Posts made by Miss Demeanor

@tragedyjones I grew up reading Gen 13 and Witchblade.

@tragedyjones Because my favorite 'superheroes' come from Image?

Edit: Also, have an upvote for using Ryan Reynolds gif.

So we could potentially bring in characters from outside Marvel, provided they aren't super Godlike?

I've been enjoying it so far! It manages to stay interesting.

@Cadi If you're still in the first season... you're in for a looooooooooot of surprises. XD

@Wizz That was the thing about Pentex, though. To the world at large, they were simply yet another all-encompassing global conglomerate. They made your cars, your clothes, your diapers, your utensils... but a lot of it was done through subsidiary companies (Umbrella Corp's predecessor!). It wasn't a world of all things Pentex stamped on the label. They were being sneaky and underhanded about it. When it became the 'Captain Planet Villian' is when it became Werewolves fighting against Pentex. Largely because the Werewolves were the chosen protectors of the Wyld (Planeteers of Gaia, anyone?), and Pentex was Dr. Blight, Verminous Skumm, Duke Nukem, Hoggish Greedly, Zarm, Looten Plunder, and Sly Sludge (yes I'm that goddamn nerdy) all rolled into one, slowly trying to corrupt the world for the Wyrm. So yeah, your pack would run off to try and put a stop to Some Subsidiary LTD. that was dumping toxic runoff into the local water supply because it made the company more money (Hi Hoggish!). But then you maybe got a clue, that there was some further evil superpower behind Greedly Enterprises that was really running the show for some as-yet unknown reason. I mean the entire premise of pretty much anything cWoD can be summed up using 80s/90s cartoons and teen-oriented tv series. I could make a case for it being too 'X-Men', too 'Transformers', too 'Insert 80s/90s Cartoon Name Here' based off a broad glance at the theme. Its a game meant for teens and young adults that was concocted in the 90's, it draws the vast majority of its influence from the pop culture of the day. Its going to have very obvious similarities to the popular shows of the day that influenced its creation. All the cWoD splats have them. Even Mage of the day was basically Shadowrunner if everyone in the game was capable of using magic to enhance themselves and their surroundings. Changeling was very Fraggle Rock/Zelda: Adventures of Link/Gummi Bears/etc. Vampire was Beverly Hills 90210/Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Angel/etc. You can't really get away from it themewise in cWoD. Its a game of its time.

I can't speak to the Changeling hybrid since I never played Dreaming... I do like the idea of meshing crunchy rulesets and mechanics from CoD with themes and settings from cWoD. I miss Pentex. I miss having a very prominent Big Bad that united people under a single cause. The Wyld, Wyrm, Weaver triad was interesting, but not nearly so much as the more visceral Good vs Evil struggle of Werewolves vs Pentex. The fact that Pentex was the Umbrella Corp. of its day made it all the better. It was EVERYWHERE, the Taint permeated almost everything to some degree. You had a tangible enemy to struggle against. Whether you won or lost, there was something that needed to be done!

@Warma Sheen I don't think any (or at least many) of us are saying that players should be allowed to be shits. That's a problem with staffing at the top level, however. If the players are being allowed to be shits, that's because nobody is tossing their shitty ass out the door. Staff should still be held to the standards set for the game... but so should the players. If the players are being given too much leeway, look to the top.

@Ganymede I can agree to disagree. I honestly don't think you, or most of the people commenting on this thread, are the ones that anyone would have to worry about abusing the situation. But there are people that would, and I would just rather nip as much of it in the bud as possible before it becomes an issue.

Edit to add: This particular issue isn't even necessarily a deal-breaker to me. I would still play on a game where the rule didn't exist, or was more flexible. I just wouldn't likely staff on such a game to save myself the headache of dealing with the inevitable jackasses.

@surreality I'm not suggesting its universal. Obviously it does happen at some games, @Ganymede just related a story where it was allowed. I'm saying that it is a rule on games that currently exist, and those games aren't losing anything by leaving that rule in place. Nowhere in my statement did I say all people or all games.

@Ganymede I would have told you to use an NPC as the victim. I get that you didn't gain anything from it, I understand that. But you opened the door for others to use their own PC's in plots they're running by doing so. And the next person may not be as self-sacrificing as you were there. So yes, I would rather censure you over your one little thing than let it go and wait for the little things to snowball into a big thing.

@Ganymede said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

@Miss-Demeanor said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

Given that the staffing pool is already shallow, I don't think anyone is surprised.

And blind, rigid adherence helps this situation how?

A. Not blind. Just because I choose to adhere to the rules doesn't mean I don't see the other side of it. I've just seen what happens when the pebble kicked down the hill starts a rockslide. I choose to avoid that altogether by saying 'no' to people have more than one character in a scene, whether NPC or PC, staff or player.

B. Rigidly adhering to the rules sets a good precedent for other rules to be rigidly adhered to. Given how big a deal perception is in this hobby, I prefer to err on the side of caution rather than open myself to the endless bullshit of assholes wanting to get away with stupid shit.

C. People are already staffing under the inability to have their PC in scenes that they're running. People are already playing under the inability to have their PC in scenes they're running. We're not losing anything by continuing to disallow it, and I seriously doubt we would be gaining enough by allowing it that would be worth the bullshit that would have to be dealt with.

