Overlord is his own problem and ironically his own solution. Nothing more is relevent.

In regards to Seph, he does what he says he will or he doesn't claim to be able to do it. If you know him as well then you know that to be true. Now what are we really talking about?

And Moderation is the establishment of the court of last resort in an environment where the community is the definition of greater good. It doesn't matter whether I absolutely want a 100 NP to realize a character concept, Jager wants Q6 or Wakinyan wants to orchestrate a world defining event. That's all about selling to the community, not asking whether the moderators for permission. Get it straight; moderators are involved when adults can't resolve the problem. When two people can't resolve a problem with maturity then it gets kicked to the moderators. I am completely, totally and absolutely fine with Seph being one of those people. He'd put up with Overlord's antics longer than I would, with far more aplomb.

Its OverloAd not OverloRd...OverloRds is what you and Nova are trying to become...

Maybe if you tried allowing a vote instead of berating me with your fear of losing control I would mellow out. As it is your draconian insistence and attempts to shame me into silence only make me feel more justified in opposing you.

And yet you wonder why you make so little headway.

I'm Jack actually. Fortune's Son is a nick much as is Overload, Overlord, Serenity, Revenent, Velvet, Jager, Dawnstar, Seph, etc.

Sorry about miskeying your nick. It may have been a freudian slip, a simple oversight or just not reading it.

You do what you do and are what you choose to be. Mellow out or not as you choose but your demeanor is the deciding factor. I'm one of those people that don't actually care one way or the other about your diatribes.

I just want to see where the majority stands and have felt unjustly blocked and ridiculed for standing up and speaking out against what I feel to be unfair.

It is unfair to try and rush through some kind of charter and ignore the constituents desires...

Better. The great thing about this community is how they'll forgive or forget so long as the problem is fixed.

Forget the rhetoric and consider why you feel as you do. Then type that out to make your point. Leave off the rest of it because, generally speaking, it won't work. But explain yourself without throwing stones at the motivations of others and the community will listen. They'll go their own way but they'll listen.

So what do we think? A limit on Taint or not? I can't really see a good reason for it, personally.

And how long would this take? I'm sorry, but I don't like to wait until the 'community' approves what I write. If I wanted everything I wrote, to be stuck in a committee waiting for approval, I'd move to Cuba or North Korea.



It seems that way to me. Lets see if they slow down the process so that ll the voices can be heard. I would also like a vote. Without one, we can not be sure what the majority prefers, and the outcome would be illegitimate. Instead it could be seen as a 'pet project' by a few people, who will dictate to the majority what happens. That is why it needs a vote. To avoid that kind of animosity.

You might have a point, actually. I officially change my position.

Like I said, I just don't want to deal with Taint buttered monsters right out of the box. It strikes me as being insular in character concept. Additionally, and more importantly, quite a few people seem to have problems wrapping their head around the idea of taint. It seems forgotten or undervalued more often than not. That being the case, I'm hesitant to open to say its a great idea to not put a limit on it.

As I've always said, give someone enough rope, and they'll hang themselves. Taint = Bad and if people who play Aberrant fail to realize this to point discount themselves...

Well, you made your bed, kiddo. Sleep in it.

And if someone wants to play that type of character, why not? You seem to think that a self-destructive high-Taint character can't be fun to play out, ever.

If someone doesn't play it out, same with Merits and Flaws. Baleful Eye.

In ways, yes. But keep in mind at some point a Nova becomes inherently unplayable the closer you get to T10.

At a certain point, any actor just cant get into the role of something THAT inhuman.

I think it could be managed. The option should certainly be there. At a certain point you may have to just let loose and stop giving your character completely rational, thought-out reasons for his actions. And at a certain point you're gonna have to kill it.

But I think that would be fun to play out.

Well, then we wander into the realm of watching to see if a certain player of that high of taint can shoulder the burden.

It'd be quite a test.

RE: 200X
Just to check, we are talking about 2008, right?

RE: Q5 vs Q6 vs Q10
IMHO we need to vote on the Q max, but I seriously doubt the vote is in question.

RE: Taint Limits
Same comment, but I've no idea what the vote would be. I don't have a problem with Sloppy Joe + Dorm 5 as a concept, it's not what I'd want but that's a different issue.

