably having to do with free will.

For me it smacks of the same irritating bullshit that came about with Changeling in owod: Yes, there's already a fae realm, there's already fae, there's already rules for interacting with it. But we're going to ignore the shit that already exists because FAERIES.

Whatever people think about it, there's already info, playable characters, etc tied to demons in Possessed. Angels and Demons already had an (admittedly shitty) entry in books for the system.

"Play our new game, featuring fallen ANGELS as DEMONS! Except not the demons we've already covered. And not really angels or demons at all, except that we'll call them that and they totally act like it and look like it but it's not that other set of demonic things, it's totes different."

They could have called it pretty much anything else at all and saved me about fifty pounds of derision any time it gets brought up.

@Bobotron

Yeah, I can't believe I didn't mention Penguin. Dude is awesome.

@Bobotron said:

@Three-Eyed-Crow
Gotham is good. You just have to look at it as a reboot/retool of the Batman mythos and origin point, not nitpick it with comic comparisons.

Gotham is awesome, and probably captures the feel of its setting better than any other show on the market outside of Daredevil. Everyone who is someone is so incredibly spot on who they're supposed to be (Dent, Cat, Gordon, etc). And seing kid Bruce Wayne as some borderline autistic savant with virtually no social skills outside of cause and effect (which is not at all like adult Bruce Wayne but absolutely like adult Batman), all of them are pretty much exactly perfect from where I'm sitting.

@Apollonius

I will say this. The almost eldritch nature of the Reapers in Mass Effect 1 got totally ruined by the Terminator baby in Mass Effect 2

Speak for yourself. That shit was boss.

and got shit on by the Star Child in Mass Effect 3.

Enh. While I was displeased with the sudden Choose Your Own Adventure simplicity of the ending and its choices (especially in the original cut), the sequence leading up to it with the kid didn't bother me. Though the Architect sequence in Matrix was fine with me too, so. >_>

@calm said:

@Three-Eyed-Crow said:

This is not what the Confederate flag means to everyone...

WHAT?? YEAH!

I feel like Calm's point deserves to be underscored: Dont start no shit, wont be no shit!

(OKAAAY!!!!)

@Derp
The swastika is a symbol of good fortune in various belief systems, not specifically a tribute to the murder of millions of Jews, but it's still probably a safe bet that if you run into a bald guy with a swastika stamped on his skin or clothes he's probably not a Greek history afficianado or a follower of Jainism.

It's entirely possible the guy in the pickup with the stars and bars splashed along its side is in fact merely showing off his southern pride and his discontent over government crackdowns on gun control and other things he views as his personal liberties, but it's also fair to say that he still qualifies for @The-Tree-of-Woe's list whether he understands the reaction his choice of symbolism provokes or not.

On the subject of the American civil war, it may have been about states' rights, but a prominent one of those rights (and the one most people care about now, frankly) was slavery, and everybody involved knew it. The north might not have officially gone to war to end slavery, but the south was absolutely fighting to keep it, so pretending the flag flown towards that end has nothing to do with it is exactly the sort of bullshit white-washing that has been talked about here.

Ah ha, written by a white woman. Makes sense. White people have notoriously bad senses of humor.

I was expecting way more funny.

What? No, this sounds perfect. I think I did play that character somewhere/anywhere/everywhere.

@Coin said:

@HelloRaptor said:

@Roz

I find that having a general game philosophy for larger scenes that becomes part of the culture.

I feel like maybe somebody mugged this sentence on the way to the board, maybe rifled through its pockets and stole a word or two. Is it just me?

No.

Monosyllabic is not usually a compliment, but in this case I'll allow it.