There are also, from what I half-recall, anyway, a shit-ton of things that give supers 9-again and sometimes even 8-again. Not so much the case for mortals.
FC's current version of PT is... well, why bother, IMHO. The only way to get 9-again or anything similar there for any M/M+ apparently involves requesting a relic, while plenty of supers get piles of 9-again and 8-again perks available. Lots of bleah for that.
@dontpanda There is pretty much no feeling worse than feeling like you've been convicted of some kind of thought crime about which you have not taken, and would never take, action.
It's terrible. It's seriously fucking terrible.
There is no better way of telling someone their positive actions, or their resistance of negative (in someone else's perception) ones, matter worth a single damn.
And that is not a good message to send, ever. Among the well-intentioned, it creates a sense of helplessness; among the poorly-intentioned, a sense that since they've already been 'convicted', why bother resisting 'committing the crime' if you're going to endure the punishment anyway.
I wanted to throat punch him.
(snipped just because that core sentiment is so where I am right now with someone)
I empathize with this so much right now, there are simply no words. I sincerely wish I had them to offer.
The short form: over the course of my life, I've had someone attempt to strangle me. I've been raped twice, once violently. I've been stalked -- not online -- for several years by the person responsible for #1 and the violent take on #2.
I've been stalked online, too, but that is a much different animal; the physical threat level distinction is a big one. Emotional pain is pain. It's no less pain than physical pain. Threats of humiliation and exposure are very real and they are frightening and they are rightly impactful.
For someone without a comparison to make between that and the physical threat of, say, someone who has tried to actually kill you driving past your house every day for over a decade and calling to berate you for days and banging on your door whenever there's a new car in the driveway? It's different. It's all pain and it's all fear but it is a very different fucking fear when you know for damned certain that an irrational motherfucker is standing on the other side of and inch and a half of cheap wood door and hammering at it with his fists while he screams obscenities at you, threatening harm he's already tried once before that nearly killed you.
(And believe it or not, that isn't the shit far too personal and ugly to post here.)
Recently, someone I care about decided to pull the rough equivalent of what you're describing. It wasn't even accurate, but the hyperbole factor was over the top and the comparisons being made were... well, no, they just didn't track on any fucking level.
And he would not let this comparison go. Not for months. Not when asked to stop doing it, because it was bringing some incredibly ugly and uncomfortable shit to mind. Not when it was clearly explained why the logic didn't track. Not when told it was, actually, kicking my PTSD into high gear with full on flashbacks and nightmares, for over three months, until I had to actually draw a hard line and say if it continued I would not be speaking with them again. (For all that useless, brain-dead, soulless fuckheads like Tempest try to mock me for shit like this, thinking it's fucking cute or clever to do, it was the second time in 20 years something like this has ever occurred, and none of it had anything to do with something going on in any RP scene.)
He could not grasp why this comparison was not just inaccurate, but actively damaging, and not even conveying the point he was trying to convey in any effective way.
Scale is a thing, and it's fucking relevant. The dirty look or nasty comment someone slings around on facebook or in the hallway is, yes, still hositility/a threat/a cause of suffering, but holy fuck am I tired of people acting like it's on par with a violent, physical assault in terms of trauma.
@Ganymede I do. A near complete life change? Yeah, that's gonna harsh most people's stride. And it's less stupid than many of the ones that are system canon.
Bear in mind, I see so many holes and problems with WoD I thought it was better to just write something else than ever try to patch the broken parts enough to even try to use it somewhere.
It is actually less work.
@Ganymede That's the problem, really. The system already really just doesn't care about things making logical sense most of the time as it is.
A vampire might have reason to really want to ghoul that psychometrist or medium, but they can't without them losing that ability, and so on.
The reasons for this come down to the above: it's just easier to make a blanket rule and throw in handwave-handwave-handwave-bullshit-bullshit-bullshit to explain it if anybody asks about something that doesn't make any sense; it's how the game developers have thus far handled it for the most part. That model is set and accepted by players as it is.
TR's explanation for this I think was actually quite good: once you start having to deal with sustaining your reality as part of a non-mortal sphere, with all of its high maintenance requirements and secrets and new things to contend with you never had to handle before, you simply do not have the time to maintain those former professional connections in the mundane world you did when you were, yourself, mundane.
@Ganymede You lose other things with almost any template change by default, even if it doesn't make logical sense, per the above example.