RE: 50 or 60
Ditto... but I suggest that people take out a pen and sheet of paper and try a few combos out. One of the keys to this is to leave room for growth. The big limit on 30 is that you have to balance the point effectiveness of skills and attributes. 50 is a LOT.

Maybe Taint 8 max, and if you wanna mess with something greater ask a mod?

Why rush a charter through? Before nova posted her proposal for discussion, several people said they didn't care what the rules were they just wanted to get to posting and didn't want to wait long.

As for taint, I really don't care. Vote on it or not, don't care. I think it is possible to play a 9 taint nova and do it well, but if you do create a 8 or 9 point nova, you can expect that the community will be watching very closely to see that you do play it well. That's assuming the consensus is to abandon a cap on taint.

I'm cool with Q5. Q6 and the accompanying baggage (Mastery and the Level 4 powers) really, really throw a wrench into the believability of a character being on the same level as even other novas.

Taint I'd like to see bumped to 8. You have examples like Sloppy Joe that show some novas ARE taint-buttered and totally fuckered right at eruption.

50 NP seems pretty cool to me. Bumping it to 60 just strikes me as greedy. And whatever the growth is I'm cool with. I don't have any desires there.

Oh and Nova? Thank you for all the work you've put into this and for restaining your furious wrath in the face of undeserved attacks.

I'm pretty easygoing at this point.

As a rule, I tend to prefer more conservative opening conditions, which then open up as the game establishes itself. Reasoning: It's easier to say, "Shucks, I guess we can afford more NP and taint and stuff...lets raise those caps," than it is to say, "Er, man, we goofed...everyone who built with 60, lets redo you down to 50, and if you have a lot of taint, you have to ditch that too."

That said, I have no concrete objections to lots of NP and as much taint as you like. I'm not sure this constitutes a vote, or even useful information in creating the bible...but it's all I got. I'm maddeningly passive-aggressive.

Pretty good point.

My preferences.

50NP or 60NP?
50, provided that progress and growth are possible. I'm also fine with less, but more seems like a grab for power that will (in all likelihood) continue to escalate.

Q:6?
Not without mod consensus and approval, and not for beginning characters. It's a milestone that I feel should be justified by extensive character development, much as was necessary in 2018. I honestly cannot grasp the idea that it would be an absolute necessity for a "starting" character, and I get the impression (subjective, I know) that it's less a matter of adherence to a character concept than to a certain level of perceived power. Things can be purchased later. You don't have to start with everything you want for your character's entire career.

Taint Max?
6 seems like a reasonable number as a standard, with 7-8 being permitted by mod approval/consensus. I'm also inclined to support an alternative means of separating Tainted novas in all their horrific glory from those who simply look unusual, rather than forcing those with unique concepts to play twisted S.O.B.s who bear little similarity to humankind in thought or deed. I also believe that those who choose to play heavily-tainted characters (those requiring approval, specifically) should be open to censure by a public vote of the players participating in the forums if they get too far out of line.

I think that covers all the current topics, but if I've missed something I'm sure I'll post my thoughts on that, as well.

Well, leave it to me to bring up the rear on commentary, but on the whole this looks pretty good. I do, however, have a couple of suggestions that I'd like to air at this point.

Assuming that we're going to retain the current Quantum Minimums on powers, I'd like to suggest that Quantum in the setting default to 3 rather than 1. This allows people to explore some of the more signifigantly expensive powers (Elemental Mastery comes ot mind) at 50 or 60 NP without needing to cripple the character in the short-run by putting all the points into Quantum. If people want to play lower Quantum characters, that should be permitted, but by setting the default Quantum bar higher we allow a wider range of character designs with a minimum of impact on overall power-level. Thoughts?

That's a really good idea. I like.

Me too.

Mechanically that's the same as 60 nova points, and I'm not sure what the point is.

50 nova points is enough for me to buy a nova with Q5 (10 points), Taint 1, 4 Elemental Masteries (Earth/Air/Fire/Water for 5 each) and STILL have 20 nova points left over for stats.

What is it that you can do with 60 points that you can't do with 50?

Actually I dislike this idea. I think people are starting to forget that this reboot is supposed to pare down the 2018 boards to more sane and reasonable levels of power.

50 NP to start is more than plenty in my personal opinion. Gaining 4 NP every 6 months is also very generous in my opinion.

Q6 to start? Really? Sorry but not interested, especially if Mastery and level 4+ powers are in the picture. Maybe sometime down the road but it must be accompanied by fictions showcasing the attainment of this power.

