Talk:MTH:Merits - Revision history

174.140.73.217: /* System Eloquence */ new section

2017-04-26T03:28:36Z

System Eloquence: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:28, 26 April 2017
Line 4:		Line 4:
	----		----
	If looking for Limit Break and related merits, these where deleted as they duplicate Enhancement Merits with more complicated rules and lower prerequisites.		If looking for Limit Break and related merits, these where deleted as they duplicate Enhancement Merits with more complicated rules and lower prerequisites.

			== System Eloquence ==

			Before adding a new merit, please check to see if it already exists. If it could be a simple variation of an (published) existing merit, add that to the Expanded Merits section. If it could exist as part of an expanded version of a merit on this wiki, expand that entry. Only if neither of these options are available should you add a merit to this section. Otherwise we get a lot of clutter and redundancy. Almost half the merits we see added here are later deleted because they already existed.

174.140.79.182 at 07:12, 9 February 2015

2015-02-09T07:12:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:12, 9 February 2015
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Equipment has been moved to it's own section. Look for the link on the Merits page.		Equipment has been moved to it's own section. Look for the link on the Merits page.
	----		----
	If looking for Limit Break and related merits, these where ~~folded into the Enhancement Merits~~ as they duplicate Enhancement Merits with ~~more limited scope and~~ more complicated rules and lower ~~prerequisites. There is now an option for narrowing the scope to drop some of the~~ prerequisites.		If looking for Limit Break and related merits, these where deleted as they duplicate Enhancement Merits with more complicated rules and lower prerequisites.

174.140.79.182 at 07:09, 9 February 2015

2015-02-09T07:09:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:09, 9 February 2015
Line 2:		Line 2:
	----		----
	Equipment has been moved to it's own section. Look for the link on the Merits page.		Equipment has been moved to it's own section. Look for the link on the Merits page.
			----
			If looking for Limit Break and related merits, these where folded into the Enhancement Merits as they duplicate Enhancement Merits with more limited scope and more complicated rules and lower prerequisites. There is now an option for narrowing the scope to drop some of the prerequisites.

174.140.79.182: Removed expired note

2015-02-09T06:38:52Z

Removed expired note

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:38, 9 February 2015
Line 2:		Line 2:
	----		----
	Equipment has been moved to it's own section. Look for the link on the Merits page.		Equipment has been moved to it's own section. Look for the link on the Merits page.


	~~Hyper Punch issue appears to have been dropped.~~

98.219.211.75: /* Explication */ issue appears to have been dropped

2014-06-26T07:02:22Z

Explication: issue appears to have been dropped

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:02, 26 June 2014
Line 5:		Line 5:

	Hyper Punch issue appears to have been dropped.		Hyper Punch issue appears to have been dropped.

	~~==Explication==~~
	~~To 70.193.10.172>~~
	~~I've been asked to explain to you some of the basic etiquette of RPG net disagreements;~~

	When a given section in under prolonged discussion the poster of that section is supposed to delete it until the matter is resolved. It's been brought to my attention that by deleting it for you I've created a minor breach of etiquette. That's on me. It was done because I didn't see you do it.

	When a disagreement like this occurs both parties are expected to post each issue they have on the same subject and address each issue raised by the other, and repeat doing so until the matter is resolved. When I quote you, that is what I am doing. I'm identifying each quoted part as a separate issue I have to address. That means I am expecting a response from you on each one as well.

	In theory this goes on until an agreement is reached. In my experience, it usually ends with one side not having all of their issues met and the other leaving the conversation unfinished. The remaining one ends up with their post being the last edit.

	~~Can we work on this and try to avoid that? -BunniRabbi~~

98.219.211.75: /* Hyper-Punch Discussion */

2014-06-26T06:35:15Z

Hyper-Punch Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:35, 26 June 2014
Line 4:		Line 4:


	== Hyper-Punch ~~Discussion ==~~		Hyper Punch issue appears to have been dropped.

