Way too much experience with dicks here to trust folks not to be dicks.

And why try? Because some folks are NOT dicks and I like interacting with them.

Re: Q6/50+ NP/city shattering power

I had a character with city shattering power from the in onset of this SITE (note, not the forums), and never once shattered a city. Never once engaged in a combat. Had, to best of my recollection, ONE use of any power at Q6 publicly, though there might have been a second.

It is possible to roleplay this kind of power, and the impact it has on the psyche of the character, without resorting to flexing your quantum muscles every opportunity you get. I'm somewhat insulted at being told my desire to play out that part of aberrant equates to "not understanding this reboot."

The problem isn't the power level of characters. It's what those characters, and to a greater extent their players, feel that power gives them the liberty to do. Regardless of the power cap, the same complaints of power abuse and rampant high-level combat are going to exist.

I think a more effective solution would be to forbid any combat related background; ergo, no former special forces, no martial artists, no hitman, no Navy SEALs, etc.

If the cap is Q5, I will play a character within the cap. That's not a problem. But because I have reasons to play Q6 that have nothing to do with throwing power around doesn't mean I misunderstand why the reboot is happening. Part of the problem in 2018 wasn't the Q6 characters, but the little godlings at Q5, who were more abusive and more combative than the Q6 crowd.

Point Cap: 60
Point Cap Raised: Yes
Q5+: No
Merits and Flaws: Yes
Strengths and Weaknesses: No
Limited Moderation: Yes
Canon: No

With a 60 np cap more things are possible, and considering that it's very likely Quantum will be limited to a rating of 5, it makes sense.

I a gree to the Cap advancement being set at 5 np a year.

I will say no to quantum 5+ at the start in any game, though through future advancement is possible.

Merits and flaws yes some are game breaking, but many aren't.

I've seen strengths and weaknesses abused far too much.

Moderation is something this place just needs.

I agree with Revenant regarding Canon. This should be our collective stories, Not what we do backdropped by the overpowering Canon setting.

Point Cap: 50
Point Cap Raised: No
Q5+: No
Merits and Flaws: No
Strengths and Weaknesses: Hell No
Limited Moderation: Yes
Canon: Yes, otherwise why have it be Aberrant?

I'm also against insisting that any advancement be determined by story length or post number. A few folks here are far better role players and storytellers than others and they have a tenth the number of posts. Fuck rewarding spewing out mediocrity.

Shouldn't that be "Q6+"

Yeah, should probably read that way. I was meaning over Q5.

Hmmm...no strengths and weaknesses would make some of my baroque ideas impossible to do. Not because they are broken mind you but as I said I have a habit of linking powers in a venerable tradition that dates back to Champions and the Hero System.

BTW, nice job on the Willy Wonka quote Warren!

Crunching the numbers from this impromptu show of democracy yields results which I find surprising, but I never claimed clairvoyance.

A starting NP cap of 60 is the more popular choice. Grudgingly, I could go along with this for one reason only: rule #1*. Most of us witnessed the train wreck in 2018 which resulted from the careless application of excess power. This time around, the careless application of excess power should (must, really) result in very rapid and strong community outrage. If we can agree to that, then 60NP can be made to work. There may be a few casualties if some people cannot handle their power high, but I prefer to call them "examples."

Most everyone seems to be okay with a progression of 5NP per year. Little more needs to be said, I think.

Those who voted in this unplanned plebiscite are split on the idea of Merits/Flaws. If I were to cast a tiebreaker** I'd vote against Merits and Flaws. My reasoning can be found upthread.

Surprisingly to me, but probably not to anyone else, Strengths and Weaknesses are almost unanimously despised. Fair 'nuff.

Almost everyone seems to want some kind of moderation. I volunteer. My credentials are available for inspection upon request. Of course, those who support me won't ask for them, and those who oppose me will ask for them just so they can pick them apart and/or make fun of me. Regardless, there it is. Objections?

We're split on the subject of strict adherence to canon. That's understandable. It's a tangled-enough subject that it deserves its own thread. I'll start one presently.

