Posts made by ThatGuyThere

I am not a min-maxer but I have taken enough Mathematics courses to recognize certain builds are more effective than others on any game.
I play the character I want regardless of comparative power level if mechanics play into my c-gen plans at all it is in the form of odd tricks rather than power but to ignore that some collections of stats will perform better than others strikes me as the same at trying to deny basic math.
As for the term sub-optimal what term would you prefer I used to describe the decision to choose a character option in spite of the mechanical disadvantages? Basically a term for the opposite of min-maxing.

@Coin said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:

I don't actually see a problem here, unless you were planning on having a limited number of Witchers/Sorceresses, and everyone else is screwed. If anyone can play a Witcher/Sorceress, then it shouldn't be an issue. People who play normal people or soldiers or whatever are just people who prefer lower-tier characters, which is actually a thing.

I fully agree with @coin here. Though I would also add be clear that there well be a power difference if people choose to play a lower powered character will full knowledge there is no problem. Yes some might end up regretting the decision but then let them change characters. Not everyone has the same tastes in characters.
Using the Starwars analogy I have played in many Starwars tabletops across multiple platforms, I played a Jedi once, I do think knowing that mechanically i will be disadvantaged. I do not see a problem with letting players make sub-optimal mechanical choices as long as they know they are making that choice.

While I appreciate the artist who created the Bull might not have done so to glorify bankers or the Stock Market. I had no idea of the statues origins until reading this thread.
I can't see the statute as anything but glorifying a rising market mainly because using Bull Market to describe a rising market predates the NYSE, it predates the American revolution dating back to 1600s London. (Edit to Correct Further digging found a more reliable source than the first that places the first usage in 1714 either way still pre Am Rev. )
I do find the artists ideas on it interesting and laudable but even knowing that if I see a bull depicted near a stock market my thoughts would be rising market.

The cypher system is interesting to me. while i am not sure I would ever run it in table top, I do think it would be interesting to see in action on a MUSH.

That is the great balancing act of RPG design, making combat interesting but not having it bog down. While my opinion is different for table top situations, I have always thought for MU*s speed was the more important factor mechanically because there will be a ton of human factors already slowing things down.

@Anadventurer
My issue has nothing to do with TS, mine is purely a logistical one, if one rule is has been stated it won't be enforced then how would any player know which other rules are real and which are also on the not enforced tier?

@Anadventurer said in Dream Chasers MUSH (JRPG/Anime):

. I can assure people that no one is spying on players to ensure no one is TSing and no time is being spent/wasted trying to enforce this rule at the moment,

Not about the content of the rule itself, but I have to say stating you have a rule but that you are not going to actually attempt to enforce it seems kind of pointless. Any rule you are not going to enforce is not worth the effort to enact.

@Coin said in Cinematic Unisystem - Dexterity Issue(?):

One rule I like is based on the ticks system from Scion.

This is essentially how Feng Shui works as well. Init get rolled and each action has a cost, though for example most attacks cost 3 while active defenses cost 1. Though no actions are penalized.

@HelloProject
How is MUSHclinet logging not intuitive? You click on the log icon, which is shaped like a piece of paper and it logs the entire session in that world going back to the beginning of the buffer limit.
That doesn't require mastering the client it requires letting a cursor hover over an icon on a tool bar that is default visible for couple of second and reading. I will be the first to point of the flaws in MUSHclient but lack of easy logging is not one of them.

@faraday said in UX: It's time for The Talk:

@ThatGuyThere said in UX: It's time for The Talk:

Those are valid reasons for expanding the functionality of the 'who' command, not for having two obscurely different versions of it. But that's just IMHO. If you're happy with the status quo, then there's no reason to change anything. Some of us aren't, though.

Yes but most of the conversation in this thread is how to make things simpler and more newbie friendly not on expanding functionality. If it becomes a choice of drawing new players or retaining functionality I have now it is a sucker bet which one I vote for. Create a "who" that I can with switches or however get both results sure great, but odds are one of the versions we have now will just get whacked and we will be left with less functionality not more.