You lose supernatural merits if you become a ghoul or wolfblooded already, even if there's no logical reason for this to happen.
You lose M+ merits of any kind of you take on a supernatural template.
This is already a thing, and they already leave it without logical justification as part of the existing system as written, as described above.
@Arkandel Which is why I'm saying: don't mix them. Make it m/m+ with no sphere affiliation only, as a 'this is your pack of freebies for choosing this template'.
@Ganymede I get that, I just think 'this is what you get for choosing this template' is legit enough as an answer.
There are other merits that are 'sphere only' as written that have been the same.
I mean, realistically, there's no reason provided that someone would, for instance, lose whatever M+ supernatural merits they might have when they get a supernatural template in some cases, and the generally vague explanations of many of them, but it happens and is written as such. Things like Medium, for instance -- a werewolf is even more tied to the spirit world; why would they suddenly lose a part of it like this they always had? 'Oh, it's been redefined', is an answer people are willing to accept despite it not making much sense that 'everything I have always known about this is bigger than I thought, but I have now forgotten how to do some of what I've otherwise always known how to do'.
That's dumb. It's simply dumb. It is also easier for game devs to say: Instead of trying to deal with these things on a realistic thematic level on a one by one basis, in a way that's more or less impossible to future-proof effectively, we'll go with 'all of these things just go away whether there's a good argument for that not happening or not'.
There's a lot of dumb people already have to swallow with things as written, or even as HR'd in various circumstances. If people can't swallow that one, honestly, I sort of feel sorry for them re: so many other things going on in the system.
@Ganymede said in CofD and Professional Training:
@surreality said in CofD and Professional Training:
I don't see the nightmare here. I really don't.
The nightmare is having to explain to people why certain races get it and others do not.
Not at all, if it becomes, as described, 'the collection of template perks granted for being a m/m+ without sphere affiliation', as described.
The 9-again and Rote ability cracks open a lot of benefits for being a Werewolf.
Not what I'm recommending at all.
@surreality said in CofD and Professional Training:
Personally, I'd make it the 'this is the collection of crap you get for choosing the template' for M/M+ (not ghouls or WB, but just 'mortal with supernatural merits' sort of +).
^ is relevant to the whole.
Personally, I'd make it the 'this is the collection of crap you get for choosing the template' for M/M+ (not ghouls or WB, but just 'mortal with supernatural merits' sort of +).
All of those other things get a similar pile of free crap with template, and it's not a bad way of setting up a standard package of benefits for mortals and non-sphere-affiliated M+ templates.
Edit for some quick math: PT at 5 has, 3x9/again (no XP equiv), 2xContacts (2xp), either one or two specs (2xp, will go for the higher one here), one skill point (2xp), and rote (no XP equiv). That's 6xp of merits, plus two additional and yes, very noteworthy perks. A 2e vamp gets 9xp in disciplines (if they're choosing in-clan only, if not this total could be higher), and a free attribute dot (4xp), plus the various other non-costable vamp perks. I forget the WtF tallies (forcibly expunged from the brain), but they're similar enough. Even ghouls get 6xp worth of free disciplines, which at least on points is on par here.
I don't see the nightmare here. I really don't.
@Meg I'm 100% behind showing support; I think that's all positive.
I am just really uneasy with calling people out unless it's obviously a case of deliberate behavior. Maybe it's because I grew up with my grandmother and great aunt, maybe it's because my mom worked as an occupational therapist for kids with a dizzying array of difficulties, I dunno, I just have seen too many things that could easily be read as 'acting funny' or 'looking mean' or in the case of someone with Tourette Syndrome, for instance, using a lot of harsh language or slurs or profanity, when there's absolutely no animus or intent to cause harm behind it, and there's often a lot of guilt and self-consciousness already associated with all of these things that makes it pretty hard.
Usually, a little careful observation can tell any of those things from deliberate asshat behavior, but a quick glance or two really just isn't enough if it's already really vague. 
And the whole 'being stared at' thing can be extremely uncomfortable for people who have any sort of issue to contend with -- or, hell, anybody who doesn't, even.
Deliberately being an asshat is not a condition, and is well within someone's control. Still, I'd suggest the 'support the target' approach, in part because nothing pisses off a condescending, judgmental bully harder than realizing they aren't the one who has the perceived majority or backup. That's a big damn deal to the tsk-tsk crowd, and in supporting the one they're trying to 'other', you're denying them the support they're craving by doing so at the same time.
