Forums of the Megaverse®

Khanibal wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:*A toilet falls from off a space station passing through the orbital defense field inflicting 3d6 GDC to your charter. It is a surprise attack so you can not dodge.*
You MDC armor does not stop the GDC and your charter dies.

Dead, you might even say Dead Like Me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Like_Me

Kinda miss that show

Mack wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Thanks Mack but I took your advice 12 posts before you posted it.

This part was fine. You should've stopped here.

Zer0 Kay wrote: Decided since nothing I say is actually getting a direct response and everything is getting parsed and somehow humiliation for the Express purpose of humiliation is better than making something happen as the GM that actually saved the guys character, since he kept demanding battle, AND was ultimately and quickly recoverable from AND restored the group. So PJ can live in his world where he is the JM and I'll live in mine where I'm the GM.

This would be the opposite of Letting It Go. This is continuing to argue, attempting to get in the last word, and taking a parting shot at Pepsi.

Your right Mack. Sorry PJ, completely uncalled for and childish.

Blue_Lion wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

taalismn wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:[ So it wasnt a fear of killer GM but a fear of persecution... must have been the kid after PJ played 50 shades of flying baboon with him.

Kid musts heard about the campaign I was in where the party mage brushed off the threat of a C-level mnster...a giant weasel... and promptly got throat-bitten and exsanguinated for critical damage...

Dude so messed up. That's like the reverse of killing off the main NPC. Like what happened in Kevin's game with the big baddy dying at the beginning of the game

Kind of reminds of the time a player died to the triple natural 20(think it was a house rule) in 3rd ed.
Think he was killed by a normal badger that rolled 3 20s in a roll for an attack roll. Causing instant death. So level 5 mage hit the badger with acid arrow it jumped up and ripped out his throat. Druid healed it and now there is a level 2 badger out there some where.

and that's how dire badgers are made.

guardiandashi wrote:GDC was something we also had in our campaigns, it is to MDC what MDC is to SDC.

for instance I was using stuff from battletech and having the mechs armor be GDC, so rifts/robotech gear had to do 100+ MDC in a single attack to consistently damage the units. of course I gave the battletech gear a "querk" that the GDC armor was not continuous, it was "scales" or plates that were super hard and tough, but their attachments were weaker, so it was possible to blow said plates off by rolling under the fractional damage done on a percentile check example you attack the unit and do 225 mdc in your attack, it automatically shatters 2 plates, and has a 25% (24 technically) chance of blowing off a 3rd plate

Obviously GDC also came from RT... it is what the SDF1 Main cannon causes

guardiandashi wrote:GDC was something we also had in our campaigns, it is to MDC what MDC is to SDC.

for instance I was using stuff from battletech and having the mechs armor be GDC, so rifts/robotech gear had to do 100+ MDC in a single attack to consistently damage the units. of course I gave the battletech gear a "querk" that the GDC armor was not continuous, it was "scales" or plates that were super hard and tough, but their attachments were weaker, so it was possible to blow said plates off by rolling under the fractional damage done on a percentile check example you attack the unit and do 225 mdc in your attack, it automatically shatters 2 plates, and has a 25% (24 technically) chance of blowing off a 3rd plate

That is house ruled then as by the right up in the rifter md weapons can never do GD and GD can not be soaked up by MDC.

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:That is it. Fine I will show you a killer GM.
Hands ZerO Kay a level 15 Glitter boy to play.
*A toilet falls from off a space station passing through the orbital defense field inflicting 3d6 GDC to your charter. It is a surprise attack so you can not dodge.*
You MDC armor does not stop the GDC and your charter dies.

OMG I was right your killing me soda nose shot burns.BTW I forgot to tell you... I'm playing a tourist

I did not approve any tourist for play. As you can see I gave you a pregen GB to play.

Sorry about the soda nose burn.

eliakon wrote:I avoided this thread previously...
...and reading it all the way through today both told me again why... and raised an issue with it that I feel should be addressed here.

I was horrified at some of the kudos that some of these cruelties got. Worse was how some of them were acts of dominance against a player.
The most egregious example was PJ relating a story of how he used a foe that was specially built to be immune to a character that was expected to play and expected to interact in said way to sexually assault the character resulting in real world humiliation for years... in a forum that the player would be unable to leave... as an act of 'dominance' and 'revenge'.
And that this got accolades?

Maybe we all need to stop, step back and think a bit on what we are doing here.
This is a game, it is meant to be fun. If 'fun' requires the Conan "crushing your foes and hearing the lamentations of their women" then perhaps Your Doing It Wrong.

Yes, we all know "That Guy" who is a jerk. But if you have to resort to power plays and cruelty to 'get back at them' then perhaps the problem isn't them. It is my firm opinion that a GM can, and should be able to handle their players with out having to resort to the Fiat-bat, or to cruelty or humiliation. If the player is unable to respond to anything short of cruelty... then do you really want to be playing a game with someone who can only respond to cruelty...and do you want to become the person that has to use cruelty to make your points?

