Posts made by Kanye Qwest

People need to learn a lot of things. Not sure how that's relevant to the actual world we inhabit, though.

I promise you that as long as you aren't getting mad at us, we won't get mad at you! Be as slow and reluctant about the coded systems as you like, our playerbase is very helpful and friendly, and Apostate literally doesn't burn out (I am less helpful as I also ignore the coded systems and thus can't answer questions very well). But as long as you have a positive attitude, we are down for it. We'll find an answer!

@Gilette Betty White is OLDER THAN SLICED BREAD!!

Battlestar University! All the fun of space hijinks and political intrigue, all the drama of trying to figure out which sorority to join and how to not get pregnant at a kegger!

@ixokai
People are talking about the cons of having a pose order/turn order widget coded in the game. No one's saying you are advocating those things.

@Arkandel I don't think it's at all relevant. I'm not advocating letting bad players spew bad behaviors all over a game, and I never will. Obviously.

So my objection wasn't that I preferred, instead, to cater to problem players. My objection was that I don't approve of anything that might enable problem players to start policing for themselves - and yes, I view anyone who will go off on someone in OOC for skipping pose order a problem player. I don't want to enable people to squash other peoples' fun. I want to encourage people to be accepting and tolerant and even MINDFUL of others' enjoyment.

So in this case, my suggestion would be to enact sane 'don't be a dick' rules, let hunters hunt NPC badguys, and ruthlessly kick anyone who can't calm the effin heck down and let people live.

@Arkandel said in Shadows Over Reno:

@Auspice said in Shadows Over Reno:

and why should we cater to problem players?

@Kanye-Qwest said in Shadows Over Reno:

@Auspice What a question.

Hmm. However in that pose tracking thread we were totally catering to problem players, just in reverse, by not offering legitimate perks to perfectly good players because the bad ones would maybe abuse them.

Why isn't that exactly the same thing?

You mean the Arx thread, in which I was stating the problems I see with having a game-tracked pose order?

Is this for serious? I mean, I'm hesitant to give a thought-out response because either I wasn't making myself clear in that thread, or you weren't actually reading my replies.

@Arkandel said in The Apology Thread:

Here's something to debate since we're into that.

We've had a big argument and you told me to fuck off and never contact you again!

Then I go and post an apology thread here addressing it to whom it may concern.

Is that okay or am I being a douche?

Douche!

Oh wait. let me read the situation you actually posited.

Douche! Huh, I mean that's fine. My instinct is to be rude.

@Auspice What a question.

@Auspice said:

@Miss-Demeanor

Oh, I wholly agree. Law gets the same issue. PCs can blatantly murder people in broad daylight and Law sphere is told 'oh just find a way to work around it' or to ignore it completely.

I get why Staff may sometimes be leery of PVP type situations, but you are entirely right. Supers can fux with Hunters, but not vice versa. Worse than that... on many games, Hunters aren't even allowed to use NPCs of the other spheres. So you can't, say, have Hunters deal with a pack of WW moving in on the area.

Yeah, I got told this the last time I tried to play a WoD game, as a hunter. Not even in small prps that are ONLY for my hunter friends, not allowed to hunt the same types of things that the game supports. I've had 100% underwhelming experiences trying to get into the WoD rp sphere, and this was the one that boggled my mind the most. "Oh but if you kill a vampire NPC in your story, some vampire PC might get mad!" Well..tell them not to? Tell them to mind their own business? Stay out of it when me and my hunter friends kill that vampire, too? I just feel there were so many options that would have left things open for EVERYONE to have fun, and none of them were the solution they went with.

Just, like - if I have to leave this dumb tiny Maine town to do any hunting, what in the name of FUCK are you putting forth as the plausible reason there are even hunters here? Like, what. The cells just all decided to move to a backwater, supernaturally infested hole...and then they just commute all over to do the actual hunting.

?

@Arkandel OR it would turn the players into ravening fun-policers, so ready to chastise someone for daring to step outside a pose order or do All the Things that they are willing to champion it for games they don't even play!*

*Like you, I'm talking shit on you, and what you're doing right now. In case that wasn't clear.

@Arkandel said:

@Apos Another case scenario would be this (also pretty common):

A, B and C are playing... it's A's turn.
C says OOC "hey, skip me for a few, cat's on fire".
A poses. B poses. A forgets about C being AFK by then and just waits.