Somewhat counterintuitively, the prospect of Q6 novas is meeting with disapproval by the same margin that the 60NP cap is beating the 50NP cap. So apparently people want more NP to start but a lower overall Q level. Who knew? Again, fair 'nuff. Q5 max it is.

Taint in 200X will get its own thread. Personally, I'm leery of creating new mechanics for taint. I'll write more in the new thread.




(* Don't be a dick. Dicks get kicked.)
(** Or assume power in a mad grab for authority.)

Sorry, been at work the last 12 hours. Here's my 3 cents

Point cap: 60
Raising the cap each year to allow for growth: yes
Q5+: yes, but no Mastery
Merits and flaws: yes
Strengths and Weaknesses: no
Limited Moderation: yes
Canon set in stone: no

Point Cap: 50 is great. No matter what cap you used, there would be some character concept that would require more as well as many that require less. I'll make do with the limit and save the godlings for fiction.

Point Cap Raised: No. It sounds nice but doing this only recreates the same situation at a slower pace.

Q5<: No. There is something very disappointing about a godling living in a chat room. If I'm running out of time trying to do the normal things in my life, I don't think a Q6 bound god has the time to post in a chat room. Honestly, I think the Q6 argument is all about the power. If I am wrong, the integrity of the player will eventually become apparent and the matter can be readdressed at a later time.

Merits and Flaws: No.

Well... I don't actually care if anyone uses them. But please don't waste my time telling me that you only took them for "character integrity" and didn't even notice the extra points you were gaining. Forego taking the extra points and I'll believe wholeheartedly in your character's integrity.

Strengths and Weaknesses: You want to link things? Go ahead. Knock yourself out. But no shift in quantum levels or costs.

Limited Moderation: Yes

Canon: Yes.

Added:
Permanent - This is more often than not the kind of stick-in-the-eye annoyance that necessitates specific house rules. I've put my thoughts on the subject into another thread to avoid cluttering this one.

Nova, you are a dear sweet lady and flatter me more than you know.

Dave ST and others, thank you for the kind words.

Actually, Michael McGee offered himself up as a Moderator as well. I would like to put his name out there once again. No offense.

Just my 2 cents...

Point Cap: Either 50 or 60 is fine with me.
I personally can live with 50 but i don't see an extra 10 np as horribly "game-breaking"

Point Cap Raise Sure.
Again I don't specifically care but if we don't allow some sort of "growth mechanic" then those people who do care are going to slowly become bitter towards the limitation.

Q above 5: Depends.
If Mastery is banned and Q6+ powers relegated to Troup consensus (in other word, you can't get a Q6+ power without getting a majority agreement from the Troup) then I don't have a problem with a Quantum score of 6, otherwise no.

Merits & Flaws: No!
More often than not these are abused in this type of environment as there is no storyteller to call them into play. It falls to the player of the character to make sure the bonus or penalty is represented in fictions and posts and it's very tempting to play down the negatives. If you want a blind, paraplegic Nova with Eufiber Rejection then roleplay one that way. No points for you, come back next year!

Strengths & Weaknesses: No*.
*The only way I'll vote yes to them is if they fall under Troup juristiction. In other words, post your modified power, if the majority of the troup is ok with it then you can have it. Otherwise it's back to the drawing board.

limited moderation: Yes*
* Only if the identities of all moderators are made public. I've been hosed in the past by anonymous moderators and it was a bitter and frustrating experience.

Set Cannon: Yes

Okay to Nova no to Michael McGee. Not because I don't like Mike but because the vast majority of his contributions here have been solo stuff with little to no interaction. Very insular. Don't know enough about him interacting with a troupe.

How are we defining limited moderation?

Limited moderation vs. Heckled by peers? Hmmm tough one.

If Nova can keep a cool head and is willing to commit the time to it I am fine with her doing it.

None taken. He's a great guy, a very good friend to me, and I'm sure he's very interested. The N! Prime writers produce a crushing load of words when they are inspired. Two people could keep up with the torrent better than one. . .