Just a few things to ponder while reading a thread of ways to humiliate and punish players.

This seams more of a soap box attack than contributing anything meaningful to a discussion.
A good deal of the discussion was on the size of a dragon.
Some people posted joking comments.
The thread was started to talk about things GMs had done as punishment.
Some times punishment is needed to deal with a problem. It is a sad fact that humans some time need to face consequences when they are out of control.

Now then lets say a mod like mack used his powers to ban some one. That might be seen as a power play or dominates move but it is a needed control for when people get out of hand.

Punishment by its very nature is cruel. If I need to punish some one that is behaving inappropriately I will but I typically do not enjoy it.

Blue_Lion wrote:

eliakon wrote:I avoided this thread previously...
...and reading it all the way through today both told me again why... and raised an issue with it that I feel should be addressed here.

I was horrified at some of the kudos that some of these cruelties got. Worse was how some of them were acts of dominance against a player.
The most egregious example was PJ relating a story of how he used a foe that was specially built to be immune to a character that was expected to play and expected to interact in said way to sexually assault the character resulting in real world humiliation for years... in a forum that the player would be unable to leave... as an act of 'dominance' and 'revenge'.
And that this got accolades?

Maybe we all need to stop, step back and think a bit on what we are doing here.
This is a game, it is meant to be fun. If 'fun' requires the Conan "crushing your foes and hearing the lamentations of their women" then perhaps Your Doing It Wrong.

Yes, we all know "That Guy" who is a jerk. But if you have to resort to power plays and cruelty to 'get back at them' then perhaps the problem isn't them. It is my firm opinion that a GM can, and should be able to handle their players with out having to resort to the Fiat-bat, or to cruelty or humiliation. If the player is unable to respond to anything short of cruelty... then do you really want to be playing a game with someone who can only respond to cruelty...and do you want to become the person that has to use cruelty to make your points?

Just a few things to ponder while reading a thread of ways to humiliate and punish players.

This seams more of a soap box attack than contributing anything meaningful to a discussion.
A good deal of the discussion was on the size of a dragon.
Some people posted joking comments.
The thread was started to talk about things GMs had done as punishment.
Some times punishment is needed to deal with a problem. It is a sad fact that humans some time need to face consequences when they are out of control.

Now then lets say a mod like mack used his powers to ban some one. That might be seen as a power play or dominates move but it is a needed control for when people get out of hand.

Punishment by its very nature is cruel. If I need to punish some one that is behaving inappropriately I will but I typically do not enjoy it.

There is punishment and there is cruelty
I will say that 100% of the time using sexual assault to 'get' someone as an explicitly stated dominance move is cruel.
I will say that because there is no situation where sexually assaulting someone is the proper consequence of an action. The problem here is that the line between "consequences" and "must get them" have become blurred and in many cases lauded.

The idea of punishment is a good one. But it needs to be a just punishment otherwise it is simply bullying someone who can't fight back. When the line between the two is blurred then it is probably time to step back and consider how, and why they line was erased and what needs to be done to put it back.

To go to your example though. Mack banning someone is a control move yes. It is not cruel because it is a specific stated consequence to a specific action that both parties agreed to at the start. Now if Mack instead decided that the poster "needed to be taught a lesson" and so published a post detailing that posters private chats full of salacious and embarrassing information so as to 'demonstrate that the mods see all' THAT would be cruel.
When you have a problem player you deal with that player. There is no call to humiliate that player. When you attack the person you are cruel.

I bring this up because the example that was being lauded that set me off was PJs one. In that he says that he sexually assaulted a persons character, that he set up to fail mind you, in such a way as to cause the person themselves to be publicly humiliated for years afterword's.... so his 'solution' to a problem player was to not only ruin the game, but their social life and quite possibly their self esteem, maybe for the rest of their life.
That isn't justice that is bullying of the worst sort.
And yet it was being lauded as an example of 'good'
That told me that maybe people need to step back and actually LOOK at what they are doing and saying. Group think is a terrible thing and it can quite easily lead to this sort of abuse. I was horrified to find it being promoted here in the forums and I had hoped that others would be just as horrified.

Blue_Lion wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:That is it. Fine I will show you a killer GM.
Hands ZerO Kay a level 15 Glitter boy to play.
*A toilet falls from off a space station passing through the orbital defense field inflicting 3d6 GDC to your charter. It is a surprise attack so you can not dodge.*
You MDC armor does not stop the GDC and your charter dies.

OMG I was right your killing me soda nose shot burns.BTW I forgot to tell you... I'm playing a tourist

I did not approve any tourist for play. As you can see I gave you a pregen GB to play.

Sorry about the soda nose burn.

N/p it was funny

Blue_Lion wrote:

eliakon wrote:I avoided this thread previously...
...and reading it all the way through today both told me again why... and raised an issue with it that I feel should be addressed here.