Taint I really don't care about but remember; if you make a taint monkey I'm going to treat you like a taint monkey. which could very well result in my characters shrieking like a little girl in fear and disgust at your very appearance....

Oh and just a note on the deplorable behavior that's been rearing it's ugly head in this and other threads. Stop it please. It's tiresome, irritating and only contributes to people leaving the site, which none of us wants.

Let's use your example.

Q5 (assuming you're not exploiting the freebie point+ flaws quantum exploit) will cost you twenty nova points. Less, with taint, but not that much less. A single level of each of those four elemental masteries buys you one technique of each and a puny die pool, which will not permit most of the interesting story uses for those powers, and will run you another twenty nova points (5 np/dot). Which leaves you with 10 points of your original 50 to buy other things, like mega-attributes or say, some flight. With the result that almost half your NP, in this character, goes to simply getting enough quantum to take the power you're designing the character around (be it Elemental Mastery or what have you). Not a receipe for rounded characters.

My proposal reduces what you need to sink into Quantum by half, freeing up those points for more interesting uses while not increasing the overall amount of NP you can use to break the system on lower quantum powers (we can all think of examples, I won't belabor them here).

In response to the person who was commenting about Q6 - I'm not proposing raising the Quantum limit above 5. I'm simply suggesting that if people want to have up to Q3 to start with, they should recieve it gratis, to enable the full range of nova powers to show up in PC stories. I'm as interested in paring down the overall level of power to a sane and reasonable level as you are (I think), but I'm also interested in preserving the ability of people to pick up more exotic powers without bundling up to monstrous levels with Taint. Keeping the NP total at 50, flat, while increasing the starting Quantum to 3 and keeping the max at 5 seems to me a good way to strike that balance.

I've always preferred to spend 14BP to buy Q3, and free up my NP for other purchases.

Two thingmes:

- We should have a system for how to buy Q6 and L4 powers with nova points, since I just realized there isn't one in the APG. At least, I don't think there is. Should Q6 cost 5 NP to raise from Q5, or should there be extra costs associated with that bump?
- I would bump number of characters per player up to 2 to start with then 2 per year. Or clarify that this is the number of ACTIVE characters you can have - if you create a character that fizzles you can just spike 'em.

Otherwise, allislove

I'd like to discuss - and possibly instigate some discussion and, if worthwhile, referendums - on a few issues, as well as touch on some of the above debates.

RE: Taint
I think a starting permanent Taint of 8 is reasonable. Some novas - Sloppy Joe and Leviathan come to mind - are that tainted out of the gate, and people should have the option to explore stories that deal with those elements. I would say up the level to 9, but I think that putting it at 8 is a good safety valve for people who might like to have that one last tumble before exploding into a tainted neutron star.

RE: Starting Quantum
I endorse Wargear's proposal. A shifting starting Quantum of 1-3 would, I believe, do what she proposes it would.

RE: Strengths & Weaknesses
As written, the rule basically denies the use of Lvl 4 powers to anybody, under any circumstances. That may sound all well and good at first glance, but it means that players will no longer be able to buy suite powers as single powers at a reduced quantum level. This means that all Lvl 4 powers - including Biomanipulation - is right out.

So what I'm asking is, are you sure about that?

RE: Number of Characters
In case it wasn't made crystalline, I think it's legitimate for someone to say "I'm going to shelve/retire/kill character X to bring in another character". I just don't think anyone should make a habit out of it. Leaving a lot of unfinished stories because you felt like moving on to your next project is a different kind of not-so-intentional dickery that we should strive to avoid.

Having said that, I think the limits are reasonable. Some of us - myself included - get a little ADD about wanting to try out this concept or that and end up spreading ourselves too thin. When making a rule, one should ask if the rule is necessary, and if it does what it sets out to do. I believe this rule fits both of those criteria.

RE: 2010 Characters
I am imploring you all to provide a clause that will allow 2010 characters to make the migration to the new forum. Doing so could ease some of the burden on 2010, with it's massive glut of characters, and frankly, there are many characters who I would like to see worked into a less-structured milieu where they could interact with other characters. Without consulting the players to find how they'd feel about moving, I know that I'd love to see another Directive agent like Nathan operate in a wider canon, or a positive Terat like Primal. There are several characters from 2010 that I think should be allowed to make a migration to the new forum. Perhaps that means a one-way exit, where characters so transposed are written out of the 2010 canon. Maybe it means something even more drastic. But I believe that an option should be explored, if only for the practical reason that I'm sure some people will want to do it.

