Be warned, Tanegar. You don't really get to do war upon servants of the Old Ones and fly around in Gundam Mobile suits, one of the developers (the guy credited for art) has repeated stated that you do not get to play Tager pilots. The game system is meant to cater to seperate campaign types.

And you will get banned from the forums for disagreeing with that particular developer when he says that there is no way for Tagers to even have the skills, or suggest piloting civilian mecha. You also cannot play psychic mecha pilots, since, apparently, psychic characters are too valuable and mentally unstable to put in combat(even though the front line Engel pilots are JUST as crazy), and you cannot play the Nazzadi/Human half-breeds as pilots, because you have to be 24 years old minimum...

Yeah...the guy is a little crazy...

Oh, he is also supposedly the Art Director for Shadowrun...so he is why we have no recognizable female Trolls beyond the Street Shaman in SR4A(I am still not sure about the one in the original SR4...)

If he shows his face on here forums, he can come kiss my Canon ass.

Er... ok, I'll bite: why can't I make war on the Great Old Ones and their servants using a giant f*cking robot?! Isn't piloting giant f*cking robots pretty much the entire point of the mecha genre?

That is not precisely true. You can make war on the Great Old Ones and their servants using a giant robot, but you can't do a Power Rangers - kick their foot soldiers ass mano a mano (Guyver to monster) and stomp on the big guys with your giant robot. You can only be one or the other - as stated by in a developer's forum posts, albeit not found within the rulebook, although we are told that it will change such that it will be explicitly stated that you cannot do it in the books.

Yeah, looks like they never learned that fine line between "interacting with your fans on forums is cool" and "you need to know when to ignore the living fuck our of people on your forums."

I'm pretty sure that it's just you can't have a Tager (read:Guver), and pilot an engle (Read:Eva) at the same time. You could theoretically use one of the smaller, less powerful, regular mechs. It's in one of the books, at least I think it is, as I remeber reading it, and when one of my players brought it up, another shot it down it down.

It could be the non-euclidean nature of the books, were no rule is where you rember reading it, may have something to due with it.

No, Mr Mike V was quite adamant that a Tager should not be able to pilot a normal military mecha either, justifying it with his reasons why it should not be so. It did not help that some of the fans tend to go overboard in their posts in such threads.

Pretty sure I saw over there that Mike had left SR and gone back to CthP full time.

Thing is, he's right about canon. If you can't do something by canon, fine, you can't do something by canon.

But since when have gamers cared about canon in the face of awesome? He's failed to grasp that nothing that a bunch of people on a forum do will change his precious canon. He (and Co.) write the books. What they put in the books is canon.

SURGE is SR canon, and tons of people hate it and don't use it in their games. Does that make it less canon? No. So would it make any sense for Rob then Peter then Randall to come on here and shout at us in big red letters about the fact that it is canon any time somebody says "yeah, I don't use SURGE in my games"? No, that would just make them look like Giant Asses™. Because no matter what we say on these boards, we can't change canon*.

Also, it shows that he doesn't quite get the forum community != your entire player base thing yet, too.


*Directly. As in stuff we say becomes dogma for all other board members and players to follow.

It's brutally hard for some creative types to 'let go'.


Back on topic: I can't wait for the LE to arrive.

You aren't kidding. I'm seriously Jonesing for my SR LE and for Eclipse Phase to come out.

I have been around the block for the old timers to know that for me, if it is in the book, the book is holy writ, take it to the bank. But the problem is that what he was saying wasn't in the book and when people found ways in the book around his canon, he jumped in and labelled them munchkins. I suppose it would have been something like making a Technomancer with Latent Awakening before errata came out, sure, after the errata, it is canon that you can't have a Latent Awakening Technomancer, but before that? And calling posters "munchkins"...

You don't use the label "munchkin" on any poster unless you are trolling, that's pretty much making it personal. You are an admin, eidolon, what are some of the things you are sure will spark a flamewar? I think calling someone a "munchkin" directly or otherwise rates pretty high on that list.

well you should be proud of your munchkinism!

whats wrong with that.

if the hat fits they say...

Anyway I dont think its correct to bring your personal grudge on another game forum, from a compagny that distribute both game.

those guys are doing the impossible to give life to those games (both shadowrun and cthulhutech) and witout them we would be left with little exept D&D...

the guy put lots of time and effort and its only normal that when they tell you SEVERAL times to post in the homebrew and not to arge what is canon or not with them that they will loose their patience with you.

about the surge thing well its canon, if you dont want to use it thats your perogative.

but in Ctech its the exact reverse.

