Best posts made by Sunny

@surreality
Yeah; that's pretty much my number one priority. I want it all to be 'look, it was on the tin' when there are inevitably issues. I'm sort of extra attentive about it because I know damn well that my vision is not going to universally appeal. EVERYONE is happier if people can figure out whether they want to play or not BEFORE they have the time invested. Differing expectations are a huge huge huge huge huge problem with mushes.

@Thenomain

I don't think going into it in depth here is helpful to anyone, really; once we've got everything nailed down better it's worth folks poking at it to see what results, but I agree that it's topic drifting a little right now. Plus I'm prone to rambling when things are still fluid like they are. Once I have everything organized and presentable I'll toss it up on the forum for you to look at. Hopefully (good lord hopefully) it'll be a little clearer how I'm planning to accomplish what I'm after. It's very much based on the whole 'reward the behavior you want to see' deal.

@Derp

Defensive too, I see. It’s funny ribbing when you do it to friends. It’s just weird and rude to step on someone trying to comfort someone else by putting emphasis on part of it to make it seem bad. I mean, you do you, but I was trying to be nice to someone dealing with an actual issue, and you wandered by and spit on us. And you freak out because I dared point out it’s rude? Ok...

ETA: Also, one does not have to be upset to say something about something, and your assumption that I am upset because I pointed out your rudeness is also problematic.

@Cobaltasaurus

Looking good.

@Derp said:

@Sunny said:

@Derp said:

@Sunny said:

To keep the game at a power level that fits with the campaign that I will be running while still allowing a very generous number of ways to earn experience.

This is not going to do what you think it's going to do.

Yes, it actually is.

Alright, then. If this is the intended goal, then I have to think you're just bad at game design, and shall choose not to play there.

Everyone wins, then.

How in the world do you figure this? Your methodology relies on the idea that characters who hit a certain amount of xp 'level up' in some fashion.

No, it doesn't. Even a little bit.

A character that has 200xp invested in Contacts and Retainers is in a world different place than a character that has 200xp dedicated to fighting styles and combat skills.

This is correct. But a 200 XP contacts and retainers character is vastly different than a 400 XP contacts and retainers character. I'm not sure how you seem to be missing this distinction. I can see how you can make the case that experience isn't the only measure of a character's power level -- build matters -- but to say that the number of experienced involved has nothing to do with it is absurd. Seriously. The premise you seem to be working with is ridiculous.

It just doesn't work that way, and you're treating the system as if it does, which is at best naive and at worst shortsighted.

No, I'm not treating the system as if it does. What I am doing is making experience easy to earn while still placing an upper limit so that power level doesn't grow ridiculously out of control.

Experience level does not relate to power level.

This is incorrect.

See above.

Man. 5 is less than 10. Seriously.

This is how tabletop works.

And you think that's it's not going to work that way in a MU?

No, I'm saying that it's not actually a major problem. It happens all the time in tabletop, where earning 100 XP in one year (presuming a monthly game) would be a ridiculous thought at all. People will have to actually make choices about what is important for their character, and what direction they take it. This is not actually a bad thing.

That the two are so magically different that something you would see in one can't happen in the other? Are you new here?

Are you just stupid? My point was that it happens in tabletop and it's not the end of the world. I literally said the opposite of what you're claiming here. Put down the crack, son.

If you're not looking for equality, then what the hell is the point of your xp cap?

Limiting the upper level of power.

Again, going back to the first statement, not only does this not do what you think it's going to do,

How does it not limit the upper level of power?

I'm not even sure that you're aware of what you want it to do in the first place, given that your premises contradict each other.

No, your premises contradict one another. You're off on the moon talking about equality; I'm over here talking about the upper limit.

WoD is not World of Warcraft.

No, but it is an online game that has lots of people trying to play in a shared world.

If that's the way you want it to work, try the D20 World of Darkness, Monte Cook's version. This is going to solve a lot of your issues.

No, it sounds like it would solve a lot of your issues, though.

I hear owls.

@Lotherio

I guess we're just too stupid for Ares, huh?

@derp

No, it was a genuine question, but thanks.

@Wretched said in The ADD/ADHD Thread (cont'd from Peeves):

ADHD and Relationships.

She is brilliant and so, so good at explaining, holy crap.

I think my issue with the "but you can turn it off in Ares..." line is...yes, yes, you can.

Ares does some things really, really, really, really, really well. First and foremost is the scene system, but it has a lot of really good features that are built into it and work really well with that scene system. Those things/features are what make Ares Ares -- they facilitate collaboration and a whole bunch of things down that road.

WHY would you use Ares and then turn all that off, instead of just using a tool that does the other thing natively?

Spying OOCly is bad. Period.

@Jeshin
Singular possessive always gets 's, regardless of the letter it ends with. Plural possessive may or may not get the s after the apostrophe, depending on the letter it ends with and a few other weird exceptions.

ETA: Key here is 'possessive', not just plural. Also this is seriously just formal business writing, I don't even notice this stuff in casual use (that is a lie, I notice, I just don't care).

@Misadventure

There are a lot of other things involved that are useful and helpful, and I'm absolutely not speaking to all of them. This isn't an all-encompassing list, but these were examples themselves, to illustrate the "you need clearly defined policies surrounding PRPs" as the #1 most important thing to have. It literally does not matter WHAT the policies themselves are, they just need to support your game and be clear.

