Controversial posts made by Misadventure

@Theno: Good effort, but I was so far out in left field that what I was saying couldn't make sense.

@coin That phrase, you're literally(1) using it wrong(2). More specifically, what you hoped to achieve was the most important part of my posting. However, other than the extraordinary requirement that people make a specific introductory paragraph for any detail or topic outside of something someone else has posted is unrealistic, and unnecessary, talking about a misunderstanding of a misunderstanding is unlikely to be productive at this time. Hopefully you didn't have something deeply valuable to say to me.

(1) This is humor about the newly defined meaning of literal as being both literal and figurative. It acknowledges both the shifting values for language and how badly that process can go astray.

(2) Perhaps you mean I was begging the question, or otherwise laying a semantic trap? That is not passive aggression. That you conflate the label with something you should in fact ignore makes this doubly so. Just something for you to consider.

@Alzie

@Lithium

@glitch Certainly not, unless you want to have a progression of purposeful conversation. If @coin wanted no effect and no reply, mia culpa. People can ignore stuff as desired.

Again: you trust someone to kill you on screen, but not after you have GIVEN UP A CHARACTER?

With that attitude, you can't trust any staffer, ever, and you shouldn't play anywhere where there are staff, good or bad.

Wow, there were bad staff, somewhere. If you didn't trust them to kill you onscreen, then you shouldn't have played there. Don't play where you don't trust staff to not kill you randomly, or out of OOC spite. I'm sorry if you bought into a place then suffered under bad staff. Bad staff are bad staff, not Bad Staff had a policy, ergo that policy must be bad.

We aren't talking offscreen nukes. We are talking characters that are not going to be picked up again. I am personally all for allowing character storage, aka vacation. But if you are done, and can't bother to write yourself out in a sane fashion, someone should, as a service to those players left behind.

DON'T PLAY UNDER BAD STAFF, and if you do accept that you made it possible for them to be shitty to you by doing so.

No, actually I was giving the posters a chance to you know, describe there game instead of spending how many posts failing to do so then being insulting. NO, not all super hero games use descriptive traits, and those that do use a variety of approaches (descriptive, or by examples).

Nice top see the snark is strong. Guess you only want people who already play super hero trait based games, and who know exactly how hard or not your app process is. Ever heard of people complaining about having to write and rewrite and rewrite paragraphs to describe a common and well known trait of a FC (let alone a OC, good luck there), on MOST HERO GAMES, until a staffers particular view of the character, or you as a player of that character, Are met?

Everybody who plays comic-fu and most who don't are aware that trait based super hero games are famous for being difficult this way.

So again, if the player gets no value out of it for characterization, and no one else is going to use it, WHY?

This is exactly the situation where your incentive is punishment.

Player A writes stuff, learns about character, plays well. Player B doesn't write stuff, plays well. Player A has more XP than Player B.

This makes no sense. The only context where the reward of XP makes sense, is the one where XP are being offered for doing something, whether it helps you or not. It's self referential.

You'd be better served by allowing folks to get an incentive for revealing in an interesting way their character history or motivations to other players, in play. IC conversation, narrative if that suites the players tastes, whatever.

Incentivize the behavior you want, which is characters that are thought out and expressed to other players. Your written BG guarantees nothing about expressing it to others, wastes some players time, and acts as a punishment to those who DON'T NEED IT.

Or do it your way.

Mmm, children as chattel.

Owe the Church one son, owe my land one son, owe the troops a son. Pay for peace, pay for land, pay for trade with daughters.

I am fairly sure that players who are savvy realize they won't really be using the rules where ever they go.

Change your requirements to "has strong performance in the specific areas desired for this position". It is perfectly okay to tell a nice person, who writes up their actions, does +jobs, is easy to get along with, and who does nice small scenes that the position needs someone who is strong with large public scenes, or strong with creating and maintaining antagonism between minion factions. Same with Staff. You can be good at many parts, but not strong at a specific aspect of a given role.

For example I like to think I am good at reviewing rules, doing +jobs once I am set up with notes etc (shush Arkandel), have decent ethics, and patience to explain things to players, and a willingness to deal with unpleasant tasks. However I am not strong at playing NPCs to generate long term RP. I would be a terrible choice for a ST or head ST position.

I suspect that part of the issue is that sometimes it's this person, or nothing. That lends strength to the whole inexperience and concern about telling someone that is otherwise a decent person to work with that you need someone who excels in an area, not just can limp along.

So Vampires and Mages (No, not mages, maybe Proximi or whatever they are called) VS ogres and dragons and evil empires?

Sorta Exalted.

Seriously, get your own thread for your booze photos.

Other than Cobaltasaurus.

Important thing about theory of mind stuff: others don't have to think like you, so listen to what they have to say about their state. Be aware that where they arrive will not be where you do given a specific set of inputs.

In short, just because it baffles you doesn't mean don't pay attention. Rather it means that everyone needs to get the idea that no one can easily predict how everyone will react to anything.

Explain why after I say I misunderstood something it needed to be repeated that I wasn't on the same page?

Explain why after /I/ mention something, it needs to be stated that no one else did?

What were either things hoping to achieve? Did I stutter? Do I lack the "authority" to bring up something on my own?

Sure, I'll do it in message so it doesn't offend people.

Then you have trust issues.

You trust your staff with killing your PCs while you are actively playing them, but not once you've given them up? That is some fucked up shit right there.

Characters have an impact on setting. The more integrated with that setting they are, the more they need to be dealt with once the player gives up control. That can mean anything from being a name on a list, to being used as a NPC, to yes, dying.

Again, don't play there. Or anywhere where there is staff. No one wants to deal with your paranoia.