@surreality
I have actually come around to thinking that @Catsmeow actually has a better answer of talking to the couple directly and engaging them without engaging the other person.
This is a much, much better idea. Positive support is a full positive.
Do you think it would have been rude to ask your great aunt 'Is there a problem, ma'am?'
Yes, actually. She passed in her 90s over a decade ago. She grew up in a time in which she had to fear being placed in an old-school asylum if people thought something was 'wrong' with her, even something much less than that. She was typically in tears any time she was in public, or near it.
Let's ask this another way. As a woman, I face microaggressions daily from men. If a man is staring at my chest, do I say nothing? Do I just accept it because I am a part of this world and I am the stupid one for getting offended and upset and putting me in a place where I feel threatened or uncomfortable? I mean, he might legitimately have zoned out and just started staring at my chest without realizing it. Should I do nothing?
Completely different issue, and I'm saying this as somebody who was wearing a DDD cup by age 13 and is now in her 40s and has experienced plenty of that. Socialization and culture can change, and that behavior is within the person's control. Physical things that someone cannot change or control about themselves are not in the same category by a considerable margin and should not be conflated.
@Meg What would you suggest doing in a case like my great aunt's? Or of someone with Tourette Syndrome? Etc.?
Do you scold these people for essentially existing? Stare at them? Tell them what they're doing is not OK?
@Paris Regardless, if someone had lit into my great aunt for being a bigot (which she wasn't) because of muscle tics she had no conscious control over and often made her cry about the shame and humiliation she felt at being seen in public like that, they would have had to contend with a mouthful of my normally non-violent fist.
There's also this third guy in a seat facing them who... well, it's hard to say what he was doing, which was my dilemma. He was smirking for most of the trip - but that could have just been his face - and I'm almost but not quite sure he was tsk'ing and shaking his head while looking at them... but I could be wrong. The idea I was getting without being 100% certain is he was expressing his disapproval for their gay-ness in passive aggressive ways, but he never actually confronted them or said anything in any way.
There are some conditions that could cause this, also. While I don't recall what the heck it was she had, one of my great aunts did what you're describing almost exactly: twisted lips, tiny jerks of head shakes like a pinched-off-prissy shake of the head in a 'no', muttering and almost... hissing? (Which could definitely sound like a tsk-tsk-tsking noise.) She had trouble keeping eye contact, also, when this was kicking off, but... yeah. There are things out there like this that might be something completely different than what one would immediately guess at.
@Arkandel said in State of Things:
I think automation is about to fuck our universe up. In the next 15 years or so human kind is going to be changing in a really dramatic fashion; I can't (no one can, IMHO) say if it'll be for the better or not.
There is a great opportunity in this, but it is one we are typically hamstringing ourselves from the jump, re: preparing ourselves to take advantage of it.
That's creativity. Imagination. Art.
These are things with the potential to allow us to grow as a world community, and they are considerably harder to replace with automation. (Automation can help, but it is not and cannot, by its very nature, be the same as human expression.)
They are also the first ones we cut off at the knees the moment money gets tight.
I actually really like the idea of setting something as a 'character advancement represented on +sheet and working toward that goal', as in, setting aside advancement points or XP or whatever else you want to call the various milestones or measures of accomplishment, and having people more or less automatically progress toward that stated goal through IC actions. That's pretty frickin' brilliant.
If I was going to look at this -- and seriously, after that mention, I think I probably will look into a means of doing so -- I'd use that as a separate thing from the kind of character goals as described. Aspirations in GMC/CoD, for instance, are just 'things I would like to do'. Even the book gives examples like 'have a one night stand' as valid for short-term character goals, for instance, that are valid to character development in terms of characterization, but may be harder to directly tie into advancement-based goals.
Realistically, you could do something like 'this XP gets assigned to seduction, if you ever choose to raise it', but that starts setting up a number of very subjective XP tracks that may be hard to manage, depending on the complexity of the system.
What I can offer here is what I've been looking at. I will do my best to explain why I'm doing things this way, but I'll warn: it gets off into some very esoteric tangents. It's something also designed around the idea of the game I would like to see exist in reality, this occurring in a shared/MUX environment, and oceans of navel-gazing abstract thought time. I may miss some bits that are relevant.
My goal: a collaborative, cooperative storytelling environment in which participants can freely share creative ideas and stories and create a shared world within a specified theme and scope.
