Played about eight hours of Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Wildlands.
It's okay.
Played about eight hours of Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Wildlands.
It's okay.
@Thenomain Yeah, all the others are the werewolves trying to bang her. Obviously.
my eyes are all red and evil why does no one notice this or care
London smog. Everyone's eyes are irritated.
The only power you need is a fully loaded automatic assault rifle.
@Auspice Which is unfortunate, apparently he's quite nice in person.
@insomnia Oh, that wasn't a reply per se to your Vamp-status post. Just a word of advice when it comes to using mesmerise and such. Tiny details written on notes can be vitally important depending on how you play.
As for who knows and who doesn't, like I said some of the dialogue seems screwy. I can't tell if people are supposed to know, if they're just guessing, if they read too many penny bloods, or what. But I don't recall very many cases of Doctor Bloodsworth mentioning it to as many people as seem to know.
@coin said in Is Min/Max a bad thing?:
And this is why my one character has Composure 8 and Influence 8.
Wait.
Did I do it wrong.
Can't die in combat if you just maintain a stiff upper lip and simply tell the bullets to, politely, fuck off.
@mietze Aye. Like I get "let's have fewer elite hackers" or "can we have not so many detectives from major cities." I get limiting concepts, often that's appropriate or at least there's a legitimate basis for such things. But limiting a character's nature..? Ugh.
That said, I do sort of understand that one might want to limit things that are inaccurate. I want to limit people playing characters where they're "the disabled one," "the gay one," or "the Asian one," but just limiting gay or Asian characters altogether seems as stupid as this.
ETA: The above paragraph is more an understanding that a staffer or two may have seen one too many "my character is missing a limb and that totally defines everything about their personality." The same as mental illness was portrayed in media until very, very recently. Fetishisation = bad, but blanket moratoria lacking in detail = stupidpants.
Also, do we ever learn to pick locks?
No. Certain areas open with the story, certain areas open with keys dropped by people you kill.
So chests and such you have to kill people to get into them then?
I believe so. I'll know for sure when/if I do a 'kill everybody' run.
@rnmissionrun Opening such a game isn't as easy as simply plopping in some code, building up a bit of a grid and hoping for the best. Original Sci-Fi needs original history and story, something which many previous original sci-fi games either had none of (or none in an easily accessible format) or had far too much to be doing with that all had to be read before you had a hope in hell of getting a character approved.
And they usually came with some homebrew dice system, or a system ripped from elsewhere that required an advanced mathematics degree to understand.
ETA: What @Auspice said better, a fraction of a moment before I hit submit.
@Goldfish said in Gray Harbor Discussion:
Slippery slope fallacy and all.
I'd hardly call it a fallacy in this instance. They've apparently restricted "British" applications before, so it's not unreasonable that any time there is an "influx" of a certain type of character, they'll restrict it.
@Goldfish said in Gray Harbor Discussion:
At that point, it breaks down into do you trust the staff? Do you cosign their vision? Do you have friends who do and can you tolerate the staff bullshit to play with them. And so on.
Eh, it doesn't break down to anything as grand as that. As it has been explained here, it's a stupid idea. So I'm going to point at it and call it stupid. I don't care what they do, if it's stupid I'm going to call it stupid.
Where do I get the cure for headaches
***Map***
Around there, the Old Whitechapel Road gate to the cemetery (I had to go through Whitechapel, rather than through the cemetery itself.) There is a crater with a corpse in it, loot that for the diagram thingo you have to analyse.
@Auspice The problem with judging characters from the outside is that we often just don't know how deep their layers go. Often we see stereotypes or "the mentally ill one" because we're only seeing one layer. So it's up to staff to really keep an eye on shit like that, not us.
@insomnia I never bothered with it. I think it might just be an atmosphere thing... I don't know.
ETA: I'm a goddamn lord of the night, I don't have time to deal with plants. But I will go around healing every Tom, Dick, and Harriet of their fatigue and their headaches.
I find changing the background colour itself can help, though it also can mess with some games' colouring. When I use a terminal console (tf and the like) I prefer a Solarized theme to almost anything else.
So perhaps changing the black background to something a little less contrasting will help ease of reading?
@Auspice Sure, but it's based on our perception that aforementioned PTSD character is only using it as a 'quirk'. Sometimes that's true, but sometimes it's just our inability to see deeper.
But at the same time... I don't really care. You want to play "the gay one"? Fine, whatever. It's a game, you're playing a trope. Whatever. I'd much rather people try to do something interesting and get it wrong than just play the same "basic white guy" over and over.
@insomnia "Can I shoot it? Can I stab it? Can I hit it with my claws?" If no, dissolve into shadow and gtfo.
@ganymede said in Paragraphs, large scenes and visibility:
That someone is an asshole, unless you've stated a reason for posing slow, e.g., I'm at work and prone to idling for it.
I would argue that if you submit a reason for posing slowly, then they are an asshole for politely calling you on it. If you dont, and you are posing slowly, it means they're aware that you are slower than the rest and are taking an opportunity to talk about it. Which is gentlemanly, if nothing else.