Imagine I come on dumpshock to ague that I want a Tecnomancer/physical adept or a technomancer mage?

anyway.

you want to argue thats fine, but play nice and leave personal insult out of your post.

If you come on dumpshock to argue a technomancer-mage or at least a Latent Awakened technomancer before the errata, I will take your side and say it is RAW. Because it was the RAW and the canon(fluff wise) did not state one way or another.

Calling someone a munchkin is an insult to me. Which is why I rarely (if I ever did) call anyone a munchkin if he did not use that label on himself first.

I agree that my previous statement probably crossed the line into insult territory, which is why I have struck them out. I do not think they have violated DS TOS, so I leave them struck out, it is not as if I did not make them in the first place, but I take them back.

I think this is quite an exaggeration. I can name a good 7-10 games outside of DnD, Shadowrun adn Cthulhutech. And that number grows 10 times if you start including the indie games...several of which have just as high production values as the "big boys". Take a look around and you'll see gamers have a lot more viable options than at any point in the past!

I can understand that, but look at it from my perspective for a sec (not saying it's right, just posing a different POV). The guy originally intended for there to be no way for a Tager to be a mech pilot. He thought he made it clear enough, but players being players, they found ways to circumvent any apparent restriction to make it happen. So the dev comes back and says "well, you're not supposed to be able to, so we'll fix that soon."

That sort of "dig around in the rules to specifically justify something that, whether you think it's cool or not, is absurdly powerful and not intended in the game" mentality just isn't something I possess. As much as I might hate the old RAW and RAI silliness that some wanks devolve into, sometimes it's just true. They didn't intend for Tagers to be mech pilots. In the world (read: fluff), they aren't. (I'm not a scholar of CTech, frankly I don't care much for the concept myself, this is just a frex.) To dig around and poke and prod and build and hammer away at the rules so that you can justify some game-breaking character build is, to me, munchkinry. It's the very definition of it, to me. Like Pun Pun. They might technically be possible, but they obviously weren't intended.

And I'm not saying that in every game or group that sort of thing is Bad™. I'm just saying that I've been on the "GM that doesn't have that mindset" side of these "but technically if you squint into the Western sun while standing on your right leg and peeing into the wind but being careful not to insult the moondogs of Venus it works" builds, so I can understand the frustration.

My disagreement isn't necessarily with his position but with his handling of it, I suppose. But before you open the gates of hell on me, I'm just saying that because of my personal gaming outlook, preferences, style, etc.

And on munchkin being flamewar-inducing, I'd think it would depend on tone, conversational context, the way the person took it, etc. I've seen lots of folks grin when called a munchkin (literally and figuratively) and others go on the defensive. Rarely have I ever seen it applied incorrectly in person, since I'm usually the one applying it.

I dunno, I think it helps in all these cases to remember that The Internet is Serious Business. Hell, I wrote an article on why you should, as a gamer that wants to retain your sanity and remember how to have fun with games, get the fuck off the internet once in a while and just focus on what makes the game fun for you and your table. Applied specifically to the CTech Tager thing, who gives a shit what the internet says (even the game dev). If you want to play a Tager mech pilot, click the little red X in the top right of your browser and go play one. The only people that matter are at your game table.

Just so nobody takes this post all that seriously, picture us all sitting around playing Zombies!!! with beers in hand and talking about this. Everybody's friends 'round these parts.

I gotta say, as a member of both forums and of both games, I think Mike V is 100% right. He said that your Tager/Engel pilot/everything else you can stuff into the character would not be canon. Your response was what again? Oh right, to call him out on it on some rules lawyering bs about rules as written. Do you do that with your home GM when he tells you that you can't be an uber-sniper/rigger/technomancermage? I can tell you that you wouldn't do it to me as creator/GM more than once no matter what had been written down. There is a reason people get called munchkin. And as I recall, you ONLY got that munchkin label AFTER you spent a couple weeks arguing that canon rules were basically whatever you want them to be and he could go suck something large. Munchkinism isn't just about being a rules lawyer; it's being a dick about being a rules lawyer so that it only benefits you and your game disrupting fun. You didn't get your way over there, so you clearly chose to disrupt the Cthulhutech forum. Now you're doing it again. What ISN'T munchkin about that?