I also put my name up there for consideration a couple pages back. I'm not known from the 2018 thread, but I've been running the Long March for over a year now and have been playing in Phoenix Rising. I would be willing to help moderate solo or as a small team of two or three. Might be something to be said for a trio of mods.

I expect that when I get home from work, there will be a call for N moderators, with N being the number of people who want to moderate.

=D I kid, of course.

Three is tricky. With three people, one can play the others against each other, or a permanent coalition could be formed by two to silence the other.

With two, close cooperation, understanding, and compromise are required, or else nothing gets done. Also, the hugs are better.

If McGee isn't interested, I would be willing to be the third moderator.

Odd question, but one that effectively shut the door on interest in 2008 for me.

Can the characters start as baselines in something other than a prologue story that immediately erupts them?

Lou Anne for instance was posting a little bit on the Opnet forums before her eruption because of her profession. It let me get inside her head a bit so I'd have a better idea what powers and such would be appropriate once she got to the point of erupting. It also let me work on fine tuning the character and sheet before I had to worry about where to throw Nova Points.

Damnyou Nova, you hog all the godd hugs to yourself ;_; :P

I certainly don't see a problem with it.

Lou Anne, somewhere along the way it was suggested there should be a rationale for why and how novas are posting in the first place. The perception of what NPrime is has gone through various interations ranging from a secret conclave arranged by "powers that be" to an amalgamation of opsite throughout that world that just happen to be presented here with only the nova voices being heard.

It's difficult to answer the question you posed without knowing what the NPRime Opnet is.

This calls for a new topic. Let's go discuss it there.

Added/Sorry, Nova. We were writing at the same time but for obvious reason you managed to push post before I did. I wasn't ignoring you when I posted the following./added

On the subject of moderation, and I mean absolutely no disrespect to anyone that's volunteered to take on that crappy thankless job, but I don't like officials whether they're appointed or not. Call me an anarchist if you like but I feel its inevitable that some power nazi will eventually find their way into the job before they manage to really screw things up.

I want to be able to go to someone directly and tell them there is a problem with what they are doing while at the same time knowing they will extend the same courtesy to me. If that fails I want to open a thread explaining why I have a problem and calling for a troupe consensus. If it goes my way then the offending player doesn't huff, puff or threaten to leave. They acknowledge the troupe has a consensus, express their regret the troupe doesn't see it their way then fix the problem. If it doesn't go my way then I acknowledge the troupe has a consensus, thank everyone for their time and consideration before moving on without whining or threatening to quite.

I'll be very candid this; my way is harder, a pain the butt and the consensus can very well go either way. It does have the advantages of requiring adult behavior and not sticking some poor bastard with moderation duties.

I want to be the poor bastard with moderation duties, because I don't see it as a burden. However, the existence of moderators must not preclude discussion among the group. A moderator serves the writers, and is there to ensure that the largest number of people possible are enjoying the site. It must always be that way. A moderator who does it the other way around is a tyrant.

I know I can sometimes come off as being somewhat arrogant and pushy, but I really want to put everyone else's happiness first. It's an aspect of my personality that is very deeply-rooted, and it makes me genuinely happy to see others having a good time because I am there helping them to do so. I like to help people look good. I like to help people succeed. I like to see people play well together happily.

I must run to work now. If I am fortunate, I'll be able to log on and post from work, but don't count on it.

Back in 8 hours or so!

The discussion of taint in the other thread brings up a point.
Given all this talk of playing according to your dots, will be be creating a thread where character sheets are posted? Seems like a good idea to me if we are going to be holding people accountable.


Re: Moderation duties.
I feel much like Nova does about this. Moderation should not be a burden and if it is it's probably because someone isn't being a mature adult about the game.
I also like Fortunes suggestion of using discussion threads to have interventions for players not behaving appropriately. I think this should be acceptable whether we have mods or not. After all, if someday a person becomes a mod and does get uppity and starts trying to throw their weight around it is the player base that holds the ultimate authority and a mod could be called to task just as easily as a player.