	~~Hyper-Punch was added back because there need to be rules for creating forced movement with blows backed by super strength. It's unique, but very commonplace in the superhero genre.~~
	~~----~~
	~~Hyper-Punch was removed again due to it duplicating two other separate merits. These merits where then consolidated into the Wrecker Fighting Style with similar merits. -BunniRabbi~~

	Also, it was brought to my attention today that forced movement rules are implied as an option under Stylish Execution. If so, we should probably make that more explicit in the section detailing Stylish Execution. I have mixed feelings as to weather forced movement should be something you get through optional mechanics, like merit, or narrative default mechanic, like Stylish Execution. Thoughts?

	~~----~~
	~~What the fuck is wrong with you?~~

	~~Forced movement rules are not implied as an option under Stylish Execution, MUCH LESS detailed in any way that is useable.~~

	Stop treating this wiki as though you own it. Stop deleting things because of the slightest overlap with other things. Hyper-Punch was /nothing/ like Shockwave or Thunderclap, which should not be part of a fighting style. You are aware people are running games with these rules, right? Can you imagine how frustrating it is to have them changed drastically and told that it's because a merit 'duplicates' something it unequivocally does not?

	~~----~~
	~~It's a bit rude to delete parts of discussion while you are responding to them, as opposed to after finishing the discussion.~~

	~~"Forced movement rules are not implied as an option under Stylish Execution,"~~
	~~Would that then be a 'yes' on making that explicit?~~

	~~"MUCH LESS detailed in any way that is useable."~~
	~~What makes it unusable?~~

	~~"Stop deleting things because of the slightest overlap with other things."~~
	~~What do you consider to be the appropriate level of overlap?~~

	~~"Hyper-Punch was /nothing/ like Shockwave or Thunderclap, which should not be part of a fighting style."~~
	~~I agree, but I was out-voted.~~

	~~"Can you imagine how frustrating it is to have them changed drastically and told that it's because a merit 'duplicates' something it unequivocally does not?"~~
	~~1) There are always people running games. When would you like the Wiki to be edited?~~
	~~2) People usually print a copy of the rules when starting a Chronicle.~~
	3) The rational given by the group, the one that was eventually voted-in, was that the Hyper-Punch Merit was thematically an equivalent but mechanically less valuable then the merits in the fighting style.

	~~If you have an alternative, I'll take it to the group. -BunniRabbi~~

	~~----~~
	No that is not a 'yes' to make it implicit. I don't know if you've read the section on Stylish Execution, but no part of it in any way implies that it provides rules for forced movement whatsoever. Stylish Execution provides bonus die if you do something cool or make a witty quip. That's all it does. Hyper-Punch doesn't even provide bonus die. It allows you to send an opponent flying if your successes exceed their size and you have an adequate level of mega-strength. They are two TOTALLY different mechanics that do not overlap in any way at all.

	I don't know who this group is that happens to be voting on this shit, but I'd like to know why I'm not getting votes? When I check the history, I notice that when I re-added Hyper-Punch there were over a thousand positive votes, and the majority of your edits have negative votes - so if that's what you're referring to, your logic is flawed.

	My alternative is to leave Hyper-Punch the fuck alone. It's fine as it is. Shockwave and Thunderclap were balanced, reasonable merits. They didn't need changing either. If you are making these changes for YOUR game, then make your own set of rules rather than make changes to the wiki that (according to the page history) lots of people disagree with. Didn't you at one point delete the entire equipment section before it was undone (thankfully) by someone else with common sense?

