Ornias

100% agree. the wrong kind of people will instinctively jump at this contract, the right kind of people will sway away from it. a shame, too, because it's such a cool concept with a lot of potential, that unfortunately causes a lot more harm than good.

"roleplay mechanics are useless!" yeah lol that's why they're roleplay mechanics. they help build immersion, and make you feel like you're on an actual station, rather than just fucking around and waiting for a wizard to kick in the back door and turn your friend into a statue add it. if someone can't be fucked using the dishwasher, you can literally throw most plates and stuff back into the machines or into the backroom and you'll be hunky-dory. a little more immersion never hurts.

tempting, but i'm afraid of people just running up and smashing the piano the moment that anyone starts playing a song, like people already do with the violin. i'd be for it, but only if we set the precedent that just smashing a piano because you don't like someone playing it will be punishable. we all know the piano sounds shit. it's meant to convey something ICly. if you don't like it, turn the sound down, or grit your teeth and bare it. if your character doesn't like it, react to it in an appropriate and believable way. it's a lot more believable for someone to shove you off the piano than it is for them to just smash it. hell, if someone's playing it at stupid times, like when you're grieving a lost one or held at gunpoint or whatever, ahelp them. that said, more options for story-building is interesting. i can see antagonists using this to develop character, and to portray the damage of a firefight/swordfight. add it. just make sure we don't let it get stupid

i don't pick civilian for calm RP. i pick civilian for exactly the same reason i pick any other role - to build a character. the job is part of the character. not the other way round, in anything but mechanics. but they should not be doing that. if you're acting like everything's hunky dory while there's an antag on the loose, that's bad roleplay. if you're not freaked out about the fact your coworkers are dying, that's bad roleplay. your whole position revolves around "well, fuck, they chose to play civilian, so they're just fucking crybabies". that's a horrible way of looking at it. the departments are un-important from an IC perspective when it comes to dealing with antags. that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be involved with antagonists. slightly less? of course. but not removed. we shouldn't be giving people an option which, by nature, excludes them from the game. you don't get light roleplay when there's a murderer on the loose. that's not fair to the antagonists, to the people who are taking the game seriously while you faff about asking out your cargo coworker standing over the corpse of a security officer. i expect antagonists to be given reasons to interact with civilians, as well as going out of their way to do it for their own accord. i expect civilians to be held in the same regard as anyone else, in regards to their status as players. i expect command staff to give options to these players to get involved, through realistic means - through asking them to distribute flyers, through coordinating protection efforts so civilians aren't left escorted, by making evacuation plans and dragging them, one way or another, into the fray, without breaking character. i expect any role or job that cannot, by it's nature, coincide with these options, to be remedied (or removed). there is no advantage to having these roles if we refuse to cater to them.

your character comes here to do a job* your character isn't here to get into shenanigans* if you want to say "you shouldn't expect to play x role and expect to interact with the antag!" you need to explain to me why these roles exist. we don't have antagonists as an afterthought - they're a very, very large amount of what our game is made up to be. if we have a large number of people who are unable, by the nature of their position, to be involved with this very core aspect of the game, we need to understand why we expect people to just deal with the fact they're missing out on the most exciting and compelling part of the game. i shouldn't be told "your enjoyment is secondary because you're not playing one of the harder roles". we don't trade fun and game skill like they're resources to be bartered. i come here to roleplay, so i'm going to want to pick a more roleplay-intensive job. i want to make a character that fits into a certain background, that represents a certain part of the lore, of me, and i want to enjoy the game the way it's meant to be enjoyed. probably because my character isn't braindead and acts like a reasonable person does, thus is able to avoid 99% of antagonistic actions by just walking the other way. most of the civilian characters that end up getting involved in antagonist shit literally charge their way in with a hi-diddly-hi and an improvised weapon (or they're in a metaclique, and get singled out by their friends. i don't say that to be inflammatory, but it's hard to dispute this) if we have roles which, in your eyes, shouldn't be getting involved with the games driving conflict, we need to fucking purge those roles, or change the conflict to the point that they can. otherwise, we've got a shit-ton of dead weight options, for characters (READ: PLAYERS) who are just doomed to be ignored and sidelined, because you don't think they deserve that interaction on account of not having to set up the engine or treat patients.

no. until you can say why it's a bad thing. yes, it's a "dick move". they're a bad guy. that's their modus operandi. they cause problems for the crew to react to. you need to show why it's a dick move OOCly. why it hurts RP. until you can prove that, there's no reason why it shouldn't be done. ((((((still not involved!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! whoooooops!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!))))))