I was horrified at some of the kudos that some of these cruelties got. Worse was how some of them were acts of dominance against a player.
The most egregious example was PJ relating a story of how he used a foe that was specially built to be immune to a character that was expected to play and expected to interact in said way to sexually assault the character resulting in real world humiliation for years... in a forum that the player would be unable to leave... as an act of 'dominance' and 'revenge'.
And that this got accolades?

Maybe we all need to stop, step back and think a bit on what we are doing here.
This is a game, it is meant to be fun. If 'fun' requires the Conan "crushing your foes and hearing the lamentations of their women" then perhaps Your Doing It Wrong.

Yes, we all know "That Guy" who is a jerk. But if you have to resort to power plays and cruelty to 'get back at them' then perhaps the problem isn't them. It is my firm opinion that a GM can, and should be able to handle their players with out having to resort to the Fiat-bat, or to cruelty or humiliation. If the player is unable to respond to anything short of cruelty... then do you really want to be playing a game with someone who can only respond to cruelty...and do you want to become the person that has to use cruelty to make your points?

Just a few things to ponder while reading a thread of ways to humiliate and punish players.

This seams more of a soap box attack than contributing anything meaningful to a discussion.
A good deal of the discussion was on the size of a dragon.
Some people posted joking comments.
The thread was started to talk about things GMs had done as punishment.
Some times punishment is needed to deal with a problem. It is a sad fact that humans some time need to face consequences when they are out of control.

Now then lets say a mod like mack used his powers to ban some one. That might be seen as a power play or dominates move but it is a needed control for when people get out of hand.

Punishment by its very nature is cruel. If I need to punish some one that is behaving inappropriately I will but I typically do not enjoy it.

WAIT!!!! Now were attacking soap boxes? When did they become the target?

eliakon wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:

eliakon wrote:I avoided this thread previously...
...and reading it all the way through today both told me again why... and raised an issue with it that I feel should be addressed here.

I was horrified at some of the kudos that some of these cruelties got. Worse was how some of them were acts of dominance against a player.
The most egregious example was PJ relating a story of how he used a foe that was specially built to be immune to a character that was expected to play and expected to interact in said way to sexually assault the character resulting in real world humiliation for years... in a forum that the player would be unable to leave... as an act of 'dominance' and 'revenge'.
And that this got accolades?

Maybe we all need to stop, step back and think a bit on what we are doing here.
This is a game, it is meant to be fun. If 'fun' requires the Conan "crushing your foes and hearing the lamentations of their women" then perhaps Your Doing It Wrong.

Yes, we all know "That Guy" who is a jerk. But if you have to resort to power plays and cruelty to 'get back at them' then perhaps the problem isn't them. It is my firm opinion that a GM can, and should be able to handle their players with out having to resort to the Fiat-bat, or to cruelty or humiliation. If the player is unable to respond to anything short of cruelty... then do you really want to be playing a game with someone who can only respond to cruelty...and do you want to become the person that has to use cruelty to make your points?

Just a few things to ponder while reading a thread of ways to humiliate and punish players.

This seams more of a soap box attack than contributing anything meaningful to a discussion.
A good deal of the discussion was on the size of a dragon.
Some people posted joking comments.
The thread was started to talk about things GMs had done as punishment.
Some times punishment is needed to deal with a problem. It is a sad fact that humans some time need to face consequences when they are out of control.

Now then lets say a mod like mack used his powers to ban some one. That might be seen as a power play or dominates move but it is a needed control for when people get out of hand.

Punishment by its very nature is cruel. If I need to punish some one that is behaving inappropriately I will but I typically do not enjoy it.

There is punishment and there is cruelty
I will say that 100% of the time using sexual assault to 'get' someone as an explicitly stated dominance move is cruel.
I will say that because there is no situation where sexually assaulting someone is the proper consequence of an action. The problem here is that the line between "consequences" and "must get them" have become blurred and in many cases lauded.

The idea of punishment is a good one. But it needs to be a just punishment otherwise it is simply bullying someone who can't fight back. When the line between the two is blurred then it is probably time to step back and consider how, and why they line was erased and what needs to be done to put it back.

To go to your example though. Mack banning someone is a control move yes. It is not cruel because it is a specific stated consequence to a specific action that both parties agreed to at the start. Now if Mack instead decided that the poster "needed to be taught a lesson" and so published a post detailing that posters private chats full of salacious and embarrassing information so as to 'demonstrate that the mods see all' THAT would be cruel.
When you have a problem player you deal with that player. There is no call to humiliate that player. When you attack the person you are cruel.

I bring this up because the example that was being lauded that set me off was PJs one. In that he says that he sexually assaulted a persons character, that he set up to fail mind you, in such a way as to cause the person themselves to be publicly humiliated for years afterword's.... so his 'solution' to a problem player was to not only ruin the game, but their social life and quite possibly their self esteem, maybe for the rest of their life.
That isn't justice that is bullying of the worst sort.
And yet it was being lauded as an example of 'good'
That told me that maybe people need to step back and actually LOOK at what they are doing and saying. Group think is a terrible thing and it can quite easily lead to this sort of abuse. I was horrified to find it being promoted here in the forums and I had hoped that others would be just as horrified.

