• Announcements

    • Chaos

      Oathbringer Spoiler Policy   11/13/2017

      Oathbringer is out! Let's make our policy on spoilers clear! 1. You must preface topics with Oathbringer spoilers with the prefix [OB] in the front 2. You are only allowed to post spoilers and spoiler topics in the Oathbringer Spoiler Board, Cosmere Theories, and some select work-related forums. 3. For posts in the Oathbringer Spoiler Board you do not need to use spoiler tags inside a topic marked [OB]. For Cosmere Theories, you also do not need to put spoiler tags inside your topic if the topic has [OB] in the title. However, for Cosmere Theories, if you are adding Oathbringer stuff to an old theory without the [OB] tag, those must go in spoiler tags and you must make it obvious outside the spoiler tag that the spoiler is regarding Oathbringer content. 4. For select things that do require talking about OB spoilers, in Events, Coppermind, and Arcanum forums, those are allowed but keep OB spoilers in spoiler tags 5. Avoid and minimize spoilers in topic titles--even though those two boards will not appear in the Recent Topics ticker, topic titles still appear in Recent Activity and the forum home.  6. You aren't allowed to post Oathbringer spoilers in places other than listed, even with spoiler tags.  It will be nine months and then the Oathbringer board will be re-merged with the Stormlight board and you will not need to tag these spoilers. If you'd like to move something in the Stormlight Archive board to the Oathbringer board, to update it with new Oathbringer information, Report the post and we will happily move it to the Oathbringer spoiler board. Part-by-part Reactions Though the Oathbringer Spoiler Board will be very spoilery, very fast (maybe don't come there until you've read the book, as people do have copies that bookstores sold early), you'll have these five topics for reactions if you want to nerd out: Part 1 Reactions
      Part 2 Reactions
      Part 3 Reactions
      Part 4 Reactions
      Full Book Reactions For parts 1-4, they will not include the interludes immediately following it. On Discord All Oathbringer spoilers on Discord will be exclusively in the #oathbringer_spoilers channel for the nine month spoiler period and nowhere else.