Now, I'm sure that you're some bigwig over here and can ban me or whatever, but personally, I'm of the opinion that you should be reported and censured for your little crossboard flamewar that you tried to get started here.

Really? Hell, I own at least 25!

Heh, yeah...While I've been roleplaying for a couple decades, I really haven't played a whole lot...and looking at the games I've owned:

DnD (all four editions)
Twilight 2000
Shadowrun (1st & 4th)
Pendragon

And the games I've just played:

Vampire: The Masquarade

I figured that off the top of my head, that was a safe estimate, that if called out, I could name another handful of games;)

I'm going to say, with probably at least 85% certainty, that yeah, he would. Toturi is known for rules-adherence around here. It's hit thing, to some degree. (And there's nothing wrong with that except as in a taste difference.)




Mod hat on for a sec (no salmon???? nah)

Toturi isn't a moderator on Dumpshock.

If you feel the need to actually report someone for something, you can do so by hitting the little Report button on the post in question. Otherwise, what you're doing could be seen as baiting, which is against the TOS here (as an aside, having an opinion and voicing it is not). That's why we try to discourage members from trying to moderate here. Not because they are never right, but because it can lead to flamewars, insults, etc.

Mod hat back off.

Who's starting a cross-board war? Toturi is a member of two different communities. He happened to make mention of something that happened on one on the other, and it sparked a discussion. None of the Terms of Service were broken that I can tell (barring when toturi got really close to the insult line, but he realized it and backed off on it, which is all a warning would have asked had he not), and we're hardly showing up on the CTech forums causing hysteria and calamity. We're voicing opinions, which as long as they stay away from TOS violations, we don't censor here.

My point was that he'd only get the opportunity to rudely tell me how to write (or run) my game one time. He wouldn't be invited back for a second shot at me.

Other than that, I can take a hint and go back to lurking or simply log myself out. Thanks anyway.

You know, you're right. It's a little messed to tell someone how to write or run their own game. But you know what? As soon as that game is published and there's a forum on it, it's not *your* game any more. It's *our* game, because we form a community. Sure, it might be in poor taste, but so is locking any thread that might run counter to your intended 'canon'.

That said, I'd suggest calming your tona bit. You almost sound like a Mike sock puppet.

Blatant munchkinism aside, I'd just like to point out the difference between pedantic rules adherence and canon with this example.

Sure, you can arrange numbers on a character sheet to give a white para tager character 3 points in pilot. Heck, you could give them 4 points in Mongolian folklore while you are at it.

The canon issue is that the operations of mecha and tagers don't mix in the setting.

In most cases, mecha are owned, maintained, monitored and secured by the NEG.

Same with those trained to pilot them.

And white para tagers, due to their nature, aren't exactly likely to be able to hold down a day job as a military pilot working in secure facilities.

Sure, you could have someone who WAS a pilot and then became a tager later on. There's your justification for those points.

But where are you going to get the mech?

If your long suffering GM lets you, maybe you could salvage one from a battlefield and spend ages repairing it - or some other strenuous effort to hog the attention from the rest of the player group so you can have your toy.

The point is then you would be a tager who happens to be able to pilot a mech, not a Mecha Pilot/tager occupational combo.

And good luck stomping that piece of metal around the place before someone with a much larger array of firepower stops you and asks just exactly what you are up to.

And even better luck keeping that thing running.

However, all the above is just a waste of time. The issue here is that it's obvious that thematically and game balance wise, tagers and mecha pilots are intended to be two different animals - and any attempt to have both is either an exercise in extreme munchkinism or some theoretical stretching of storytelling notions to prove a point.

I am happy this thread reminded me that my players do neither of the above.

And I pity the fool who has players that do. I hope they at least make them pay for the pizza.

I split this out of the LE thread and put it where it belongs.

I don't really follow CTech, but what I find interesting about the whole discussion is the suggestion that a developer's (would this extend to non-developer writers?) post on a forum is canon. As a former Shadowrun writer, I think that's a really horrible idea, personally. Not only because developers are just as prone to make incorrect statements on a forum as anyone else or because their posts on a forum generally aren't run through playtesting or even discussed among the development team first, but also because it creates a situation where you have canon material that is hard to account for. It's less accessible to players, who may not know where to find the information because it's not in a book, and it may be overlooked in future printings and errata.