	More than anything, you need to stop deleting things based on idiotic criteria. You deleted Nemesis before I made it into a Flaw, because it was, 'a story element, not a merit'. So what is Mentor? Friend? Staff? They're all story elements you can spend XP on! That's the beauty of Storyteller! In fact, I lifted Nemesis right out of an older White Wolf game, called Adventure! which is a pulp action game where Nemesis was the equivalent of a merit. You deleted Reach because it overlapped SLIGHTLY with Plasticity (in that it allowed a character to have reach), though Plasticity comes with a large number of other benefits which define it as a separate power conceptually - and there is no weakness to limit those other benefits to emulate the effect I want to achieve mechanically. Now, before you say that I should just have my own set of rules which include Reach as a power... why? I'd rather this wiki have a lot of unique powers rather than the bare minimum to be functional, and then leave it up to GM's individually to cut out what they don't want to include.
	~~----~~
	~~"I'd rather this wiki have a lot of unique powers rather than the bare minimum to be functional"~~
	The minimum is what RPG net advises, because they have the experience to know. Lots of unique powers make the system non-functional. It ends up being impossible to navigate them all, and people give up trying. If you look at other wikis on RPG net, many are effectively dead due to overcrowding. This one was two hears ago, when the Merits and Powers each had a couple hundred entries each. That's why people get asked to condense them.

	~~"I don't know if you've read the section on Stylish Execution, but no part of it in any way implies that it provides rules for forced movement whatsoever."~~
	~~1) I wrote the text.~~
	2) The reason most people who were involved in the creation of that section took it to have that implication is that the idea was meant to mimic Exalted, Scion, Ace, Arcana Evolved, AFAMI and several other games' mechanics, where it is established that movement is one of the options.
	~~3) You need to reread the section on Stylish Execution. The omission was already corrected the first time this~~ issue ~~was brought up.~~

	~~"Stylish Execution...//... They are two TOTALLY different mechanics that do not overlap in any way at all."~~
	You don't see that as overlap? No wonder you are having trouble understanding why so many people disagree with you. This is a predominantly narrativist game. You seem to be approaching it as a gamist one.

	~~"I don't know who this group is that happens to be voting on this shit, but I'd like to know why I'm not getting votes?"~~
	~~I actually suggested you be invited to do so. Based on your conduct with previous posts, I could not get someone to 2nd the motion. I'll make a second attempt, but that can't be before Sunday.~~

	~~"When I check the history, I notice that when I re-added Hyper-Punch there were over a thousand positive votes"~~
	~~1) There is no per-edit voting. If there was, it would be listed in RPG net's system use doc.~~
	~~2) Do you really expect me to believe that a minor edit on an obscure wiki was voted on by even 1000 people in the space of less than a week?~~
	3) Since that's an obvious lie, you probably just killed any chance I had of getting your voice recognized. That means even where I agree with you, I'm probably going to have to end up editing out some of your stuff.

	~~"so if that's what you're referring to, your logic is flawed."~~
	~~Since you've made it up, how could I be referring to that?~~

	~~"They didn't need changing either."~~
	~~The vocal majority disagrees.~~

	~~"If you are making these changes for YOUR game, then make your own set of rules rather than make changes to the wiki"~~
	~~Why haven't you applied that reasoning to yourself?~~

	~~"that (according to the page history) lots of people disagree with."~~
	~~Please site a specific example.~~

	~~"Didn't you at one point delete the entire equipment section before it was undone (thankfully) by someone else with common sense?"~~
	~~Twice. By majority vote. We're currently writing a new equipment section with community support. I'll likely be the one that posts that here too.~~

	~~"More than anything, you need to stop deleting things based on idiotic criteria."~~
	~~I'm not convinced you've identified the criteria. That, more than anything, will keep you from convincing anyone. You haven't made a point of addressing the one's I've raised.~~

	~~"You deleted Nemesis before I made it into a Flaw, because it was, 'a story element, not a merit'. So what is Mentor? Friend? Staff? They're all story elements you can spend XP on!"~~
	~~And they are merits. Nemesis is not. A merit gives you a benefit, while a flaw is a problem. A Nemesis is a problem, so it is appropriate as a flaw.~~

	~~"In fact, I lifted Nemesis right out of an older White Wolf game, called Adventure! which is a pulp action game where Nemesis was the equivalent of a merit."~~
	Actually Adventure was the precursor to Aberrant, which was the first source for the Wiki. Nemesis was in that first version, and was discussed and removed entirely at that time, for the reasons I mentioned. When it appeared again it was discussed again, agreed again that it was not a merit, and remade as a Flaw as a kind of half-measure. It also exists as a Persistent Condition in the current WoD rules, which is the equivalent of a flaw in the older WoD rules this wiki is based on.