Bear in mind, this does not require a sheet. It doesn't even require a system, really, depending on the folks involved. But to make it open to as many participants as possible, these things are useful tools. Not everybody can always agree, and as a result, a system of resolution is fundamentally useful and productive.
Once you introduce a sheet, you do have the advancement question.
I am not fond of XP earning caps for the reasons @ThatGuyThere has articulated. Further, the way I have seen them implemented in the past has led to precisely what he's described. I've also seen staff slow to process +jobs screw this up even further -- where, if staff were doing their job in a timely fashion, things would be fine, but then instead they wait two weeks to so much as touch the thing, and then all that work gets capped and slashed to half of its real value. From personal experience, I can say this adds dramatically to the level of frustration an earn cap can create.
I think learning time delays are a much more reasonable thing. The potential problem you get from this is that people will potentially spend more broadly than they might have otherwise if 'I have a need to spend my XP simply because it's here' issue.
Between the two, though, I think learning times still result in the much lesser evil. 'You get rewarded for your efforts' should be a constant. 'You get rewarded for your efforts up to a point, or unless staff gets lazy' is powerfully discouraging and rightly feels unfair. The players who are the most generous with their time and are doing the most to keep your game alive through running things for others are typically the ones most hurt by this.
It's better, IMHO, to allow people to earn what they earn, but spend in a reasonable fashion. What 'a reasonable fashion' is can vary -- some things are more reasonable than others -- but to tell people 'your efforts only mean anything up to a point' is, in my view, pretty awful.
@Ganymede I didn't think you had. I'm just further rambling after getting in for the day. @meitze pretty much nailed the issue I see with things.
I want to make 'can add things to the world and shape the game' as a real collaborative OOC feature in some respects, so defining this kind of line is one I'm looking at somewhat closely while working on those things. There will be times those things get a 'no, that's not going to work' (though I'd still probably give them the incentive for simply trying unless they decide to keep pitching dumb things they know won't pass muster to exploit that somehow; ex: 'How about a pistol?' No, but here's a thank you for putting the time and thought into that concept. 'How about a laser pistol?' No, but here's... 'How about a shark with a laser on its head?' '...and how about a nuke? A nuke shark!' I think you can stop now... ).
@mietze said in Course Corrections:
What's wrong with staff saying "Clearly you've put thought into this and we respect that but it's not a direction the game is going to go, no matter what you roll, by our choice?"
There's no need to do weird contortions to justify it, just say "We don't want that within the scope of the game."
Will some players get huffy or feel constrained? Yes. Would they have probably found something else to bitch about? Yes. Is it unreasonable for players to have the expectation that they have truly free reign without boundaries to change anything at all in the game environment whenever they wish to start rolling for it or because they want to? Yes. Has our community coddled this a bit by letting people down easy, throwing down false mechanical barriers, and deflecting the question so as not to cause a fit? Yes.
This is exactly what I was wondering about.
There's a pretty pervasive 'omg they won't let me change X!' outcry whenever someone finds one of these barriers -- and I think it's reasonable to have some barriers in place.
I don't think would this dramatically change the feel of the game in a way that makes it into something entirely and irrevocably different within the space of a week or less is not a bad litmus test for that question to arise: do we just say no, even though this is something this character could arguably accomplish.
Destroy the grid and most of the people in it is a pretty easy call, if you're willing to ask the question.
I see the question as a reasonable one to ask. That doesn't seem to be a common view, though, since for too long, I think, people weren't allowed to do anything that might upset some absurdly stagnant status quo.
People need to know that the world has room for (and ideally welcomes) change within the scope of what the game is intended to be, but that room isn't infinite, nor is the scope.
Someone could, arguably, take on the leadership of the Invictus on a game, be too powerful for players to take down easily, and say: "We are no longer the Invictus. We are now Bronies. Choose your magic butt-sticker and pony codename and get it tattooed within the week or I will call a blood hunt. I will now dominate all of you into dyeing your hair rainbow colors and wearing enough body glitter to make the entire cast of Twilight start muttering about overkill."
I would hope the players would find a way, but really... as a TL or headstaff, that would be a log I would read with my finger hovering over the retcon button, and I hate that button really a lot.
A player stepping in and running the faction? Should be welcome, even if they do some things differently -- so long as they're still within the theme and scope of the game, which the example above is really just not for most of the games currently running.
This is similar, to me, to 'I don't care how many dice you have or how good your roll is, you are not going to jump the English Channel on your motorcycle: this is an impossible task.'