This is sick!!!!!! Add!!!!!! 500 credits for a starter set is a lot though, unless they had some sci-fi spin to them (animated holo-cards that spoke combat phrases or something).

lol i wasn't involved so forgive me for posting garn but: The idea that debilitating the stations means to save people is anti-RP is stupid. It adds tension to the round. It makes injuries far, far more serious, and levels out the mercs and station somewhat in terms of recovery. I'm quite happy when a doctor rarely tells me "we can't get you up to 100%" because that facilitates RP. Someone dying because they don't have the tools to save them is compelling RP. People needing to use improvised tools to perform lifesaving surgery is compelling RP. Throwing a molotov at someone is most definitely grounds to return fire. That's an attempt to use a lethal weapon to end their life. Trash-talking him and saying that he's not putting effort into antagonizing because he shot back at someone who had (ineffectually) tried to kill him is the kind of behavior that makes everyone afraid of playing antagonist. RP is not "everyone talks for ages and then has a standoff where the station wins". RP is dynamic, and evolves in response to actions in the round. You feel that they should have taken the janitor hostage, and that's a valid opinion of what you would have done, but returning fire on a hostile individual creates RP in it's own way. The issue with facilitating only behavior that promotes survival even when people act in dangerous ways is it not only promotes acting in such dangerous ways, but it removes the variation for antagonists. If there's no danger for acting like an idiot against mercenaries, then there's no reason not to. If you punish people who enact this danger, than your only viable options to play antagonist are people who would take hostages, who would give civilians the 'benefit of the doubt', who wouldn't shoot to kill unless they had to. What about all those awesome bad guys in movies that don't take hostages? What about those serial killers that leave bodies hung up in the most horrifying places for people to find? They're scary and compelling because they don't negotiate. You don't enjoy watching those characters, you enjoy seeing the fear and story they create through their actions. Their actions may not be as RP-intensive as typing out a 10-line emote about how you screw open some engineers kneecaps or whatever in the merc shuttle, but they create just as much if not more story.

While I understand why you feel that it would be better placed to make a character complaint than commenting on your application, I feel like it might be the best place for it. He clearly did not feel it was sufficient reason to make a complaint, but that it is sufficient enough to bar you from playing as Command Staff. I feel this is appropriate - we have OOC requirements for Heads of Staff, and if someone feels your actions are in conflict with them, then I can't think of a fitter place than on your complaint. As such, as I plan to comment on your response, I will try my hardest to relate it entirely to your duties as a Head of Staff, so this doesn't become yet another drawn-out back-and-forth thread. To disobey the direct order of a Head of Security is not against the rules. If you feel it's in your best interest to do so, you are not barred from disobeying. This is, optimally, an in-character decision based on in-character information and motivation. As the Head of Security clearly did not want armaments handed out, I would question the Head of Personnel's judgement in deciding to give guns to cargo, as it is clearly in conflict with securities (perceived) best interest. That said, to obey the order of a Head of Personnel justifies your actions of arming yourself (which I am normally HUGELY opposed to OOCly, but that's a personal viewpoint). The issue is the presentation of your character, in their abrasiveness, lent to the feeling of it being OOC motivation that inspired your character to act in such a manner. Thus, it, and everything that came from it (ie: shooting at him), was unjustified. This relates very strongly to your Head of Staff whitelist: if he believes, based on your actions, that you have no intention of OOCly respecting the chain of command, or acting in a realistic and believable sense, then you cannot truly be trusted to act as an integral part of both the chain of command and of roleplay. I'm tempted to agree that there is an issue here. To fire at someone, with a lethal weapon, as a non-antagonist, especially as non-security, should always be treated with the utmost significance. There is not a person alive that does not think death is a significant act. Yes, you had some form of motivation in being pepper-sprayed, but your disobeying of his orders was entirely your decision. Your telling him to fuck off was entirely your decision. Your actions were what escalated the conflict, and this is why he takes it so significantly. Further, telling your superior to fuck off is not something that I would want anyone with a head of staff whitelist doing, because it is not all that believable. Under the stress of red alert, there's further motivation, but it's not the kind of thing that ever happens in real life if someone wants to keep their job. Thus: your actions made him feel like you attempted to undermine and drive conflict for the sake of being OOCly armed against the antagonists. Me. Staff. A large majority of the playerbase, save for the overtly vocal minority. The issue here is that salt in OOC intertwines IC and OOC actions. It shows unwillingness to separate characters and players, which is a huge red flag for a potential Head of Staff. Someone who can't seperate characters and players will act based on OOC motivations rather than IC ones, thus setting a poor example for their employees. It will mean that getting frustrated at someones IC actions will translate into dislike OOCly, making them less likely to interact with them, a requirement of any decent head of staff. I have seen this many times with heads of staff who, on deciding that they dislike a character or player, simply cease interacting with them, or start berating them as their superior. The fact that you still feel it's appropriate to “salt” at the end of the round is especially unforunate because it was directed at insulting a player for their actions. This should never be done by a head of staff. It shows lack of control. You need to be in control. I like this. Good on you for not losing your cool. It's your calm demeanor here that stops me from -1ing your application, because it shows you're not malicious or uncaring in your actions. But, before I can support your application, you need to demonstrate that you can seperate IC and OOC. This means considering how significant shooting at someone really is. How significant telling a head of security to "fuck off" is. This means no longer insulting people in OOC because you disagree with their actions ICly (even if you believe they were driven by OOC failure, we have forums to issue calm complaints, and plenty of ways to talk with people about their decisions without being salty).