I've made plenty of comments as a writer about how I intended material I've written to be, but I certainly wouldn't consider my posts here canon until Catalyst updates the books to include clearer text on what I intended. And I really consider that to be a good thing, because I think the discussion is healthy and sometimes things are pointed out to me that should be taken into consideration, regardless of what my intent was.

If the rules say you can do it, the rules say you can do it.

Internet message board be damned, the rules are the shiny hardback thing you payed money for, that was combed over by editors time and again, that was playtested and game-balanced, polished and published, and sold in a game store. An internet message board post was just some dude with an open web browser that did such a bad job for the work he got paid for, he had to clarify his intent via Mozilla fucking Firefox after the fact.

What's canon -- published, official, "real" in-game -- is canon. Someone using the rules as written doesn't deserve to be called names by a game developer who left a hole in the first place. From the time you buy the book right up until the time you buy a supplement or the next edition, the opinion of the game developer means diddly poop. What's written in the book is all that counts from them. Anything else is up to the individual players and GMs that now own that property.

Funny thing is that the rules actually state why you can't do it - being a Tager or a Mech Pilot both requires a 3 point Duty drawback that can only go to 4 (4=you're on call/active duty 24/7/365). Unfortunately some people didn't accept that and argued that there should be ways to combine being a Tager Pilot (or insert other wacky combo) without breaking the limitations on Duty and that just because nothing else in the rules directly stated that you couldn't have Tager Pilots you should be able to make them.

After a while it was hardly possible to have any discussions without this issue coming up, so in the end the developers felt they had to state in no uncertain terms that they didn't intend for Tager Pilots (or some of the other combos) and that there wouldn't be support for these types of characters in upcoming books. If they hadn't it'd still be argued over and over again.

So to me the only real issue here is that some people want future support for certain playstyles that the developers don't think are suited for their ideas with the game, which means there won't be any canon Tager Pilots or White Xenomix Engel Psychics or rules for integrating them - but nothing at all apart from the Duty drawback (and for some like me, the common sense of the game) is keeping storytellers from allowing it in their games.

Oh and as a small sidenote I don't agree that developers can't state what they intended with a game online or in pdf additions to the games as that means stuff like errata only can be implemented by making whole new corebooks. Sometimes getting additional clarity from developers/writes is a great thing since - as we all know, errors and ambiguilities will sneak into rpgs - and if they state something I disagree with, I can just decide to ignore it for my own game.

Wildebeest

I'm not saying they can't state their intent. I did it all the time with material I wrote (and still do). I'm just saying that when I state my intent, it's different from canon. It's just my intent, as the writer. For it to be canon, it really should appear in some official published material somewhere, whether that's a PDF errata sheet or a new reprint or something. Because it's entirely possible my intent doesn't match what the rest of the game developers want to establish as canon or what works best for the game.

The "my forum post is law" strategy is a really messy one.

So, what this post and others are saying is that the words of a developer count when you hand over money, or receive a physical copy, but otherwise don't?

By this line of reasoning, if you paid him 10c and printed out a copy of his forum post, then you'd have 'canon' information....

Again, I think people are mistaking 'canon' in its respect of game background, setting, intent and theme with RULES 'canon'.

I'd say a developer has a lot more latitude in the former as opposed to the latter.

Also, and this is the central issue here, I'd say the developer is perfectly empowered and entitled to say something on a messageboard and have it be canon but (and spacing and caps here for dramatic emphasis)

JUST BECAUSE IT IS CANON DOESN'T MEAN YOU WILL GO TO HELL IF YOUR GAME IS DIFFERENT

So yeah, developer says X is canon. Player dude comes along and starts trying to pick holes in it. Whining ensues.

Player dude, don't pick holes in what he says in some kind of insane existential argument.

Just say 'Oh, well in MY game you can have white xenomix tager psychic ninja transgendered commando ballerina engel pilots'.

Then of course the problem is you need to deal with the ridicule people will direct at you rather than deflecting it at the developer...

The tagger/pilot issue is really a symptom of a larger issue, the lack of synergy between professions. Essentially, you can't mix and match professions within a party and have game work. In scenarios designed for mecha, taggers are likely to be totally useless. In scenarios designed for taggers, mecha are likely to be totally useless. Arcanotechnitions are always totally useless. Soldiers are only useful in a pure soldier campaign, otherwise they become overshadowed by taggers or rendered totally useless by mecha. Intelligence Agents and Occult Scholars actually compliment each other, but are by and large totally useless outside of their own little niche campaigns. And Engel pilots overshadow regular mecha pilots.