So You are calling every one here cruel based off 2 posts?
Seams a little over judgemental. Most of the discussion here had nothing to do with being cruel for cruelness sake. 1 person was challenged about his actions being rules legal. Others talked about how a specific problem was dealt with.

Your statements are close to being seen as attacks against peoples charter. If some one violated forum rules report them. If you dislike the topic in a thread do not post in it. Was there any cruelty demonstrated in the 10 posts before your first comment, about it being cruel? (There was a joke but I do not see any cruelty.)

eliakon wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:

eliakon wrote:I avoided this thread previously...
...and reading it all the way through today both told me again why... and raised an issue with it that I feel should be addressed here.

I was horrified at some of the kudos that some of these cruelties got. Worse was how some of them were acts of dominance against a player.
The most egregious example was PJ relating a story of how he used a foe that was specially built to be immune to a character that was expected to play and expected to interact in said way to sexually assault the character resulting in real world humiliation for years... in a forum that the player would be unable to leave... as an act of 'dominance' and 'revenge'.
And that this got accolades?

Maybe we all need to stop, step back and think a bit on what we are doing here.
This is a game, it is meant to be fun. If 'fun' requires the Conan "crushing your foes and hearing the lamentations of their women" then perhaps Your Doing It Wrong.

Yes, we all know "That Guy" who is a jerk. But if you have to resort to power plays and cruelty to 'get back at them' then perhaps the problem isn't them. It is my firm opinion that a GM can, and should be able to handle their players with out having to resort to the Fiat-bat, or to cruelty or humiliation. If the player is unable to respond to anything short of cruelty... then do you really want to be playing a game with someone who can only respond to cruelty...and do you want to become the person that has to use cruelty to make your points?

Just a few things to ponder while reading a thread of ways to humiliate and punish players.

This seams more of a soap box attack than contributing anything meaningful to a discussion.
A good deal of the discussion was on the size of a dragon.
Some people posted joking comments.
The thread was started to talk about things GMs had done as punishment.
Some times punishment is needed to deal with a problem. It is a sad fact that humans some time need to face consequences when they are out of control.

Now then lets say a mod like mack used his powers to ban some one. That might be seen as a power play or dominates move but it is a needed control for when people get out of hand.

Punishment by its very nature is cruel. If I need to punish some one that is behaving inappropriately I will but I typically do not enjoy it.

There is punishment and there is cruelty
I will say that 100% of the time using sexual assault to 'get' someone as an explicitly stated dominance move is cruel.
I will say that because there is no situation where sexually assaulting someone is the proper consequence of an action. The problem here is that the line between "consequences" and "must get them" have become blurred and in many cases lauded.

The idea of punishment is a good one. But it needs to be a just punishment otherwise it is simply bullying someone who can't fight back. When the line between the two is blurred then it is probably time to step back and consider how, and why they line was erased and what needs to be done to put it back.

To go to your example though. Mack banning someone is a control move yes. It is not cruel because it is a specific stated consequence to a specific action that both parties agreed to at the start. Now if Mack instead decided that the poster "needed to be taught a lesson" and so published a post detailing that posters private chats full of salacious and embarrassing information so as to 'demonstrate that the mods see all' THAT would be cruel.
When you have a problem player you deal with that player. There is no call to humiliate that player. When you attack the person you are cruel.

I bring this up because the example that was being lauded that set me off was PJs one. In that he says that he sexually assaulted a persons character, that he set up to fail mind you, in such a way as to cause the person themselves to be publicly humiliated for years afterword's.... so his 'solution' to a problem player was to not only ruin the game, but their social life and quite possibly their self esteem, maybe for the rest of their life.
That isn't justice that is bullying of the worst sort.
And yet it was being lauded as an example of 'good'
That told me that maybe people need to step back and actually LOOK at what they are doing and saying. Group think is a terrible thing and it can quite easily lead to this sort of abuse. I was horrified to find it being promoted here in the forums and I had hoped that others would be just as horrified.

I find the whole concept of "punishing" a player to be crazy, to he honest. Tell a player that his or her behavior is ruining the fun for others? Sure. Make it clear that if they can't stop it then they will not included in future sessions? That too. Punishing? I'd rather do something else with my leisure time.

eliakon wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:

eliakon wrote:I avoided this thread previously...
...and reading it all the way through today both told me again why... and raised an issue with it that I feel should be addressed here.

I was horrified at some of the kudos that some of these cruelties got. Worse was how some of them were acts of dominance against a player.
The most egregious example was PJ relating a story of how he used a foe that was specially built to be immune to a character that was expected to play and expected to interact in said way to sexually assault the character resulting in real world humiliation for years... in a forum that the player would be unable to leave... as an act of 'dominance' and 'revenge'.
And that this got accolades?

Maybe we all need to stop, step back and think a bit on what we are doing here.
This is a game, it is meant to be fun. If 'fun' requires the Conan "crushing your foes and hearing the lamentations of their women" then perhaps Your Doing It Wrong.