Yeah, I like this, but only if it's optional.

read post b4 commenting pls

I like this, it shows a strong degree of desire to focus on roleplay rather than mechanics, which most heads of staff should be doing outside of emergency situations. A good demonstration that you're not going to go overboard with your characters and make them know everything in a department. Not going to lie, if this answer was given in a different context, I'd be a tad uncomfortable, because "heated" is often "stupidly over the top" and "hardliner" is often "emotionless" and "wishing people would learn" is "ignoring other peoples opinions" and "perfectionist" is often "elitist". That said, based off my interactions with you in-character, I wouldn't go so far as to say I believe that will be the case. I don't normally like this in a character, because altruism is generally the least interesting character dynamic in presentation. Further coupled with the idea that she's a staunch supporter of the company (READ: HELLISH MEGACORP), I'm not sure how that will work as a dynamic. In a toss-up, I suppose you'd go for company over crew, based on how that was written? Good on ya. I'm going to give a +1. I wish I could have had more recent interactions to base this off, but from my experiences a few months ago, you're decent enough to handle the role with no problem. Just keep an eye on making sure your characters niceties stem from IC reasoning and not OOC, and you don't accidentally become so altruistic you lose your character entirely.

You're looking at the flash as an offensive tool. The offensive use of it was removed, leaving it as a defensive one. This was intentional. Now, the flash is not a "DROP EM BOYS" tool. It provides a quick, effective "give me breathing room" if someone attacks you for you to either leg it or reach for another tool. These changes will make it a lot more aggressive, because it will make it a lot more effective. The fact you stumble and are slowed, combined with the ludicrously high number of charges you'd give it, and the fact you're clumsy, means you can just get spam-flashed, completely unable to defend yourself. I like the flash as it is now because it makes the flash a viable self-defense tool for all the Heads that get them (AKA: not able to insta-down antags who dare to not shoot the HoP on sight), while not losing all usage for security purposes. I'd ask that you explain your reasoning behind each change to the flash if you want people to get behind your idea.

I basically want to respond to Snakes posts the most because I feel like there's valuable insight to be gained from them. I just need further clarification, and I'll argue against what I disagree with. Killing oneself removes your ability to help convert the galaxy to God. Your neighbours haven't done it. Your friends haven't done it. There's probably an Edict out there somewhere preventing it. Serving God in the expansion of his domain is your calling in life. How can you fufill the Edicts if you die? There's not only a "handful of edicts", but at least 100. Boleslaw sits on the throne because he was promoted to his position by the original Unathi pirates. Boleslaw was promoted to the status of emperor by S'kraskin Seryo. While I agree that it should be a little clearer, it's not like it's immersion-breaking or unbelievable in the slightest. And it has done its job, why is it the ruling class now? Because religions don't just fade out of existence the moment that conflict dies down. Jackboot says that it was used as a tool of liberation, and I suppose Word of God and all that, but I personally view it as being just a further concentration of power. Some of my characters agree, some disagree. The religion was manipulated in order to fit the agenda of Boleslaw from Mo'Roz. Seriously mate? If you don't understand basic premises of different faiths then why do you write for or defend a theocratic faction. You're not clear about what you mean here. You can't be told to return to Dominia unless you WILLINGLY create a character as an edict breaker. Even then, it isn't going back to "kill yourself", at least not so far as Dominians are concerned. It's an offer of mercy, the last chance to face the courts for your crimes and be rightfully punished. I don't know what you mean by "claiming to not have a monopoly on truth". Ask Christian characters why they believe what they believe and they'll likely say similar things. "That's how things are, it's my religion." is not an uncommon reason IRL. For Priests, if this is the case it's more a matter of the character being confrontational or the player not being knowledgeable enough on the lore to justify it. I know I've spoken with you before, and I gave coherent reasons for my belief. It can be and is done. I would like to know what you've seen people so constantly disagree on, so that it can be clarified, and we can get an idea of where player confusion comes from. I play mine often intentionally skirting the edges of the belief while trying not to show it. That's no mistake. That's not an error in the lore. That's part of the character. Disagreements in faith can be interesting, so long as they're not major. If there are major conflicts, they need to be settled. Basically, it comes down to lack of clarification. Not down to poor writing. Save that for their population booms, their intense genetic prowess, and their incredibly concentrated history.