As far as "what are my limits", I am speaking to policy limits. Is there a power level cap for antagonists? Are there theme issues that I am not allowed to use? Can I kill PCs? If there's limits or rules around what a PRP runner can or can't do, they need to be clear. If there AREN'T limits, that also needs to be clear.

I understand that the government has access to everything I do/say, and that there's no such thing as privacy on the internet.

I also prefer to not have the people I interact with on a daily basis reading over my shoulder because it's just awkward. The chances of the government giving a shit about what I write (and therefore, paying it mind) are a lot less significant than the chances of a game runner being pissed off that I told Susie in pages about how much the site sucks.

Do I have any guarantee of privacy on the internet? Nope. Do I prefer a game where the staff says 'we don't spy' and then behave in a fashion that allows for me to trust them? Yep. I won't play on a game where I'm told someone is planning on reading over my shoulder just randomly. Don't like it.

@arkandel

Yeah, me too. Ignore all gone.

Humans are tribal. It's basically instinct to arrange yourself via labels into groupings. It's actually really interesting; there's a good layman's explanation that floats about in reference to what's called the monkey sphere (based on how our brains are capable of recognizing X number of people as human beings and everyone else is 'other'). Not to condone peoples' behavior or anything, but when dealing with shit like 'Democrat vs Republican' it's most effective to approach it understanding why people react like that. Makes it easier to break through the noise.

@Apos said:

@Arkandel said:

What if we cheat? And include the BG checks as an audit instead of up-front?

I actually thought that's what you were proposing from the start and misunderstood, that CG would be essentially entirely automatic and you'd just retroactively tweak or remove problems that are thematically impossible/ooc problem children, since I figured that was much closer to your philosophy of a yes-first game. Imo I think you either do that, and go after problems hard after the fact which leaves most players totally alone, or you have a stringent version of CG that tries to catch problems before they arise but comes at the cost of being slow for the majority of players. I think the mushy (har) middle of most games with a pretty permissive approach that still doesn't catch/prevent problems isn't very helpful, so I'd just go to one of the two extremes.

I know I've chosen to go the no-approval system myself; we're doing a review thing, and then retroactively fixing as needed. The game's IC situation allows for this to be done without any worldbreaking, though.

@arkandel said in Hello MSBites! Grade your administrators.:

@sunny said in Hello MSBites! Grade your administrators.:

I'm tired of the way that I've been treated by both the mods and some key vocal posters. I'm not wanted here and I'm well aware of this fact (which should make it easier to just walk, but it doesn't).

I don't think there is anyone on the forum that I don't want to be around. It certainly isn't you.

Just because we've disagreed it doesn't mean you're unwanted. What good is MSB if it's an echo chamber?

Man, actions speak louder than words. It's not just my imagination, either. Even so -- if that IS the case -- I absolutely FEEL unwelcome because of the inconsistent enforcement of the rules. I would LOVE heavier moderation, even knowing I'm going to get smacked on the nose. Because I am. I get super snarky, and I'm sure I'd forget on occasion. Except I have zero faith that it would be consistently enforced, so the heavier moderation would smack me in the nose, while the people who are actively being mean to me...la la la, continue on their way.

I am one of the people that feels the way that @Ganymede mentioned: it is OK to heap BS in my direction, I am an acceptable punching bag, and for good fun the mods like to join in sometimes. Because they have. And it's NOT fun to realize that the people that are your recourse for being able to participate in the community are among the people that are handing out torches.

@surreality

Yup. Yup yup yup. (Picture the alien muppets to go with this response.)

Just to add a little more, obviously this topic has me a little riled up -- I am a survivor of a ridiculous number of things. If my life were a Lifetime movie nobody would ever, ever believe it. How am I still alive? I dunno.

Of all of the various bits of trauma I have had to deal with, rape is the only topic I would ever say 'please just don't ever go there'. The blast radius is huge. Not really the case with many other things.

@arkandel said in Hello MSBites! Grade your administrators.:

@sunny said in Hello MSBites! Grade your administrators.:

Because I am. I get super snarky, and I'm sure I'd forget on occasion. Except I have zero faith that it would be consistently enforced, so the heavier moderation would smack me in the nose, while the people who are actively being mean to me...la la la, continue on their way.

Here's my point of view: You feel like this, and so do the people you think are just happily going on their way. Everyone feels singled out when it's their turn.

The line between consistent enforcement and perceiving that enforcement is more unfair to (generic) you than the others is pretty thin.

It's like sports, where players saying that referees should play it 50/50 means they should play it 90/10. It's a human trait; if you ask Tim Duncan he never commited a foul in his career.

Or to rephrase it; it's not my intention to discriminate. I have no incentive to fake playing favorites.

I am well aware of people and the tendencies involved just from them being people. It has been independently commented on more than once, on occasion from someone I wasn't even talking to at the time (somebody going out of their way to communicate their sympathy/empathy to me over something, as a conversation opener).

Just because people have a tendency to assume bias and just because enforcement does tend to seem uneven doesn't mean that un-evenness of said enforcement can't happen. This is not in my head or something that I have made up or imagined.

If you genuinely do give a damn about how I feel about this, maybe stop dismissing me out of hand and consider why I might actually feel this way.