	~~"You deleted Reach because it overlapped SLIGHTLY with Plasticity (in that it allowed a character~~ to have ~~reach), though Plasticity comes with a large number of other benefits which define it as a separate power"~~
	~~Isn't that exactly what makes it appropriate as a lessened version of that power? I'm curious as to what you think does.~~

	~~"and there is no weakness to limit those other benefits to emulate the effect I want to achieve mechanically."~~
	~~You're going to need to rephrase that. I'm not sure what you're getting at~~.

	==Explication==		==Explication==

98.219.211.75: Section heading

2014-05-26T08:43:35Z

Section heading

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:43, 26 May 2014
Line 99:		Line 99:
	You're going to need to rephrase that. I'm not sure what you're getting at.		You're going to need to rephrase that. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

	70.193.10.172>		==Explication==
			To 70.193.10.172>
	I've been asked to explain to you some of the basic etiquette of RPG net disagreements;		I've been asked to explain to you some of the basic etiquette of RPG net disagreements;

98.219.211.75: Explication

2014-05-26T08:41:40Z

Explication

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:41, 26 May 2014
Line 98:		Line 98:
	"and there is no weakness to limit those other benefits to emulate the effect I want to achieve mechanically."		"and there is no weakness to limit those other benefits to emulate the effect I want to achieve mechanically."
	You're going to need to rephrase that. I'm not sure what you're getting at.		You're going to need to rephrase that. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

			70.193.10.172>
			I've been asked to explain to you some of the basic etiquette of RPG net disagreements;

			When a given section in under prolonged discussion the poster of that section is supposed to delete it until the matter is resolved. It's been brought to my attention that by deleting it for you I've created a minor breach of etiquette. That's on me. It was done because I didn't see you do it.

			When a disagreement like this occurs both parties are expected to post each issue they have on the same subject and address each issue raised by the other, and repeat doing so until the matter is resolved. When I quote you, that is what I am doing. I'm identifying each quoted part as a separate issue I have to address. That means I am expecting a response from you on each one as well.

			In theory this goes on until an agreement is reached. In my experience, it usually ends with one side not having all of their issues met and the other leaving the conversation unfinished. The remaining one ends up with their post being the last edit.

			Can we work on this and try to avoid that? -BunniRabbi

98.219.211.75 at 08:11, 26 May 2014

2014-05-26T08:11:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:11, 26 May 2014
Line 2:		Line 2:
	----		----
	Equipment has been moved to it's own section. Look for the link on the Merits page.		Equipment has been moved to it's own section. Look for the link on the Merits page.
	~~----~~
	~~Hyper-Punch Discussion was moved to it's own section.~~

	== Hyper-Punch Discussion ==		== Hyper-Punch Discussion ==

98.219.211.75: /* Hyper-Punch Discussion */ new section

2014-05-26T08:11:18Z

Hyper-Punch Discussion: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:11, 26 May 2014
Line 4:		Line 4:
	----		----
	Hyper-Punch Discussion was moved to it's own section.		Hyper-Punch Discussion was moved to it's own section.

			== Hyper-Punch Discussion ==

			Hyper-Punch was added back because there need to be rules for creating forced movement with blows backed by super strength. It's unique, but very commonplace in the superhero genre.
			----
			Hyper-Punch was removed again due to it duplicating two other separate merits. These merits where then consolidated into the Wrecker Fighting Style with similar merits. -BunniRabbi

			Also, it was brought to my attention today that forced movement rules are implied as an option under Stylish Execution. If so, we should probably make that more explicit in the section detailing Stylish Execution. I have mixed feelings as to weather forced movement should be something you get through optional mechanics, like merit, or narrative default mechanic, like Stylish Execution. Thoughts?