Subcase: A skips C and poses, then B poses, then A doesn't know yet C is back so A poses again then C does... is that a new order (A, C, B) or does it go back to the old one? ANARCHY.

A system could clear these things up if it just let you know when it's your turn, and all you need to do is inform it when you're going AFK or are back in the rotation.

Or people could just be reasonable and respond to poses naturally, without hogging the screen.

I hate almost everything about pose order, from the people who 'discourage' you from stepping out of it (and this absolutely does happen, and I've never seen it done in a welcoming or inclusive way), to the way it means people pose these bloated 3 to 4 paragraph poses, trying to address everything that's been done or said since their last 'turn' to pose.

It's mostly the latter that bugs me the most, as it kills any narrative immersion and also makes it take like twenty minutes for people to pose.

I'm leery of this. I think it's fine for people who just want to follow a pose order, but as soon as someone gets chastised for NOT following a strict pose order, I'm much less ok with it.

@Thenomain said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@Kanye-Qwest said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@Ganymede said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@Kanye-Qwest said in Social Conflict via Stats:

But this isn't an all or nothing distinction. No one is reasonable all the time, and otherwise reasonable, pleasant (OOC) people will sometimes lose their shit and get very emotional and bent out of shape during any type of conflict - social OR physical.

Speak for yourself, sir.

Well I'm not speaking for the fuckin trees, here.

Leaf us alone.

I lol'd, gdi.

@Ganymede said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@Kanye-Qwest said in Social Conflict via Stats:

But this isn't an all or nothing distinction. No one is reasonable all the time, and otherwise reasonable, pleasant (OOC) people will sometimes lose their shit and get very emotional and bent out of shape during any type of conflict - social OR physical.

Speak for yourself, sir.

Well I'm not speaking for the fuckin trees, here.

@Arkandel said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@Miss-Demeanor said in Social Conflict via Stats:

But if we can't trust our fellow players then none of this really works. I don't want my IC social attempts to succeed if the other person hates it but is forced to go along, what's the point of that? How much fun is the scene going to be?

Bolded for emphasis. Your response suggests that any course of action where someone 'hates' the outcome should be avoided.

Oh, you misread it or I didn't explain it sufficiently. That's not at all what I was saying. I was saying if the person I am playing with will either cheat if he can or need to be brute-forced into accepting an IC action if he can't, then I don't want to play with them.

That kind of person will sabotage the outcome anyway so continuing the scene is a poison pill for my fun.

Systems can't fix bad people. They can only facilitate and improve interactions between the rest.

But this isn't an all or nothing distinction. No one is reasonable all the time, and otherwise reasonable, pleasant (OOC) people will sometimes lose their shit and get very emotional and bent out of shape during any type of conflict - social OR physical. And in some games, non consent games, you don't always get to pick who you interact with. Sometimes you have to go see X. Or deal with Y.

@surreality said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@Thenomain said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@surreality said in Social Conflict via Stats:

Has anybody truly changed their minds about it?

Over time, Wora/Swofa/Wora/Soapbox and discussions with people I know has changed my mind on quite a lot. Most people may treat these forums like a donkey show,

Oh my goodness.

Definitely agreed. It's what I mean by 'we give by inches'

Oh my GOODNESS.

@Arkandel That all or nothing permanent social imperative success works in a tabletop setting but not so much in a MU imo. You have to, common sense, have some arbitration. Yes, social rolls should be abided by unless it goes counter to a core tenet of your character, or lasts forever and ever, etc. You're just going to have to mediate some situations.

Read title. Got super excited that this was a mush about Brak? Maybe Zorak? Maybe Moltar?

Disappointed. Bye.

I want a system where cooperating, where going along with what's happening and 'taking the loss' is incentivized. I like the idea of entering a social conflict, and letting people have 'rounds' where they can reinforce their initial positions by leveraging social resources. Then..I'm not sure, here's where feedback might be good.

Then, maybe whoever gives in first GETS the social resources that were 'bet' during the conflict? And in our game in particular, there's no way we'd be able to let someone use a player on player social conflict vehicle to make someone do something permanently binding - such as swear an oath or sign a writ.