Having a tagger mecha pilot isn't overpowered. Most of the time, it's going to be underpowered since the GM isn't going to devote any time to giving one character his own mecha minigame. In the event that we have a whole squad of mecha piloting taggers, it still isn't overpowered, it just means that the campaign will have more variety.

Essentially, it's a conglomeration of niche games , and it doesn't work if one player tries to break out of the niche game chosen by the group. There is, of course, nothing wrong with that.

I did not argue that there should be ways to combine being a Tager Pilot but that there were(pending errata/addemdum) ways of being a Tager Pilot. The Duty argument doesn't quite work. Initially I thought it did and later I kept quiet about it when I found it did not, mostly to spare myself the hassle of being, well, hassled after seeing the posts made against Tager Pilot(there is a poster going by that nickname).

Core Book p100. Duty examples for police/federal mecha pilot - Duty 1(for the larger mechas) and corporate/federal agent/police Soldier - Duty 1(for the Powered Armor mechas). 1+3 (Tager) = 4 , does not exceed max Duty 4.

In fact I was one of the first to agree that you cannot be Tager military pilot. Unfortunately some people didn't accept that(you can be Tager pilot, just not military) and argued that in canon(somehow) it is forbidden. Which is the crux of my contention. If it is forbidden, then clearly forbid it.

Yeah, it was that argument that got me banned, when I was using Mike V.s own posts to show that he was saying that the skill was lost for Parapsychics.
NOTE: I had no interest in a Tagger Mecha Pilot..I was just pointing out that Somatic Parapsychics could make some cool Mechapilots, because of their attribute boosts, and the fact that the powers in question, by the setting and rules, did not actually need the person to be ostracized,and allowed them(per the rule books) to lead "normal lives." Mike V said that they could not be Mecha Pilots. His threads and posts amounted to saying that if you were a Mecha Pilot, who errupted, you would be pulled out of the mecha, and forced into training for your powers, and never allowed anywhere near a mecha again, and that you would lose your skills, since you cannot pilot a mecha. So, it amounted to: GMs can decide at random if someone Errupts, at whim, and if that person had put all that effort into their Mecha Piloting, and they Errupt..they have lost all that work, because they have skills they will NEVER USE AGAIN! For a POSITIVE TRAIT. A Positive Trait that screws the player over...should not be a positive trait.



Exactly, Hyzmarca. I was looking at the rules and potential as the person who would be running the game, and trying to find ways to allow the players to play different things, and still be able to work together. And that the person who developed the game apparently hates the idea of players in mixed groups. His comments and impressions that I got amount to him being a great world builder, but not much of a player...I mean, would you want to be in a game where you had to tell people: "OK..you need to pick the same character type....And, you know those Xenomixes? Yeah..you cannot actually play them, since they have to be older then is allowed to be the minimum age for anything..."

The feeling that it was a fanboy 'splosion of every little thing that somebody had ever thought was cool is what turned me off initially, actually.

After that, I heard some neat stuff about it on Atomic Array, so I'd probably play it once or twice if someone was running it, but still, I like my Cthulhu with illegal booze, .38 Specials, and flapper girls.

my issue with it is the lack of direcct damage inherent in sorcery.

sure, there is the orbs, annd the summonings. but i really do want to see some dark tomes of mind destroying spells that can rip someone to shreds...

I'm saying that the product I pay for should be finished and ready to play at the time I pay for it.

I shouldn't need to be checking internet forums to find out what they "really" meant, it should be playable when I purchase it. When I shell out my hard-earned money for a finished product, I expect that it's been playtested, balanced, edited, and read over by more than one person, whether that person is the "lead developer" or not...and that finished product, after having been looked at and corrected so many times by so many people, shouldn't then be thrown out the window because one person on an internet message board makes a post contradicting the published product.

And, what's more, I'm saying that if something does slip through all the playtesting and proofreading and editing all the way into the published book, and then that "something" is brought to the attention of a game developer by way of their forums...that game developer shouldn't insult players who are using the rules as written, and call them derogatory gamer-names. It's his fucking fault the "something" is there in the first place. It's just not good business to then insult and/or ban folks who play the rules as written, when you should be apologizing for a shoddy product if such a loophole exists in the first place.