			----
			What the fuck is wrong with you?

			Forced movement rules are not implied as an option under Stylish Execution, MUCH LESS detailed in any way that is useable.

			Stop treating this wiki as though you own it. Stop deleting things because of the slightest overlap with other things. Hyper-Punch was /nothing/ like Shockwave or Thunderclap, which should not be part of a fighting style. You are aware people are running games with these rules, right? Can you imagine how frustrating it is to have them changed drastically and told that it's because a merit 'duplicates' something it unequivocally does not?

			----
			It's a bit rude to delete parts of discussion while you are responding to them, as opposed to after finishing the discussion.

			"Forced movement rules are not implied as an option under Stylish Execution,"
			Would that then be a 'yes' on making that explicit?

			"MUCH LESS detailed in any way that is useable."
			What makes it unusable?

			"Stop deleting things because of the slightest overlap with other things."
			What do you consider to be the appropriate level of overlap?

			"Hyper-Punch was /nothing/ like Shockwave or Thunderclap, which should not be part of a fighting style."
			I agree, but I was out-voted.

			"Can you imagine how frustrating it is to have them changed drastically and told that it's because a merit 'duplicates' something it unequivocally does not?"
			1) There are always people running games. When would you like the Wiki to be edited?
			2) People usually print a copy of the rules when starting a Chronicle.
			3) The rational given by the group, the one that was eventually voted-in, was that the Hyper-Punch Merit was thematically an equivalent but mechanically less valuable then the merits in the fighting style.

			If you have an alternative, I'll take it to the group. -BunniRabbi

			----
			No that is not a 'yes' to make it implicit. I don't know if you've read the section on Stylish Execution, but no part of it in any way implies that it provides rules for forced movement whatsoever. Stylish Execution provides bonus die if you do something cool or make a witty quip. That's all it does. Hyper-Punch doesn't even provide bonus die. It allows you to send an opponent flying if your successes exceed their size and you have an adequate level of mega-strength. They are two TOTALLY different mechanics that do not overlap in any way at all.

			I don't know who this group is that happens to be voting on this shit, but I'd like to know why I'm not getting votes? When I check the history, I notice that when I re-added Hyper-Punch there were over a thousand positive votes, and the majority of your edits have negative votes - so if that's what you're referring to, your logic is flawed.

			My alternative is to leave Hyper-Punch the fuck alone. It's fine as it is. Shockwave and Thunderclap were balanced, reasonable merits. They didn't need changing either. If you are making these changes for YOUR game, then make your own set of rules rather than make changes to the wiki that (according to the page history) lots of people disagree with. Didn't you at one point delete the entire equipment section before it was undone (thankfully) by someone else with common sense?

			More than anything, you need to stop deleting things based on idiotic criteria. You deleted Nemesis before I made it into a Flaw, because it was, 'a story element, not a merit'. So what is Mentor? Friend? Staff? They're all story elements you can spend XP on! That's the beauty of Storyteller! In fact, I lifted Nemesis right out of an older White Wolf game, called Adventure! which is a pulp action game where Nemesis was the equivalent of a merit. You deleted Reach because it overlapped SLIGHTLY with Plasticity (in that it allowed a character to have reach), though Plasticity comes with a large number of other benefits which define it as a separate power conceptually - and there is no weakness to limit those other benefits to emulate the effect I want to achieve mechanically. Now, before you say that I should just have my own set of rules which include Reach as a power... why? I'd rather this wiki have a lot of unique powers rather than the bare minimum to be functional, and then leave it up to GM's individually to cut out what they don't want to include.
			----
			"I'd rather this wiki have a lot of unique powers rather than the bare minimum to be functional"
			The minimum is what RPG net advises, because they have the experience to know. Lots of unique powers make the system non-functional. It ends up being impossible to navigate them all, and people give up trying. If you look at other wikis on RPG net, many are effectively dead due to overcrowding. This one was two hears ago, when the Merits and Powers each had a couple hundred entries each. That's why people get asked to condense them.