Yes, we all know "That Guy" who is a jerk. But if you have to resort to power plays and cruelty to 'get back at them' then perhaps the problem isn't them. It is my firm opinion that a GM can, and should be able to handle their players with out having to resort to the Fiat-bat, or to cruelty or humiliation. If the player is unable to respond to anything short of cruelty... then do you really want to be playing a game with someone who can only respond to cruelty...and do you want to become the person that has to use cruelty to make your points?

Just a few things to ponder while reading a thread of ways to humiliate and punish players.

This seams more of a soap box attack than contributing anything meaningful to a discussion.
A good deal of the discussion was on the size of a dragon.
Some people posted joking comments.
The thread was started to talk about things GMs had done as punishment.
Some times punishment is needed to deal with a problem. It is a sad fact that humans some time need to face consequences when they are out of control.

Now then lets say a mod like mack used his powers to ban some one. That might be seen as a power play or dominates move but it is a needed control for when people get out of hand.

Punishment by its very nature is cruel. If I need to punish some one that is behaving inappropriately I will but I typically do not enjoy it.

There is punishment and there is cruelty
I will say that 100% of the time using sexual assault to 'get' someone as an explicitly stated dominance move is cruel.
I will say that because there is no situation where sexually assaulting someone is the proper consequence of an action. The problem here is that the line between "consequences" and "must get them" have become blurred and in many cases lauded.

The idea of punishment is a good one. But it needs to be a just punishment otherwise it is simply bullying someone who can't fight back. When the line between the two is blurred then it is probably time to step back and consider how, and why they line was erased and what needs to be done to put it back.

To go to your example though. Mack banning someone is a control move yes. It is not cruel because it is a specific stated consequence to a specific action that both parties agreed to at the start. Now if Mack instead decided that the poster "needed to be taught a lesson" and so published a post detailing that posters private chats full of salacious and embarrassing information so as to 'demonstrate that the mods see all' THAT would be cruel.
When you have a problem player you deal with that player. There is no call to humiliate that player. When you attack the person you are cruel.

I bring this up because the example that was being lauded that set me off was PJs one. In that he says that he sexually assaulted a persons character, that he set up to fail mind you, in such a way as to cause the person themselves to be publicly humiliated for years afterword's.... so his 'solution' to a problem player was to not only ruin the game, but their social life and quite possibly their self esteem, maybe for the rest of their life.
That isn't justice that is bullying of the worst sort.
And yet it was being lauded as an example of 'good'
That told me that maybe people need to step back and actually LOOK at what they are doing and saying. Group think is a terrible thing and it can quite easily lead to this sort of abuse. I was horrified to find it being promoted here in the forums and I had hoped that others would be just as horrified.

I find the whole concept of "punishing" a player to be crazy, to he honest. Tell a player that his or her behavior is ruining the fun for others? Sure. Make it clear that if they can't stop it then they will not included in future sessions? That too. Punishing? I'd rather do something else with my leisure time.

iteration27 wrote:didnt the dragon hatchling mind bein used like that? i thought they were born as intelligent beings.

Seriously???
He was playing a dragon hatchling.

eliakon wrote: I avoided this thread previously...
...and reading it all the way through today both told me again why... and raised an issue with it that I feel should be addressed here.

The "issue" Eli is that you don't like me, and attack me in many threads, but I'll address your concerns.

eliakon wrote:
I was horrified at some of the kudos that some of these cruelties got.

The thread was about punishing problem players. It wasn't about diplomatic solutions to maintain group unity or peaceful resolutions. Perhaps you misunderstood.

eliakon wrote:
Worse was how some of them were acts of dominance against a player.

The implication here being that my actions were an "Act of dominance against a player". They were not. Dominance was gained through the player's failure in the scene and humiliation. It was not a stated goal. My goal was to run a storyline. I did so. It was quite loved by all. Save that one problem player.

eliakon wrote:
The most egregious example was PJ relating a story of how he used a foe that was specially built to be immune to a character

You should go back and re-read my post. The foe was NOT specially built to be immune to the character in question. I said that the minion was sadistic and cruel. I also said that due to my construction the guy's super stats didn't affect it much. When someone's playing a character that's so beautiful that it physically hurts and a char whom has dumped 90% of his stats into social things to whoo women and has all sorts of appearance benefits, merits, blessings, and such, when they get into a confrontation with a flying baboon, those things don't matter overly much. Being an evil creature born of dreams, sadistic and cruel by design, the beautiful elf didn't whoo it. It wasn't impressed by the lord's lofty title... because it was a minion of evil and didn't recognize the social construct (Class system) that the nobler was a part of. It'd be like the Queen of England trying to order around a gang member in South Compton who was trying to mug and or murder her. They don't care she's the queen of England. Nor did this baboon care the guy was a noble.

You're trying to misrepresent what happened to paint me in a bad light.

