@Miss-Demeanor Rotes in 1e were objectively a waste of experience points in the long run, but good in the short run. Especially when they put in Extemporaneous Affinity, which gives you a bonus to improvised casting, and raising Gnosis/Arcana also raises dice pools while having lots of other benefits...
I don't know about 2E, but Rotes were just pointless in 1E if you had even a little bit of strategy in your mind.
@il-volpe said in Making a MU* of your own:
@Nausicaa said in Making a MU* of your own:
You can subscribe to every 'this is how to do it best' and still fail.
You can ignore almost all of them and still do okay, too, in my experience.
Yeah, it's why I seriously question the tips, tricks, and heuristics mindset, but still use it anyway since I have no better alternative.
@ThatGuyThere Actually the topic is what goes into running a MU*. But to answer your question, I quit on the spot because if you can't even choose your own name, they're likely to have other unreasonable demands about your guy.
The only possible reason I can think of to take Thanatos over Exsanguinate is that it's more boring
@Arkandel No, but I can't take seriously the opinions of people who appeal to the majority, either. When things amount to, you're being stupid, because everybody thinks you're being stupid, it, to me, says that the whole point is to just dogpile me, or whoever else is on the receiving end of that. It says they have little basis for their views, and just want to dodge that fact with their popularity.
I see it a lot in these kinds of forums, too, and I'm not always on the receiving end, either.
"You're an idiot," one person says, in so many words.
"Fuck off bitch," that person responds.
Then come the le gasps. Oh me oh my, how could you insult back? That makes you the bad guy even more than you already were.
I have very little inclination to be respectful to people whose main arguments are "like omg I can't even" and "you're an idiot," which, like it or not, is pretty much directly where surreality went.
@surreality Just out of curiosity: do you actually believe that if enough people believe something, it becomes true? Or was that just a useful rhetorical device in the moment?
@surreality It also teaches us the lesson that when the general population incorrectly believes something, they'll believe that they are correct because the general population believes it. See also: @surreality and @Kanye-Qwest
@surreality I've already objectively disproven your basis for disagreement, so I'd say I've made a really solid argument. Successfully defending your argument is, in itself, an argument.
Sorry, not sorry.
@surreality said in [Making a MU* of your own]
consensus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Lmao, your intelligence is subhuman.
@Kanye-Qwest >le virginity accusation maymay
So basically, you have no argument. Got it. So, anyway, back on topic. Do you have anything to contribute to the matter at hand (how to start your own MU*), or are you here to, in a massive display of irony, do exactly what you accuse me of doing?
@Kanye-Qwest If you actually cared about insulting behavior, you would have given surreality hard time first, since she insulted first. The fact that you didn't makes you a hypocrite.
Literally anybody who defends this one-sided "analysis" is a cunt. Are you a cunt? The choice is yours.
@Phase-Face said in Making a MU* of your own:
Incidentally:
I know it's been asked plenty, but I can't help but add my voice to the chorus: @Swaggot, why /do/ you keep popping back up to do the same pointless shit(complaining about MCM and EE&E; calling people on this forum irrational liberal cunts because they disagree with you; unclever, sideways homosexual slurs; general 4channery) when A.) it seems to get you banned with the quickness and B.) nobody particularly cares about any of it as anything but momentary entertainment.
If you're going to keep sneaking into a moderately active forum dedicated to an already small hobby that is perpetually in a state of contraction, why not try being a constructive member? Do you just need the satisfaction of feeling as if you're rustling this forum's collective jimmies every month or so before you inevitably tilt into ban-worthy inappropriateness, or are you genuinely having a hard time figuring out how to behave in a way that won't put you at odds with the majority of the userbase?
EDIT: Obviously, calling people irrational liberal cunts in the Hog Pit would probably be fine. But this isn't there.
Well, I didn't start the insults in this thread, surreality did. Why is calling me "ridiculously delusionally stupid" acceptable but not me, in turn, calling her a clinically retarded cunt? Why is the issue me when I insult back?
If she doesn't want to be treated like a cunt, she can refrain from personally attacking me. Otherwise, she gets what she deserves in this regard.
Incidentally, why is treating others like others treat me only unacceptable when I do it?