RE: 2018 and 2010 Forums
I'm sure a lot of people are very averse to the idea of the shutdowns I recommended (closing OpNet 2018, OpNet and Fiction 2010). I won't argue too much if this opposition remains, but in defense of my statement, I wanted to make a couple points:

Part of the reason this new forum began as an idea was because people were spreading themselves too thin. Without shutting off some portion of the site, we as players aren't spreading ourselves any thicker, we're just rearranging where we're spread to, perhaps even spreading ourselves thinner. Does that achieve what we're setting out to do? Will that fix anything? I don't think so. I think that the 2018 Fiction section should remain open for people who desire an unmoderated arena of unlimited play to tell stories that don't fit into the new framework (stories that involve very high-power or high-taint novas, especially).

As for the 2010 forum, some argue that it's merely in a state of decline. They may be right. But what happens six month down the road when the bulk of people on the forum are now trying to play a character (or two, or three) in 2018, another character (or two, or three, or FOUR) in 2010, and still another (or two) in 2008? Again, does this solve a problem, or create a new one? I haven't heard a convincing reason that 2010 characters couldn't simply be exported into the 2008 forums with a few modifications. Or to put a finer point on it, it seems to me there there is nothing that the old 2010 board can do that the new 2008 board cannot, which leads me to ask: why, then, do we need it?

Also:



Let me make it plain from the outset that I did not request the position. Nova asked me, and after some consideration, I accepted. I did so because I believe that I can do a good job at mediation. My "spotty attendance" notwithstanding, I do think I can do the job. If it ever seems that I have left and will not be returning soon or if I ever feel that I need to take a break from the site, I can discuss the matter with the other Moderators and, if they so choose, they can pick a replacement for me, whether interim or permanent. My attendance or lack thereof will be a non-issue because, frankly, one doesn't require a fucking degree to do the job. If I step down, someone else can do the job, same as if Mr. Fox gets flattened by a truck tomorrow. I very much doubt the site will ever want for a replacement.

As to your concern, Kris, regarding my attitude, I'm not going to alleviate it. Anything I could say at this point would be simple sophistry: I cannot convince you that I will be fair and even-handed anymore than I could convince you of anything regarding the nature of my character. Having not been called upon to adjudicate - yet - there's no basis you have to call upon to discern whether or not I can be trusted with authority. You will simply have to wait and see. If I fuck it up, any of you are welcome to address my fellow Moderators, and I have no doubt that if they think I'm doing a bad job, they'll bounce me. Nova is not stupid: pals or no pals, she wouldn't ask me to do the job if she thought I'd be bad at it, and she wouldn't let me keep the job if it turns out I am bad at it. So in short, "time will tell". Until then, keep your buttons on.

First off, I realize that I am totally the "Johnny come lately" here. So if I'm sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong then I apologize, but this looks like an interesting idea to me, and I'd like to at least try and take part in this if it's allowed. So, for what it's worth, here's my opinions on the topics being discussed here:

Starting Quantum: I don't much like the idea of starting out at Q6 or higher. It takes a lot of the magic out of things for me. I definitely like the idea that it's possible to get there eventually, but for me a big part of the appeal of Q6+ is the actual process of getting there. Actually being there is nice and all, but it's the journey that I'll still be remembering years later, not the size of my dice pools once I got there.
The idea of upping base Quantum from 1 to 3 is pretty good, but Courier's point is valid; this is essentially the same thing as setting the cap at 60 rather than 50, except that the first 10 points are "locked in" so to speak. If the idea of upping Base Q is in order to free up players to "horizontally" explore their charconcepts without the danger of "vertical" abuse, then why not simply set the NP cap at 60 and the Q cap at 5? This is simpler and it accomplishes the same thing in the end.

50 vs. 60: This so completely doesn't matter to me, one way or the other. I will say that, after having read all of the posts throughought this entire forum (as of this writing), there does seem to be a much greater leaning towards the number 60 than the number 50, but I have no idea why. 50NPs is, for me, the "break point", after that anything else is just sweetening the pot. You probably don't need the extra points, but man, they sure do go down smooth, don't they?