I had built a powerful bad guy, meant for a -group- of 4 to 6 people to confront together. Thus one person alone would not do well to do so. Imagine... 1st lvl Luke skywalker, alone. Fresh off the moisture farm. Trying to take out Vader or the Emperor. It's not going to end well. By design the foe was powerful enough to give challenge to a GROUP of 4 to 6 people. The characters were supposed to flee with information. not force a full confrontation to the death with a clearly superior foe.

eliakon wrote:
that was expected to play

It was an open storyline for the entire site that had close to 30 players, most of whom had 4 to 6 different player characters. The foe wasn't designed for him specificly. It was designed to give challenge to a player GROUP coming into the storyline and that scene.

eliakon wrote:
and expected to interact in said way to sexually assault the character

Another misrepresentation. The villian wasn't designed to specificly interact in that way. It was me being 'nice' as a storyteller to not just murder his character in total. The guy picked a fight and got totally pwnd because the foe was designed to be CHALLENGING for 4 to 6 people TEAMED UP ON IT AT ONCE. The other player over estimated 1) His CHARACTERS Ability and 2) His OUT OF CHARACTER PROTECTION Due to his mother owning/running the site.

As for the assault. The minion was evil. Evil minions sometimes do evil things. The char was not activly raped. The essence was produced by manual stimulation. I just as easily -could- have had it rape him. I did not. Instead of killing a foe 100% at the ____EVIL MINION'S MERCY____ I had the MINION Choose to Humiliate the SIDHE KNIGHT instead. Because... it's -evil-.

Now this is a palladium board. And palladium by and large is written at a PG level. With only a few stand outs, palladium is written and designed for 12 year olds to be comfortable. Kevin has stated this more than once. If you want more 'adult' or manture games you can surely do so but most palladium books are written for that target audience.

White wolf is not.

More over. As I stipulated in the original post to this thread. __________I WARNED ALL PLAYERS PRIOR TO ENTERING THE SCENE THAT IT HAD A HIGH LEVEL BADDIE AND THAT INJURY/MAIMING/ AND CHARACTER DEATH WERE A POSSIBILITY______. White wolf is a more Rated "R" Game straight from the jump. In addition to that the players were warned before they even chose to join the storyline. This one could get you seriously injured, --maimed--, and or killed. Do not enter the scene with the assumption that you'll skate through it and no matter what you do, will your character survive.

I did not set out to -purposefully- kill PCs. But the possibility was there. This was an evil creature in a dark setting (The Setting is called the World of Darkness) And the foe was ---literally--- a creature born of nightmares.

So yes... it did assault the ____CHARACTER____ In a way that was sexual. Yes it humilitated the ___CHARACTER___ in a way that did lasting damage to the character's reputation and made him a laughing stock.

Because that's what evil creatures do to shining ultra beautiful people/things. They DEFILE Them. They RUIN Them. They rip them apart and take that beauty and power away.

They're not rocky and bowinkle villains. This was a -real- evil critter. Designed that way on purpose. Yes, such things are mature themed, but the entire game system is based on being mature themed. That's it's 'thing'.

eliakon wrote: resulting in real world humiliation for years...

Indeed. The guy was an utter phallus. His mentality and personality made it a humiliation for years. A more well adjusted individual would have winced at such a degradation to their char. Healed up and come back to trounce it (With a posse of buddies, because now he knew how powerful the foe was).

eliakon wrote:

in a forum that the player would be unable to leave.

He was able to leave. Infact over the years he has done so more than once. Once he got tired of taking his mother's orders and 'left' to form his own site. Noone played on it because he's a jerk.
More than once his mother has elevated him to Admin status. And every single time she's had to fire him for abuse of power and being a jerk and running off players.
Then the cycle starts again and she needs an admin for a system, be it Werewolf, or vampire, or mage, or changeling and if she can't get anyone else to do it, he'll beg and plead till she empowers him again. Then the dude goes power mad up to and threatening his own mother and her chars.. till she fires him again. he's been out right banned from his own mother's site no fewer than three times that I know of.

AND.. it's a hobby. Noone HAS to Role play. He was there by choice. So he was able to leave at any point.

Nor was he required to be in the scene. He chose to enter said scene even with advance warning of how deadly it was, and i __STILL__ Didn't kill his character. Though I could have.

You're 100% misrepresenting this to try and make it out like I'm Evil to score points.

eliakon wrote:
.. as an act of 'dominance' and 'revenge'.

The Baboon CERTAINLY did what it did to establish dominance over the overly beautiful sidhe noble. Because the Baboon was evil and hated beautiful things. A very very common motivator. Why do such a thing? BECAUSE THE BABOON WAS TOTALLY EVIL!! Humiliating a shining knight of the seelie court was AWESOME to the evil chimera. It was totally with in character for the Baboon, but so woul dhave been peeling off the guy's face and eating it while he watched.

__EVIL__

I don't mess around when I play bad guys. My bad guys are THREATS and if you're STUPID you learn why they're threats. I do not consider the GM/Player relationship to be confrontational. We're there to all have fun playing through the stories, so my baddies are BAD. There's a reason you want to kill um. And I CHALLENGE my players, because with out honest threat. Then why have dice in the first place you're just maiking it up. So sometimes PC's die.