			"I don't know if you've read the section on Stylish Execution, but no part of it in any way implies that it provides rules for forced movement whatsoever."
			1) I wrote the text.
			2) The reason most people who were involved in the creation of that section took it to have that implication is that the idea was meant to mimic Exalted, Scion, Ace, Arcana Evolved, AFAMI and several other games' mechanics, where it is established that movement is one of the options.
			3) You need to reread the section on Stylish Execution. The omission was already corrected the first time this issue was brought up.

			"Stylish Execution...//... They are two TOTALLY different mechanics that do not overlap in any way at all."
			You don't see that as overlap? No wonder you are having trouble understanding why so many people disagree with you. This is a predominantly narrativist game. You seem to be approaching it as a gamist one.

			"I don't know who this group is that happens to be voting on this shit, but I'd like to know why I'm not getting votes?"
			I actually suggested you be invited to do so. Based on your conduct with previous posts, I could not get someone to 2nd the motion. I'll make a second attempt, but that can't be before Sunday.

			"When I check the history, I notice that when I re-added Hyper-Punch there were over a thousand positive votes"
			1) There is no per-edit voting. If there was, it would be listed in RPG net's system use doc.
			2) Do you really expect me to believe that a minor edit on an obscure wiki was voted on by even 1000 people in the space of less than a week?
			3) Since that's an obvious lie, you probably just killed any chance I had of getting your voice recognized. That means even where I agree with you, I'm probably going to have to end up editing out some of your stuff.

			"so if that's what you're referring to, your logic is flawed."
			Since you've made it up, how could I be referring to that?

			"They didn't need changing either."
			The vocal majority disagrees.

			"If you are making these changes for YOUR game, then make your own set of rules rather than make changes to the wiki"
			Why haven't you applied that reasoning to yourself?

			"that (according to the page history) lots of people disagree with."
			Please site a specific example.

			"Didn't you at one point delete the entire equipment section before it was undone (thankfully) by someone else with common sense?"
			Twice. By majority vote. We're currently writing a new equipment section with community support. I'll likely be the one that posts that here too.

			"More than anything, you need to stop deleting things based on idiotic criteria."
			I'm not convinced you've identified the criteria. That, more than anything, will keep you from convincing anyone. You haven't made a point of addressing the one's I've raised.

			"You deleted Nemesis before I made it into a Flaw, because it was, 'a story element, not a merit'. So what is Mentor? Friend? Staff? They're all story elements you can spend XP on!"
			And they are merits. Nemesis is not. A merit gives you a benefit, while a flaw is a problem. A Nemesis is a problem, so it is appropriate as a flaw.

			"In fact, I lifted Nemesis right out of an older White Wolf game, called Adventure! which is a pulp action game where Nemesis was the equivalent of a merit."
			Actually Adventure was the precursor to Aberrant, which was the first source for the Wiki. Nemesis was in that first version, and was discussed and removed entirely at that time, for the reasons I mentioned. When it appeared again it was discussed again, agreed again that it was not a merit, and remade as a Flaw as a kind of half-measure. It also exists as a Persistent Condition in the current WoD rules, which is the equivalent of a flaw in the older WoD rules this wiki is based on.

			"You deleted Reach because it overlapped SLIGHTLY with Plasticity (in that it allowed a character to have reach), though Plasticity comes with a large number of other benefits which define it as a separate power"
			Isn't that exactly what makes it appropriate as a lessened version of that power? I'm curious as to what you think does.

			"and there is no weakness to limit those other benefits to emulate the effect I want to achieve mechanically."
			You're going to need to rephrase that. I'm not sure what you're getting at.