Posts made by Misadventure

Does limiting anything like other Auspice Gifts work? For instance (aka eg), would it work to say that you can have say 5 other Auspice Gifts, plus one per special event, where the special event is something that's not a personal PrP to get the gift?

Or will be cry that they can't have the build they want? Or that its dinosaurs all the way down? Or that it's staff favoritism?

Is there any way to protect the niches built into the games, or should we assume a laisez-faire design intent, and of course if you have 200 beats you should be able to buy whatever you want?

Robert Palmer approves?

Does it ever stop being "Hey we have a problem, and there is this hidden science that can fix it, at least briefly" every episode?

I dunno, I wasn't discussing fair in any form.

I was discussing decision making with an intent to actually have a positive, functional effect.

And AGAIN, functionality. IF staff are actually going to use a BG then great, have at it. Staff rarely do, and if they aren't going to I am suggesting you not require more than they will use, AND that they not penalize anyone for failing to write a bunch of text no one will read.

IF, THEN.
IF NOT, THEN NOT.

waving of arms and screaming in Kermit frustration for comedic effect

MEANWHILE would this new game allow player run and designed missions? I've heard those do really well in cyberpunk/shadowrun type setups.

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.

Again, if it's not going to be used, it is serving no purpose save a barrier to play. If the player will get use out of it, or if other players will get use out of it via IC investigation or Player as StoryTeller, great. Otherwise I see no point to it.

No need to convince me about lack of STs etc, I am aware. I am focused on functionality.

I like BGs. I like having events to point to about why they act as they do, and so on, as illustrated above by many examples.

I do not like staff asking for anything in a BG that they won't use. You need my Sire's name so you can announce me or let people research me, great. Wanna know what my greatest atrocity is to gauge where I the player may draw OOC lines, as well was where the PC draws theirs? Good idea.

If you aren't going to use it, not much point to require it. Plenty of folks will lay out all sorts of stuff, but it will be to suit their needs in regards to setting the character in their own mind.

Other than Cobaltasaurus.

Is it using a known game system?

I am now inspired to find a way to reskin Don't Rest Your Head for actual MLP.

OR you could have some plucky volunteers opt to run SF as their setting. Keep the tools, policies and house rules, but otherwise never interacting directly.

She is married, sir!

Good day!

Down with WoD, up with Victoriana!

flees

For a really simple set of fantasy rules, old school play style, Microlite20 is a pretty solid simplification of D20 3.5. The main rules fit on a page. There are full conversion lists for spells and monsters, and plenty of extra classes if desired. There are also optional spell casting systems, to use with or instead of the base system. Spell points, health points, Vancian casting, build a spell, runes its all in there. And tons of write ups for various game settings. FREE. 2000+ pages (repetitious) pages.

Too sim.

You'll end up with setups where they record all conversations and have language processors spot the interesting stuff, and players will stop using it. Anything involving constant vigilance, such as guarding things, should be turned into a game system based contest. If you don't trust your players to OOCly be honest, then your listening system would be used fully for lies, and they'd communicate in other ways.

Apparently clique as a word is neutral about exclusion. Exclusive or abusive cliques are at a minimum not helpful, or unhealthy and destructive.

I suspect VK wants a place not made up of a bunch of exclusionary cliques, but I asked just to be sure.

Could you be more specific than clique? That's a group of friends who play together. I can't think of any place that forbids that or has a set up that won't have that gathering happening.

I see how it id, C.

Ditcher.

Fix the thread title!

I'm sorry.

CP2020 was highly equipment/cybernetics/deck oriented. The basics were you have skills and attributes, you add those up, roll a d10 and that's your result for a test. Gear and situation modifiers applied. Stats and skills cost in an increasing scale. Classes/archetypes had a class skill that added to specific rolls, so anyone could become a solid shooter or negotiator, but the class types would usually excel in their areas. It had decent armor and damage mechanics.

They had Humanity to measure how close to going nuts you were because of how much of you was cybernetics. It was a purely game balancing consideration, since you are already playing murderhobos.

Some of the third party source books expanded on Humanity loss, making it support other ideas and being more specific, similar top comparing Morality in White Wolf products to Madness Meters from Unknown Armies.