@Kanye-Qwest The Powerpuff Girls were terrible. Let me guess: you actually like My Little Pony now?
@Kanye-Qwest Ed, Edd, n Eddie was the shit. Fuck outta here.
@Coin People are rarely so plain (or sometimes, even self-aware enough) to just say things like that. They usually phrase it differently. In the case of Imperian, the stated purpose of the new restriction was to make it so there was more "definition" between the three factions (Anti-Magick, Magick, and Demonic), which in turn meant they wanted to pigeonhole classes to factions.
It was literally about precluding zaniness, they just would never have called it that. Whatever term you want to use: zany, interesting, etc, as opposed to bland, cookie cutter, or tame, fact is, it's common for MU* staff to have an inclination to call anything that isn't extremely generic completely "ridiculous."
Is there a degree of interpretation going on here? Absolutely. Is "like omg I can't even rn", or any variation thereof, a valid answer to it? Not even close. Should I feel inclined to take seriously the opinions and interpretations of people who tell me that I can't read, while being unable to read themselves? Absolutely not.
@Coin I actually agree. They're pretty mild. The point is, if these rather tame ideas are too zany, then it amounts to a ban on anything interesting, since those things are bound to be way zanier.
@Sunny said in a MU* of your own:
Troll is being troll again. They didn't say the fucking concepts were not interesting you mouth breather, they said they weren't denied for being interesting. Learn to read much?
@Kanye-Qwest said:
(PS none of those concepts were even interesting)
Who needs to learn to read, again? Fucking idiot
The consensus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Unlike your personal opinion that my concepts aren't interesting, your post is objectively retarded. Are you just trolling, or are you, by extension, objectively retarded? The choice is yours
@surreality I hope you realize that the majority of your post is declaring something uninteresting, as though you declaring it uninteresting makes it uninteresting. To break it down for you:
"I don't like those concepts." --> valid opinion
"Disagreeing with me about what is and is not interesting is 'ridiculously delusional stupidity'." --> ridiculously delusional stupidity
Let's look at your first objection more closely:
Is this stupid and hopelessly pedantic? Sure. Wanting to use a verb for a name doesn't make somebody more interesting in any way, though, so failure to defend a ridiculous assertion #1.
What is and is not interesting is subjective. Are you deliberately being a cunt, or are you just clinically retarded? This is of non-exclusive or, so you can be both.
Either of these conditions can be corrected, but the first step in solving any problem is admitting that you have one.
Onto your second:
You're going to have to clarify here
No, I'm not. The fact that they changed the rules mid-game and acted like I was the one at fault is, in itself, their issue, not mine. No further explanation is needed. Is your reading comprehension this low that you didn't notice this detail, are you too dumb to understand this fact, or are you deliberately ignoring it in the interest of screeching at me over the Internet?
Your third:
It's pretty common.
I've seen maybe one other person do this and I've played Werewolf for a while so, I think you're exaggerating just a wee bit.
How about your last one:
OMG you're still going on about this? Really?
LIKE OMG I CAN'T EVEN is a line of thought that clinically retarded cunts use a lot. Based on this, I'm leaning toward "both" after reading this. This is a non-argument and basically gives me license to ignore the rest of your post.
@surreality Here are a few examples of something being banned for being too interesting:
I can go on, but to no insignificant degree staff often expects people to color inside of lines they don't actually draw anywhere, and much of the time the lines they do draw are literally there to preclude one from making all but the most cookie cutter, lame shit. Pointing this sort of thing out doesn't really qualify as "entitlement" so much as it does "entirely valid criticism." So spare me the talk of how justified you are in shooting down all these ridiculous concepts as though only ridiculous concepts get shot down, because frankly, what I've seen a lot more of on my time on MU*'s is essentially a an expectation that you follow rigid and arbitrary yet undefined and pointless guidelines, and a ban on reimagining anything. And if you've been on MU*'s for twenty years like you say you have you'd see plenty of it, too.
@surreality I've seen the requirements to go from "no" to "yes" in a lot of cases and it usually amounts to castrating the concept. The most important parts of the concept are what are usually expected to go because they're too interesting.