Drake Marshall

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

709 Originator


About Drake Marshall

  • Rank
  • Birthday 09/03/1998

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Undoubtedly Somewhere

Recent Profile Visitors

1,734 profile views
  1. That's a good point, but it's a double-edged one. By the same reasoning, it wouldn't functionally mess with distributions very much if a rule made this effect official, since it's already unofficially in play. Especially considering the fact that eliminators don't typically target inactives in the first place. Also considering the fact that some setups explicitly give abilities to players who are active in-game, to encourage activity. I agree that this would alter the balance of games, but the change is small and I believe that if a game was designed with this factor in mind, it would not be an issue. Alternately, what if an inactive player was restricted from playing LGs, until they were active in a smaller-scale game? I realize that this game is a QF, and it suffered from significant inactivity. But, in general, I would say LGs are much more at risk to inactivity, and that it is probably hurt the most by inactivity. In this case, the door would be left wide open for an inactive to start being active again, with no delay involved. But there would still be enough of a penalty that inactivity would be discouraged. What I'm basically going for is a way to limit inactive players, without straight-up banning them (albeit a temporary ban). I believe the former will foster participation, where the latter, even in a temporary form, runs the risk of pushing some people away. And while pragmatically speaking, that may be acceptable, it isn't desirable.
  2. Hmmmmm the roleclaiming thing would be a problem yeah. Temporary bans is an acceptable solution, but I can’t shake the feeling that there should be a better way.
  3. Why do flies exist? (you aren't allowed to say "to feed spiders" because spiders exist to eat flies)
  4. You raise a good point about role distributions. At least tentatively, what I had in mind is that this measure wouldn’t change role distribution at all, at least not directly. If it’s an all-vanilla game or a role-madness game, this measure wouldn’t change anything. If there are more probationary players than there are slots for vanilla roles, then some probationary players would still get power roles. But in the average game, a player in this position would recieve a vanilla role until they played an active game. Something like the hazekiller role from LG34 would probably count as vanilla for the purposes of this, though I envision this being a matter of GM discretion.
  5. I didn’t sign up for this game, so maybe my stepping in with my $0.02 is a signal that this could be moved to the meta thread... But I feel like banning people may be a little extreme. I understand where you’re coming from. It’s a little irresponsible to claim you will have time for a game and then not participate. But I don’t think banning is the optimal solution. How do you improve your activity if you are no longer allowed to play? I’ll also point out that every now and then a normally very active player who we wouldn’t want to ban can go inactive. If we wanted to implement some sort of inactivity deterrent over multiple games, then I suggest it be a measure that still leaves it open for said player to become active. For example, one possible alternative to outright banning (one of many, mostly just the one that popped into my head) is to give an player a sort of “probationary” period following a game of inactivity. Until they participated actively in a game, they would always be either vanilla town or vanilla elim (unless it was a true role madness game). This incentivizes activity somewhat, while allowing you to step back into the game with little difficulty if you really want to. It also means thaf if the game is balanced around a certain role, the person that holds it will probably be active, resulting in more balanced games. Personally, I believe it would make sense to adopt this measure, but if somebody else has a different take on this please speak up. Another possible alternative is to avoid placing any rules whatsoever against inactivity, and encourage activity through means other than rules. Reaching out to people in PM is probably a great start, although honestly we should still do that even if the above is adopted. However, if we were going to take this route and succeed, we’d really need to step it up in how we reach out to inactives. If we wanted to do this, then there should never be a case where somebody falls inactive and they don’t get a PM from either their GM, mod, or both, asking politely what’s going on and encouraging participation. That would be the bare minimum I think, if it were to make an appreciable difference. And finally, one last note. One cause of inactivity is that players who know they can’t be active will still sometimes sign up to flesh out a game’s numbers, because the GM has set a minimum for the game to run. I recommend that GMs start making games that can take a more flexible number of players. That would help things considerably and it wouldn’t be too difficult. That post ended up being longer than I expected... Kind of a bother to type up on a cell phone. Still, I feel like somebody needed to comprehensively address the issue, even if that someone didn’t play this game.
  6. I'm seeing a lot of people in agreement here but I'll throw my $0.02 on the heap. Kaladin as Soldier versus Percy with mark of Achilles: Percy wins with little difficulty. Kaladin as First Ideal versus Percy with mark of Achilles: Close fight, odds somewhat favor Kaladin. Every other possible matchup: Kaladin curbstomps Percy.
  7. I have a feeling that abrasion+tension could be seriously cool, if tension works anything like I think it does. Alternately I second the notion of gravitation+abrasion, because imo those two are the coolest surges and together they would be awesome. Weaponizing aside, the raw mobility that combination would grant would make you ridiculously hard to pin down.
  8. Certainly. I’ve been wanting to test these copper scalpels...
  9. I refer to the noble. Might I recommend surgically removing their memories with a copper spike, then letting them go along their way?
  10. Hmmmm... Hehehe I’ve always wanted to try this idea... How about a straight forgery? Give the lifeless an essence mark to remake it as needed... Yes, I think this might produce some valuable servants... I shall begin experimentation immediately. You are, naturally, free to pursue the essence spike route. If you do, it could be a little race to see who infiltrates the hemalurgy-free bakery first. Time to retrieve my malatium cache. But first, we better incarcerate the fellow from the hemalurgy free bakery who may have been overhearing our plans. Can’t have a warning getting out now, can we?
  11. Nah in the hemalurgy-free bakery. If they have a thing against hiring undead, then we can hardly send lifeless to infiltrate them, see.
  12. Hmmm maybe. Depends on if the bakery imposes significant regulations against using undead labor or not.
  13. If you are set upon infiltrating the hemalurgy free bakery, I might offer one of my lifeless... They are exquisitely well controlled, being subject both to a sophisticated set of commands and the dictates of rioting/soothing their spikings. And the majority of my lifeless wouldn't be recognized as dark alley denizens. You'd just need to figure out a way to color their skin in a way that looks convincing. Alternately, I could probably point you towards some of the eldritch abominations that are known to adopt human form occasionally. That could work too, but it might take more paperwork to arrange, since humanoid abominations have more rights than the non-humanoid types.
  14. I'll bid seven of my friends' souls. After I have ascertained that these spikes are of the quality you say they are, of coarse. Well, we can try to improve the quality of our baked goods. I recently discovered a rather excellent recipe for brown butter chocolate chip cookies with sea salt. Alternately, a spiked croissant d'amande is absolutely sublime.
  15. In exchange for a cookie, yes. Or a pancake. I'm quite fond of hemalurgic pancakes.