In this case, I went soft. I didn't infact kill the fool PC, to teach a lesson. Why? 1) To be some what nice and 2) because the kid's mom OWNED the venue. So __I__ Was hobbled by what I could and couldn't do.

But yes, the Baboon was an evil minion of the Shadow court. It totally established dominance over the pretty boy elf.

eliakon wrote:
And that this got accolades?

Why not? It's a role playing game. Sometimes bad things happen to characters. I did not touch the dude in question nor harm him. Or in your games do villians never do anything Evil? Are they all just robbing banks and knocking over lemonaid stands, and every game result in them being tied up after a firm talking to and carted off to Jail?

Its one way to play, for sure. If you like that sort of thing, go ahead. My games are a bit more realistic, in that if there's an -evil- char he does -evil- stuff.

eliakon wrote:
Maybe we all need to stop, step back and think a bit on what we are doing here.

Talking about Role playing games. Not Real life. In real life I would never conduct THOUSANDS of actions my chars have in Roleplaying games, or tens of thousands of actions my villains have conducted when I run Games. You're trying to wag your finger and make it out like we're bullies. In this aspect we're being game masters.

eliakon wrote:
This is a game, it is meant to be fun.

I had fun. The others in the storyline had fun. Even the two people who's char's ended up dying before the end of the storyline. I got called out in the forums of the site for kudos for actually running a storyline that wasn't afraid to have powerful baddies, that wern't killed off first scene and presented a threat to the player characters and the city.

ONE individual did not have fun because he was a d-bag.

eliakon wrote:
If 'fun' requires the Conan "crushing your foes and hearing the lamentations of their women" then perhaps Your Doing It Wrong.

1) Don't tell other's how to play.
2) My FUN did not require Conan crushing of my foes". The other player pressed the point by months and months and months of bad behavior, and lording over not just me but dozens of other people.

In short, if you're nothing but a huge flaming jerk, don't cry when someone's mean to you BACK. You're reeping what you've sown.

eliakon wrote:
Yes, we all know "That Guy" who is a jerk.

Some are worse than others. Some only understand things on their own level. So yes. sometimes you have to sink to their level if you're to reach them. I reached this guy.

eliakon wrote: But if you have to resort to power plays

What you seem to be missing was that ---he--- was the one in power. I had a very very limited scope. I was a ---player---, who got ----permission---- to run a player run storyline. He was an Admin of the site, in control of a total system, and spoiled son of the site owner and founder.

eliakon wrote: and cruelty to 'get back at them' then perhaps the problem isn't them.

Sure it is.

Sorry but sure it is. If a bully punches you in the face every day when you're waiting for the bus. And laughs about it. Lords over it but never gets in trouble because his dad is the principal of the school. And every day you get punched and he laughs. Every day you're humilated and assaulted...

When you punch him back you're not suddenly the bad guy. You're not some how 'out of line'. You're not some evil bully who has to resort to violence!!! You've given the actual bully a small small taste of what he has been giving you all that time.

No the bully can NOT then step back holding his busted nose and scream and throw a tantrum and demand that you're some how the bad guy for treating him ONCE, how he's treated you for months or years.

Which is what you're trying to do here Eli.

You're doing your ABSOLUTE BEST to try and paint me as some sort of evil GM who abused his power on the poooooooooooooor pitiful person whom only wanted to play the game.

No. That's not the situation. Nor how it was resolved. You're trying an 'Appeal to emotion' by phrasing stuff in an emotionally charged way and lacing it with 'buzzwords' to try and engineer an emotional response as a mode of attacking me personally.

eliakon wrote:
It is my firm opinion that a GM can, and should be able to handle their players with out having to resort to the Fiat-bat, or to cruelty or humiliation.

All things being equal, many can. In this case there 1) Was no 'fait-bat'. 2) The cruelty was IN CHARACTER from an EVIL NIGHTMARE BABOON, and the Humiliation was done to the character as well. The PLAYER's bad attitude made it transfer over to himself.

"COULD" I Do things in different ways? SURE. A player that's not a total jerkwad gets those other ways. A jerkwad that's nothing by a jerk for years, lording over playerss OUT of character, and having super characters IN CHARACTER to also lord over CHARACTERS.. no. I choose another route for such people.

I.E. If you're nice to me I can be nice to you. Doesn't mean my bad guys wont' try and kill you, but I'll do it in ways that are less cruel and humiliating.

If you're a jerk. You get Jerk back. Pull up your big girl panties and get a helmet.

eliakon wrote:
If the player is unable to respond to anything short of cruelty.

He very much was. As I've further pointed out in this post, his own mother, who coddled him and gave him characters 10 times (Literally. I counted once) stronger than every one elses characters, and let him run entire systems, fired him and banned him from her own site for how he treated HER when in power and chasing off players.