@faraday said in UX: It's time for The Talk:

As long as 'who' tells them who's online, they really don't care what it looks like. There's no reason to separate WHO or +who (other than the aforementioned historical reasons).

I will disagree with this depending on what information is on the +who which is different on each game. For example I like having both on Fallcoast for one reason. +who list connected played based on idle times so make for a god way to scan who is on and active. Standard WHO has the hard coded version of newest connects on top, which is really nice if I log on and am waiting for someone(s) particular to show up for a scene because with one command at a glance I can see who connected recently rather than having to check each character individually as I wait.
Unless you want to make it so the who list can be sortable by the person checking it i fail to see how having the same information presented in two different ways is a bad thing.

I know other was not an option but I would also toss out for consideration Unknown Armies

@Meg said in RL Anger:

Not only do 3D movies give me migraines, they have the audacity to /not even be in 3D/ for me. Since I have no depth perception because my brain learned to process information while ignoring basically everything coming in from my right eye.

I have the same issue with my left. Though I consider it a plus since the 3D theatres are always more expensive.

In general I tend to give nameless NPCs 6-8 dice in whatever their base competency is, 6 for the base level professional up to 8 being the top person in the area at a thing with out being famous for it. That is without equipment.
NWoD dice, both GMC and 1st, are worth 1/3 a success on a normal roll with 10 again. so if you figure nine dice that would be 3 succs a roll on average. So if you wanted it to be something that would take the average pro 4 rolls than go with a threshold of 12.
On the other dice cases you mentioned 9 again does not add much changing the expected successes per die to roughly .38 per die.
Rote in the other hand changes the expected successes quite a bit to being 5/9 successes per die, meaning the average roll of a nine dice pool would yield 5 succs so if you wanted it to take 4 rolls you would need to increase the success threshold to 20.

@Wolfs said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

Do you also go around trying to tell people "gay" really ought to mean someone's just happy?

No but I have asked for clarification on which usage someone was using before.

And to your first question I have never seen stubborn as a bad thing when I am also factually correct.

Those are all fair points, though we all have those hills we are ready to die on. One of mine is this one, I have no problem having this argument over and over. (trust me I have)
I fully know how language tends to be misused but I will continue to (ineffectually) rail against those parts that annoy me. If this annoys you then there is not much that can be done.

@Wolfs said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

"American" has always applied to the United States by default,

Actually the term America was first used by Martin Waldseemüller in 1507 to refer to all thing in the "New World", this is 78 years before the founding of the first English colony at Roanoke

@HelloProject
If I knew they were Jamaican I would refer to them as Jamaican.
My point is not saying they are the same, my point is American means two continents not one country.
Yes I know that is unrelated to your points about culture but people from the USA, of which I am on, referring to other parts of the land mass as separate from from "America" irks the hell out of me.
I do not deny that the African American culture in the USA is different form the African American culture that exists in Canada and both of those are different from the African American culture that exists in Jamaica etc.
Just because the descriptor is not used as often for those cultures does not make it less accurate.

@HelloProject said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

@ThatGuyThere They're still not African-American 0_o. So I'm not sure how that contradicts literally anything I said.

How would they not be African-American?
They are descended from Africans living in America. Like i said different culture from the US, different experience, etc but the term would still apply.
The US is part of America but not the entirety, every one living on the continents of North or South America are Americans.The subset of those with African roots would be African American.

@HelloProject said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

Jamaicans and shit, "African-American".

Since I picked it as a forum name I kinda have to be that guy and point out Jamaica is just as much American and the United States of America, the Caribbean is part of North America.
I understand your point about the different cultures but both would count as different American cultures.

@Misadventure said in Sin City Chronicles:

My reading was focused on the idea that your own small group could easily oust you, while the overall society would be pressed to oust someone where their Compact didn't want to.

I get that was the intent, the main reason I made my first comment was to show that to not be the case though, barring an enforcer not voting as you point out.
Easiest solution would be to go with either 5 or 7 enforcers per group since that brings the simple majority into play making one vote substantially easier than the other, not to mention avoiding any tie votes on other matters if the enforcers ever have other matters to vote on.