Given that the staffing pool is already shallow, I don't think anyone is surprised.

@Ganymede I don't know you from a hole in the ground, so yeah, I'm implying that you would. I have no history with you that would suggest you wouldn't, I'm not one of your friends to trust that you wouldn't. Its a rule, and you're a staffer. Without anything else to base it on, I would presume that you as staff would uphold the rules of the game that you're running. Otherwise why would you have the rule in the first place?

You aren't special to me, so why would I treat you special and make an exception for you that I don't make for anyone else? You seem to be coming from a place of 'people trust me so I should be treated differently'. But I don't. I don't know you. I don't know anything about you other than what you've posted on these forums. So why should I trust you enough to bend rules for you? And before you say anything, yes there are people that I do trust enough to do it... and I still don't bend the rules for them. If you feel you're missing out because you chose to staff? Step down. Focus on your character. Be a player. If you want to contribute and staff? Suck it up, buttercup. You chose to staff, accept the give and take that comes with it.

@Kanye-Qwest Not really. What you'll find more often these days is people either bringing friends (people they trust) on to staff, or they have people apply for open positions and current staff will talk about the choices and try to determine if any of them are suitable to the position. I've been staff, but I've never held any significant role in any sphere that I've played in. So no, staff isn't always chosen from a pool of 'people the players trust already'.

@Kanye-Qwest Generally, if you're playing on a WoD game, you've run into every single one of these situations, if not the exact naming. WoD is not for the faint of heart, its a modern day supernatural horror theme, so if you (again, empirical) can't handle the terms and definitions of expected behavior being laid out on the wiki, you likely won't be able to handle the themes occurring within the game itself either. And I see it less as venting and more as someone finally sitting down and going 'this shit isn't cool so don't do it'. All the 'implied' behavioral contracts in the world cannot stand up against a hard and fast rule. Implied rules or expectations are subject to individual perceptions and feelings and can be swayed one way or another. A rule that's in place, spelled out, and given example is harder to worm around. So yeah, maybe it'll scare some folks away... but they're likely the people you don't want on your game in the first place. i.e. the ones abusing all those unspoken not-policies.

I actually really like how in-depth your policies page is about what is not acceptable behavior. Its too easy to let something that seems small initially just 'slip by' because you don't want to ruffle someone's feathers over 'just this one thing'. But that one thing can be indicative of behavior that you don't want on your game. That one thing could be just the tip of the iceberg. But if everyone thinks 'oh its just that one little thing', all of a problem person's 'one little things' will never be noted and shown to be a symptom of a much larger issue. I like that you're looking to provide examples of the behavior you don't want to see so people will have a better chance of recognizing it for what it is and can say something about it.

@Ganymede You're right. As a player, I have no authority to force any particular outcome in a scene, even if I have multiple characters in a given scene. The staffer does. So why should I give the staffer the leeway the player isn't allowed? As staff, you would have the authority to not only insist I remove one of the characters from the scene, but to enforce a punishment on me for disobeying. Yet you want to be exempt from that rule yourself when it comes to your own character. And that 'I can't reasonably extract' reason a load of bullshit. As I have been told many times by staffers when I'm put into a difficult position... sometimes you have to use OOC sense over IC logic. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to extend a trust and courtesy to staff PC's that staff aren't willing to extend to player PC's.

@Ganymede I'm addressing specifically scenes where a staffer is running a prp for their own character in that post. That said. I've actually had this come up as a staffer, and personally? I declined the accompany them (for reasons), but my character gave them the names of a few others that would be happy to accompany them on that mission. OOCly I explained that I felt uncomfortable with bringing my character along on a scene that I would be running and that I thought it was a good idea for them to bring others along. It gave them a reason to meet and form connections with a few other PC's and removed me from potential CoI.

My overall feeling is this... if you cannot, by rules, have two of your own PC's in the same scene? Then you should not have your PC actively participating in a scene that you are running. Even though the NPC's are NPC's? They're still characters under your control, and it behooves you to adhere to the policies of the game. If you're going to be deeply involved in running the NPC's, then where is the difference between running the NPC's and your own PC, and running two PC's in the same scene? I've seen staff that treated their NPC's like PC's, to the point of protecting them from PC's after blatantly fucking up. How am I supposed to give the leeway for one type of scene but not the other just because X is staff and Y isn't?

I have something that niggles at me about running a scene for your own character and I'm trying to find a way to put it that doesn't sound accusatory, because I don't think anyone here is actively doing this.

If you are a sphere lead, or headstaff, someone that's a leader even among staff... there's an inherent perception issue with running one's own plots for your character. Namely... if you put in a job to gain approval for a scene that you are running for your character... who is going to tell you no if there's something in that pitched prp that's 'too much'? At that point, you're the one in charge. Who's going to risk angering 'the boss' by telling them they're going too far? Its definitely a bit more sticky of a situation than when 'just a player' is asking for a prp.

(Using the empirical you in this case, again, I don't think anyone here is doing this, but I've found it's a relatively common perception when someone in charge is asking for something for their own character.)