I think that a section for character profiles and character sheets is a good idea.

This has in the course of a single day branched out into several topics. I doubt I'll keep up so you guys just figure it all out and let me know the details.


I personally don't want moderation in the terms of like what 2010 has (which is abysmal). I'm thinking more along the lines of a ST.

We'll disagree, as all players will eventually do, and we'll (hopefully) try to solve the issue amongst ourselves. If this fails we turn to the ST (Moderator) and say: "Hey, we're stalemating here, what your ruling?"

Moderator then steps in and after reviewing the information on all sides and makes a ruling based on the players' opinions, information, and arguments, not on what she/he feels the Aberrant universe should be like.

Basically she/he puts out our fires so we can spend less time flaming each other in an OOC forum and writing fictions.

There should be more than one to prevent situations where the Moderator may be one of the players involved in the dispute.

I volunteered prior to the subject being brought up, but it was apparently overlooked. Oh well.

Hello. I haven't been around much lately, but I like this idea in theory and would hope to be able to participate. Behold, my thoughts on the questions of the hour:

Point cap: 50 or 60
50. Of course, I'd rather see well-rounded 60 point characters than min-maxed 50 point characters.

Raising the cap each year to allow for growth: yes or no.
No. I would be interested in seeing the effect of universally cutting off even the distant aspiration of city-mulching godhood. That curiosity is my only reason for voting this way, so no need to take this one too seriously. I like the idea of rejiggering points at will, within reason, regardless.

Q>5: yes or no
No. I see no need to allow the division between those who are willing to Take The Plunge and those who aren't. That division seems significant to me...

Merits and flaws: yes or no
No. Mechanics like this should be hand-waved and done with RP where possible.

Strengths and Weaknesses: yes or no
No. However, if we have moderators to adjudicate, I would advocate a conservative "That's not in the book, but it sounds reasonable to me" policy*.

Limited Moderation: yes or no
Yes, assuming a reasonable definition of limited moderation. I'm confident in Mike's ability to take on this role if it is determined to be a necessary position. I don't know the other contenders as well, but they all seem to have the requisite organs. (Heart, brain, guts, etc)

Canon set in stone: yes or no
No. This is the only option I have a very strong opinion about. I'll save my specific thoughts on the matter for another time. Suffice it to say, for me, the meta-plot does not make Aberrant Aberrant, but it can make Aberrant aberrant. I'm all for using the starting conditions from The Book, and then letting events unfold organically.

---

*I play primarily for the psychological benefits and prefer to keep mechanics at arms length, so my personal stake in things like points and point advancement is presumably minimal. However, some of my ideas, for reasons quite distant from combat optimization, require more flexibility than a strict reading of the core rules permits. Xeno and its ilk aren't going to win any fist (pseudopod?) fights, but do require a bit of leeway to creep into existence in this brave new world. If the greater good calls for rigorous adherence to The Book, however... I can work with that too.

One thing I have been noticing is all the naysayers on merits and flaws really only gripe about the flaws. I suspect that this is becuase they would rather roleplay these flaws and gripe about anyone getting "extra bonus points" Big Whoop.

Heres a fix. In addition to starting out with 50-60 NPs, we also get 25 Bonus Points to spend rather than 15. I have played in some games where this was the case and it was a great boon. I didnt have to sacrrifice things like Willpower because my concept was also background or skill heavy pre eruption.

And furthermore to all you naysayers. You complain about the flaws but what about those of us who really want the meits? Things like Iron Will, Internal Compass, or Eufiber Attuned are excellent additions to some character concepts. Huge Size is another one. 4 BPs makes you extra big and you get the benefit in another bruised level.

Food for thought...

I don't have a problem with people taking Merits. You really want Internal Compass? Peachy. You've got 15 BPs. Make sure it's something your character will value, something integral to their concept.

I don't think you should get extra BPs. If you want to start with something special for your nova, you should have to sacrifice something else. Even then, the "setback" gives you more opportunities for growth and development later.

Oh, and for the record... I'd totally come back and play Vv in a reboot.