• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    485d 10m 56s

Community Reputation

178 Excellent

About Hecaton

  • Rank


  • ITS PIN Y2401
  1. Earlier you were criticizing players for not understanding the rules of the campaign... given that you've purposefully kept the rules ambiguous (e.g. what, exactly, is a valid report?) I think it's quite clear it's not the playerbase's fault. It's not so much a matter of "RTFM" as "there is no manual." Social contracts are not written; they're an implied shared set of rules. As the bounds of what players thought was acceptable have been repeatedly pushed back by certain actors within the campaigns, the usual things you'd expect in a campaign like this don't apply. Sandbox gaming inherently needs to not have strong win conditions, which, based off of Flamestrike, is emphatically NOT the case. So it's not sandbox.
  2. Well, some us tried to "RTFM," and were told that we weren't allowed to. This ties into what @Section 9 said about there being no social contract for the campaign play of Wotan... we can only really learn what's not allowed via a process of trial and error. Now this is a whole lot of incoherence. Here's the thing - there are some people who enjoy it when other people don't enjoy themselves. They have to win, they have to make other people lose - not just in terms of campaign success, but in terms of simple enjoyment as well. And if the campaign staff think that kind of behavior is "equally valid" then pretty soon they're not going to have campaigns. There needs to be a social contract, a level of sportsmanship, otherwise it's not fun; otherwise the only correct way to play (as there are winners and losers) is to push the bounds of what is acceptable, of what is "cheating." Some people enjoy that kind of thing; these people are considered antisocial. Also, the Stanford Prison Experiment isn't reproducible, I wouldn't use it as the basis for anything. This campaign isn't a sand-box; there are numbers on pie graphs that change, and based off of last time there are winners and losers based off of these numbers. And it's not really narrative, either, as was discussed. So I dunno where it's going.
  3. Unfortunately it also heightens the "don't play the faction you're actually trying to beat" factor.
  4. Yeah, I just like quirky scenarios. Like the 1st TAGline one. I get bored by fluff-filed-off button pushers tbh.
  5. More like a destructive mobile frat party, I'd think.
  6. The big difference between this and a tabletop RPG is that it is made up of competitive games of Infinity; there are teams, and there will be winners and losers. I play a lot of tabletop RPGs, and this is very different - except it somewhat resembles a GM who insists that he make the rolls for your character, not reveal them to you, and then say whether your character succeeded or failed. As far as your first three points - I don't "require control" I just like to be informed. If I'm going to play a game, I like to know the rules. If you think that makes me a "control freak" then I think you should get off it. 1) Given that all there really is to focus on in the campaign is the pie charts for the different locations, it's no surprise that people care. The narrative is... sparse and, as per the update, doesn't quite reflect what the players are actually doing. If you don't want people focusing on points formulas, show them that progressing your faction's win condition can be done without it. 2) I haven't demanded anything of the sort. I've expressed my opinion. Given that the rules for the campaign are indistinct and seemingly fungible, I'm free to do so. If it was defined explicitly, I suppose I could still do so, but it'd be more of a matter of sucking it up. 3) That has more to do with CB itself than the Wotan campaign - by any objective standard that mission is written such that it's impossible to actually play it correctly as written. As for your last three points, I'm confident that if I was as critical of your behavior as you just were of mine I'd be censured by the forum staff, so I'm not going to respond to them.
  7. That's hard when the people adjudicating the thing, when asked "what are the rules," answer, basically, "I dunno. Whatever you think you can get away with. Surprise me."
  8. This part cracks me up, that they're like "players aren't creating the story we had in mind... ignore what actually happened, then!". The storyline implications of Ariadna stabbing Nomads in the back, too, are hilarious.
  9. You said my argument was "inane and a strawman." My point was it's the logical conclusion of the "It's just a game" idea that @Deep-Green-X put forward. In the literal sense it's a game, but we still argue about whether games are fair or well-constructed. The purpose of the forum is not for it to be a hugbox.
  10. The point is, there's a point at which it isn't "just a game" and someone else's behavior in a recreational activity needs to be dealt with. We're establishing where that point is, as you and your team have left it purposefully nebulous.
  11. Aight. So you're cool if, every game we play, I report it as a win for my faction? Because it's only a game after all. It doesn't matter.
  12. This is kind of it. We can't have a sportsmanlike narrative campaign if the campaign staff are all "unsportsmanlike behavior is encouraged because that's *real*, man.
  13. I agree. I appreciate sportsmanship - friendly competition. And it seems this campaign is explicitly not about that.
  14. I'm not stressing about the stuff I reported, not do I expect an "instant" response. I was just surprised that some of that stuff hadn't already been scrubbed lol.
  15. I think there's an objective metric we can use here. Barely over 150 words, 3-5 pictures, no captioning... that wouldn't be 10 stars under any honest person's metric. And I've seen batreps like that rated 10 stars. I don't even know what that would look like.