Dane's forum posts

#1 Posted by Dane (10667 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde said:

@dane: I have a scenario I'm working on with Erik's input. Its a bit more in depth than the average scenario. If you have time sometime I'd like to hear your opinion on my rough draft.

Sounds good. Throw me a PM or something.

#2 Posted by Dane (10667 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde said:
@dane said:
@lunacyde said:

@dane: You sir are my hero.

Out of retirement for the kill.

Haha, how's it going Luna?

Oh you know, schoolin n00bs. Watering the fields with blood of the unworthy. Wishing you were participating so we could make a team-up to be feared.

Maybe soon. Got only a little time at the moment. Might squeeze in the next one.

#3 Posted by Dane (10667 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde said:

@dane: You sir are my hero.

Out of retirement for the kill.

Haha, how's it going Luna?

#4 Edited by Dane (10667 posts) - - Show Bio

@jacthripper said:

@dedmanwalkin: Of course, I wouldn't say "because I can manipulate you, you won't be able to do x" I'm saying that I'd use his understanding of your character to piss them off.

You're generally required to deduce that yourself and suggest the means by which you intend to piss them off. He then gets to counter-argue the point.

The statement "I'd use his understanding of your character to piss them off" and the statement "because I can manipulate you, you won't be able to do x" are equally stupid. They're both 'no-sells'. Both of them say "I have a thing I can't even describe, because I'm either incapable or too lazy and I think it should beat you" - that's called losing. You lose when you can't or won't explain something. It's like a child with a toy gun going "I shot you, you're dead now" - He basically has no chance to defend himself because you've decided (with no real justification or thought process on your part) that you've already won any debate that could possibly occur. Which takes debating off the table. Which makes everything you're doing here a waste of time.

You (actual) need to decide how you (character) are going to do everything you do. You need to say what weakness in his character you're exploiting, how you're exploiting it, with what, etc.

For the record, I never would have allowed Tao for this exact reason. The character isn't even more manipulative or impressive than the Joker or any number of other villains. But because his track record of success is so good people do this substandard 'he just manipulates people, omg *jazz hands*' garbage every time he's in a thread. Want the honest truth? Virtually no one in the Wildstorm Universe is reasonably depicted with an IQ over 100 because most of the writers for Wildstorm don't have IQs over 100. They do the exact thing you're doing where they have something happen without bothering to explain it. Because they can't, they're not creative or intelligent enough to come up with an explanation. That's a professional with a creative job who is not creative enough to do their job. People in the real world call that incompetence.

Good luck with the thread or whatever.

#5 Edited by Dane (10667 posts) - - Show Bio

@dedmanwalkin said:

@jacthripper: When Dane was running these, he had a rule against things that allow you to get around having to use strategy. One guy wanted a power that allowed him to basically just think his way out any situation. That creates issues because ten he could just say, "I think my way out of that situation and leave!" These scenarios are about YOU coming up with a way to win not your character. It is no fun to debate against someone who doesn't have to come up with a strategy when you have put time coming up with a strategy.

Basically, even though you'd have Tao's manipulation skills, they'd only be used to justify YOUR manipulative abilities.

You're exactly correct. The objectively best kind of correct. The rule precluded omnicompetence and similar abilities. It was implemented to prevent, exactly as you describe, a player inventing their own plot device without evening having the common courtesy of describing it's nature or function. Literally saying "My character just has a solution." really just means "I have no idea what to do or how to do it, but I think my character should, so I win." This is the opposite of a scenario solution, which is a person (i.e. you actual) coming up with a solution to a problem and justifying the means by which it could be feasibly executed with your own tactics and your character's glued on powers, abilities, equipment, etc. By not coming up with an actual solution, you haven't actually solved anything. Seems straight forward but is often lost on people.

#6 Posted by Dane (10667 posts) - - Show Bio

@beatboks1: Painkiller was the only other one I knew. I'll kick in if you need someone.

#7 Posted by Dane (10667 posts) - - Show Bio

Lucifer Morningstar is the more demonstrable candidate.

It's said that while The Presence is alive, Lucifer's flames can burn anything in existence (except the Presence) as they are enforced by the Presence's power and Lucifer's will. It's also pretty well demonstrated within his reality that it's true. So it becomes as much as case of DC's Presence vs Marvel's TOAA as anything since their respective #2's have powers scaled against their creators.

#8 Posted by Dane (10667 posts) - - Show Bio

Revan coming back isn't much of a feat. It's more a matter of bad Bioware writing, with them trying to bump the popularity of a dead game.

#9 Posted by Dane (10667 posts) - - Show Bio

These teams are pretty insanely imbalanced.

#10 Edited by Dane (10667 posts) - - Show Bio

Excellent debate. I'll give my vote to Beatboks. He is awful hard to beat, especially when he has his wheelhouse.