Living Supers - General Discussion Thread

[Bront]

Wise words Velmont, and I think that perhaps we will be well served to have more than 2 character judges, though I will leave that ultimately up to the two current ones.

I have great concepts for my characters, but unfortunately, till I can get to a book to actualy try to do them, I can't realy do much in the way of creating them, and I'm loath to create a background when the powers are in a state of flux. But they will be appearing soon, in some fashion.

 

[Kylara]

If we need help, we'll ask for it, I promise. If there is something that I need I can be rather vocal about getting it. Insisting that Keia and I need help when there are only 3 characters posted so far, when one is mine, that might get a tad insulting. Let us do what we need to do, and we'll let you know if there is some way for you to help us. Otherwise armchair quarterbacking could get a might annoying.

As I stated before, this is up to the character judges, and how they want to handle things, whether that is blasting all the player's mistakes in the open, or handling alterations to the character to make them acceptable via email. I am going to use the latter method, so I'd appreciate if you would respect that and refrain from posting about people's characters. Expect some rather lenghthy emails coming your way about your characters. Posting characters in the submission thread isn't putting the characters out for debate, its submitting them for approval by the judges.

 

[Keia]

I think we'll be fine on character judging for the near future. I agree that limitations must be limtations on powers that will see play. I think we understand that power limitations are one of the few remaining 'wiggle room' areas in the current version of the game.

Keia

 

[Keia]

Kylara,

Please copy me on any character critiques you make and I will do the same. That way we are not doubling the work, and perhaps we can discuss questions and issues on characters amongst ourselves before opening them before everyone - at least initially.

Keia

 

[Velmont]

My intention have never been to blast you... sorry if you took it like that. I don't expect everyone to be in accord with my opinion. If I took your character as an example, it is I wanted a concreate example, and I had few under hand. Also, I never said I hold the truth, I've always state it was my opinion. And it is just that, my opinion.

This is a living world we are buidling, and talking thing between judge is fine, but I don't know why I couldn't tell my opinion. I don't remember decision that have been taken by the judge of LEW without being discuss by people. What make a Living world interesting, it is everyone can add a little something.

I have been in LEW since the start. Even if I've never been judge, I've seen some mistke and some good shot from the judge over there. I've also been on FreedomCity, and I've been on the weakness council before the board died out of interest. I like the idea of Living Super, and I hope it will not die. I want it to become as popular as LEW. I want too not to repeat the same mistake it happen on both Living World.

That was my 2 cents. You can keep it or give it to charity. I'll follow the judge calls.

I just wanted to share some experience I had in the Living PbP concept, and what I share is suggestion. Suggetsion are to be talked and approved by judges. And you are a judge. I voted for you too. I don't think you are doing nor will be doing a bad job.

...how they want to handle things, whether that is blasting all the player's mistakes in the open, or handling alterations to the character to make them acceptable via email. I am going to use the latter method...

I might have used more tact in this and e-mail that to the judge instead, or creating an example. Sorry about that. Also, I agree that if it become as popular as LEW, having thread that talk about the 300 characters of the players could be a little bit too much, and having all players input might be too much.

Where it is bugging me, it is two persons having the control over the character submission. Because of the subjective aspect, I think more would be needed. It isn't a question of competence of the present judge, but more one to have a representative opinion of the forum. I have my concept of what a character should look like, you have yours, I quite sure Keia have his own that differ from both of us, as Bront, Brother Shatterstone, ect... you see the picture. Simple principle of democracy.

Expect some rather lenghthy emails coming your way about your characters.

I've no problem with that, I'm open to it. If I havn't sent yet an e-mail to you and Keia is the few rules blur that still exist (like the trade-off rule).

 

[Kylara]

Velmont, I'm sorry if this didn't come across in my other posts. I don't disagree with your point entirely, and I am not trying to be dismissive of it, I will probably alter the character, but, the reason I want things to stay between the Judges and the player making the character, is that in a character design system like this, choices are intensely personal, and people telling you that your wrong about this, that, and the other on your character can create hard feelings very quickly, by limiting it to Official Judges only making critiques, asking for clarifications, etc, its much more professional, and it doesn't make it seem like someone is out gunning for your characters since they are doing the same thing for everyone.

If you want to raise a specific question that you had, that is fine, but don't direct at any character or player. Instead, make a post discussing how limiting flaws should be, that way everyone can get involved without making it feel like a personal attack. This system is very different from LEW in that you are not just plugging your stats into a character class, its much more personal so I am trying to reduce hurt feelings ahead of time. Sorry if it seemed like I was attacking you. I just had to take a shower to get an epiphany on how to express my thoughts more clearly.

 

[Velmont]

Velmont, I'm sorry if this didn't come across in my other posts...

No offence taken from anything.

All that is noted. As I said in the previous post, I'll do it with more tact: staying in the general area and making proposal or sending e-mail to the concern person. I understand you point and agree with it.

 

[Kylara]

No offence taken from anything.

All that is noted. As I said in the previous post, I'll do it with more tact: staying in the general area and making proposal or sending e-mail to the concern person. I understand you point and agree with it.

Its not about tact. If there is something you want brought up, do so in a general way, don't address it to or point it at a particular person or character. Bring the matter up by making a discussion on how limiting flaws should be, but don't address the person either by email or by calling them out, that is what character judges are for. Feel free to create discussions on general topics, that will alter the criteria that the judges use, depending on how those discussions go, but its not anyone's place but the judges to directly address players on their characters as that can lead to a lot of hard feelings.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

This thread seems pretty heated... Maybe I'm reading to quickly but I would rather error on the side of caution.

Keep it civil people.

As for Velmont’s concerns, I agree that the Freedom City character creation was a nightmare… Hopefully not one that LEW Supers will repeat because those issues destroyed that board.

If I might suggest that if there is some questionable issues with flaws/draw backs or whatnot that another judge or two be asked for there opinions… The last thing you want to do is come off as harsh and uncaring.

V/R
BS
PbP Mod

 

[Kylara]

I believe you have missed the last few posts BS, the ones that outline how to go about solving such issues, (bringing things up as a general discussin), and by leaving addressing specific people about their characters to the judges, situations like this wont come up. Velmont and I had apologized for any miscommunications and cleared up our point of views, once both he and I put up our clarifying posts, I don't think it was heated at all anymore.

Actually, my points were aimed at avoiding heated posting in the future. If people have a particular issue, they bring it up to the group as a general issue, and those general discussions affect the policy that the judges use for approval. If there is ever an issue about a particular ruling, where anyone has been given the reasons for the ruling, but still disagrees, then naturally it should be able to be put to the judges as a whole, but that should not be the first step, and should be rather rare.

I was more worried about curbing vigilante judges, who would make negative comments about someone's character unasked, and create hard feelings, leaving it as something that the judges deal with makes it impersonal, in that everyone has their character critiqued by the judges, and removes the hard feelings from the process that would be created if people could just spout off about one another's characters whenever they want.

I actually agreed with Velmont's opinion that the flaw might not have been limiting enough, (I went and changed the character), I was explaining how we can avoid such problems in the future, and why it was important to do so. More then in DnD MnM characters are personal creations, you make all the stats and abilities yourself, as such, its much easier to get hard feelings on the subject. I agree with his point, just not how he made it, but since nothing had been discussed on how to make such points, its understandble that there is miscommunication and misunderstandings on all sides. Thats why we have discussions like this, so we can avoid problems in the future, at least that is how I view it.