Ye was very much unable to respond to anything short of cruelty. More over his responce was to develop a hate on me that's lasted more than a decade and seek revenge over and over. I just don't care. lol.

eliakon wrote:
then do you really want to be playing a game with someone who can only respond to cruelty.

I very much didn't. I detested the little jerk. But again I refer you back to my OP in this thread.

He was the _______________________SON____________________ of the Site __________________________FOUNDER AND OWNER_________________________ If I wanted to play in the game with the other 20 to 30 people, in multiple systems. Daily. I had a choice to make. Suck up the little buttertroll's horridness, or leave.

So I sucked it up. Played around him when I could. Chose not to log in with him unless I had to. And avoided him as much as possible to play with the OTHER people.

I was delighted during the times he'd get banned and or stripped of his position. I had a much more fun time then. Still every time she'd get over it (Had a large part to do with the fact the son often was the one paying the bills so he had her over a barrel).

I could have (and did) Leave at any point. When ever he'd get too much I'd step out for a few weeks or months. Other wise, dealing with the lil trog was what I had to endure to play there with my friends.

eliakon wrote:

..and do you want to become the person that has to use cruelty to make your points?

1) I didn't "have" to. I had other options, it was just all the little jerk would respond to.
2) I'm ok with it. LOL You're trying to shame me for being mean to a horrendous individual and long time abuser and bully. Sorry but that's not going to work. He was a jerk and deserved far more than I could possibly inflict upon him online. Again if it wasn't missed. ____HE____ Was the one in power. Both Out of char as an admin of the site, as son of the owner of the site, and IN character due to being given a character that had many TIMES the amount of power other char's had.

Palladium doesn't really have a direct parallel. but, imagine if everyone in the game had to start at level 1.....and this one guy had a maxed out char that was multi classed Juicer/borg/dragon/godling at 15th lvl. And he lived to use that char to lord over everyone else and would obliterate other chars that dared call him on it.

eliakon wrote:Just a few things to ponder while reading a thread of ways to humiliate and punish players.

Sometimes people need some humiliation and punishment. Sucks but it's true. Our legal system is based around it. When you're caught for a crime you're punished for it.

These are social groupings. (RPG groups) We do not have the ability to fine or imprison those whom break the 'laws' of our social group. So punishment is carried out in a few ways. Humiliation being one of them. Loss of social standing. And or banishment.

I'm simply not going to apologize for treating a person with no integrity, compassion, humility, culture, or redeeming values (Other than the fact he worked at McDonalds and provided enough money to keep his mother in housing so we could HAVE the site) badly.

If you're nothing but a jerk. I'm not the sort that's going to hug you and stroke your hair and let you keep being a jerk. If someone's nice to me. I'm nice back. If they're a jerk. They get jerk back. I dont' feel bad about it and you're not going to be able to shame me with your attempt at such, acting like it's some how morally irresponsible to do so.

Hopefully these points address your concerns. I don't think they honestly -are- concerns. I think it's -feigned- outrage as a ploy to try and score some points, but I've addressed your concerns anyway. Hope it helps.

Alrighty Got my books out
A Great Horned Hatchling is 10 tons 1/3rd the mature dragon. We played that a dragon had a growth SPURT when it turned the die age rolled and flies at 70 mph with a max of 450 MD making the GHDH .0225 MD per pound at 70mph
SAMAS 340 lbs and flies at 300 mph with a total of 675 total MD making the SAMAS 2 MD per pound at 300 mph even if we only do the main body it's still .74 per pound.
So that is what weight wise 1:58 in favor of the Dragon?
A Corgi to a VW
VW 3571 lbs top speed approx 62 mph
Corgi 31 lbs top speed approx 23 mph

A Dragon has a resting energy of 4.05 joules
A SAMAS has a resting energy of 1.3 joules
A VW Bug has a resting energy of .57 joules
and a Corgi has a resting energy of .0006 joules
making the dragon and SAMAS easily about 1:4
while the VW Bug and Corgi are 1:837
WTH Nothing alike

By density of MD per pound the dragon should take more damage.

Heck whether it be mass, nutons or weight the DvS is 1:59 in favor of the D
while the VvC is 1:[bold]115[/bold]

Now lets do the SDC for the corgi and the VW
for the record the ratio of MDC to weight is 1:88 in favor of the SAMAS

The Corgi would be a terrier in the M&A book and the VW is a compact from the HU book
The VW has 300 SDC at 3571 lbs and the Corgi would have 12 at 31 lbs giving them a ratio of 1:4 in favor of the Corgi.

Funny that in both cases the lighter element has the greater density of damage capacity. but still the ratios are not anywhere near equivalent 1:4 and 1:88.

And back in the day we played that all dragons remained 1/3 their adult size until the day rolled and then there was a sudden growth spurt worthy of a creature of magic, which is a viable reading of the text.

AFAIK the text says they are 70% of their adult size.

Yes..

Mack wrote:This is a pointless argument.

... like a duel between AD&D Clerics!

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Mack wrote:This is a pointless argument.

... like a duel between AD&D Clerics!

I'd think more like a ballad duel between Bards