It isn't much of an 'slosion, really. Everything is fairly well segregated. The best way to describe it is like White Wolf, where you have Vampires, Werewolves, Ghosts, Changelings, Mummies, and Demons, but they're not going to meet up at a tavern and have an adventure together. They're all pretty much stuck in their own little worlds dealing with their own byzantine plots and mutually exclusive apocalypses.

That' why the whole tagger mecha pilot thing was controversial in the first place. It's sort of like going into a World of Darkness forum and suggest a game where Vampires and Werewolves team up to take down the Technocracy.
Not technically illegal, but it breaks the story segregation that is integral to maintaining the setting, however unnatural that segregation may be.

Mike has apologised for calling me a "munchkin" and I have accepted that apology. I have edited my comments where I have painted Mike to be less than worthy of respect. I have also retracted some of my more disparaging remarks on Cthulutech, I have allowed my personal feelings towards one of the developers to color my statements on the game and I do not think I should have done so. I have limited my comments to the shortcomings of the game itself.

Yes, Mechanically, it is a great game. It is the "Special Secret Limitations not supported by the current books" stuff that bothers me. I mean, saying that you have to have a degree in order to be a mecha pilot(Because you have to have a degree to be an officer, and only officers pilot mecha, none of which is said in any of the books), when the sample mecha pilot does not have any Liberal Arts, Science, Business, or Engineering skills at a level for a Bachelors is bad. Having something where it says one set of Psychic Powers are not discriminated against, and you can lead a normal life, but then saying that people with those powers are never allowed near a mecha is bad. I know there have been references to civilian, non-combat Mecha, but saying that having the skills to use those and being a Tagger are impossible is bad. You see, to me, the first question I, as a GM, should ask is not "How can I keep my players from doing things?" but "OK..that is a neat concept...how can we make it work?" I guess my approach to GMing is not that welcome in their community, however. Since they do not give warnings or even temporary bans.

Gotcha, thanks. I've never really been a fan of White Wolf's stuff, and that approach has never really appealed to me, so that may be why I'm kinda cool on Ctech. That and the lack of illegal booze, .38 specials, and flapper girls. Did I mention the flapper girls?

That may be true for the older setting(s). But the new, where all the core rules are in the world of darkness book, and the rest apply supernatural templates to that core system, that may very well happen.

Hell, so far i kinda like the new mage (the awakening), as while it retains the freeform magic stuff, it also have whats called rotes. Rotes allow a new group or player to start out with well defined spells that he may even have more dice in, as they go by stat+skill+arcanum (formerly sphere) rather then gnosis+arcanum (tho gnosis can go to 10).

I would have to agree, being that non euclidean geometry is the basis of the game.

No, you don't own the game because you are a community. The developer still owns the game. They can change it how they like, and can mess up your world, and you know what... you have to deal with it. This sense of community entiltement that the whole"Web 2.0" crowd has adopted needs to be put to rest. You all need to read this a few times and maybe some of the rebuttals that have been bandied about. Artistic endevours are not yours because you are a fan. Get over yourself and accept that you have a different vision sometimes than the original artists... your life will be easier to deal with once you do.

So maybe my reply was initially more forceful than I meant. But that said...

Edit: deleted my post down to the bare essentials.

RPGs are not JRR Martin, no matter what you might think, reinforced by the point that with the exception of brand new auteur games, every RPG is written by multiple authors. I'll explain what I mean for you:

There's no way any developer who makes a game based on Cthulhu - which is public domain - and recycling/reimagining pre-existing tropes from a slew of anime can evin begin to claim that their artistic endeavour is not already a work of fandom. They have created a new and interesting lens through which to tell stories we already had access to, in the same way Cyberpunk 2020 was a new lens for Gibson and Sterling. Yes, the world is new and interesting, but the game itself is a product of fandom. Hell, even Shadowrun is now being written entirely by people who started off as fans of it. So let's dispense with the notion that JRR Martin, writing a series of novels entirely of his own invention, is anything except superficially like writing rules for an RPG.

My issue with the Ctulhutech forums behavior has very little do with the game itself. It has everything to do with what SEEMS to be arbitrary rules applied on the forum by someone who, by what I could tell, is using his status as a developer to close off discussions that he finds to be personally against what he envisions the game to be about.


Also, please don't tell me to get over myself, since I have no investment in the game past a cursory look in a gaming store. You don't know me and I don't know you other than on Dumpshock, so please don't make assumptions about my motives or reasoning.