these are some of the best damn sprites especially the red vaurca and unathi the skrells eyes feel a little weird though. definitely add these though, christ they're good

Gonna be writing up a long post over the next couple days, but I just want to say this: The Moroz Holy Tribunal may be flawed, but it is not even half as bad as it is being presented to be. The main issue with Dominia lies outside the domain of it's religion; instead, with it's grandly accelerated story and galactic presence. A good priest of the Moroz Holy Tribunal will not create difficulties for any crew who did not, intentionally during character creation, put themselves into a position where they would face this discrimination. The edicts disallow breaking the law.

That one was a clear joke which got giggles and was closed before anything happened with it. This one is serious, and was written with serious answers.

Server Moderator Application Basic Information Byond Account: Ornias Character Name(s): Joie Desai, Astor Noton, Luka Brala, Mitchell Guess, Harley O'Ryan (R.I.P.), Wearing Face Over Mask, Cael Volvalaad AI Name(s): I used to play one named 'Hecate' back in the day , eons ago. I also play the robot C-Bot TY-33 rarely. Discord username + tag: Ornias#5012 Age: 17 Timezone: NZST When are you on Aurora?: Evenings for a few rounds on the daily. Experience How long have you played SS13?: ~ 2 years. How long have you played on Aurora: ~ 2 years. How much do you know about SS13 (Baystation build) game mechanics?: A pretty decent amount, but I know fuck all about Engineering. Do you have any experience moderating for an SS13 server?: No. Have you read through the criteria thread; https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=4198 - and believe that you mark off all the criteria?: Yes. Have you ever been banned, and if so, how long and why?: Yeah uhhhhhhhh I got banned for abusing Ahelps a while ago. It was banter at the time, and I got punished for overdoing it. Toned it back before I got my ass kicked off this Earth. I also got banned by Garn for 24 hours by server vote because I called the crew transfer shuttle. It was a big joke and we all laughed so it doesn't count Personality Why do you play SS13?: I'm super into Roleplay, and I'm pretty addicted and committed to my characters at this point. Why do you play on Aurora?: See above, because they're pretty much one in the same. I don't play anything but Aurora. What do moderators do?: Moderators are pretty much tasked with making sure that the server runs smoothly. Banning players is part of it, but I think it's the wrong mindset to think of it as only banning rulebreakers. Talking to people who are skirting the rules before they step over the line is best for everyone. What does it mean to be a moderator for our server?: Helping out the boys, being part of a team, and working for the best of the community. Why do you want to be a moderator?: I want to have a say in what the best course is for the server to go down, as well as the more cliché just helping out. I think I could do the job well, and I want to see the station become the best it could be. What qualities do you possess that would make you a good moderator?: Aside from being relatively active and involved, I'm pretty strongly interested in promoting heavier roleplay. I'm also like normally chill as. How well do you handle stress, anger, or insults?: Pretty well, I think. Sometimes things have dissolved to insults, but that's rare and has only happened like. Twice over the course of two years? idk Anything Else You Want to Add: I'm not gonna meme as staff much

You're being insufferable about this. Just because you don't like or agree with critique doesn't mean it's not worth your time. Enough people see an issue that it's at least worth genuinely considering. You say you 'get the problem' but you really don't seem to. Here's my stance: Lore-wise, I think we can somehow overlook the fact that we keep finding these weird ruins on a meteor. We do the same thing with the seemingly endless number of artifacts, so we can BS it somehow. Issue is that gameplay-wise this is going to encourage miners to rambo. I get you're saying "haha, if they do that they'll die" but I don't believe that for one moment. Simple mobs are so stupidly easy to beat if you're prepared (and I don't mean BIG GUN I mean taking some steel rods in to build defences and kiting them). And, even if it was true, it wouldn't stop people from going in. It would just mean they'd end up getting wounded all the time. If it's rare, that'll just encourage them to try ramboing even more: this will be the only chance they'll get for a while, so they may as well try. They won't bother reporting it because, fairly, a captain or security officer or scientist would say "leave it the fuck alone dude", because it shouldn't realistically be their job. I also get you're saying that "well, it's roleplay, they should be allowed to investigate even if it's not a good idea!" and that's true, but then you're locking an entire gameplay mechanic for miners BEHIND them acting like brave warriors instead of miners. Even if they overprepare, they're still putting their lives in danger for what realistically a well-trained science + security team should be doing. People are saying "include xenoarchaeology" so it makes sense and to encourage proper roleplay. Otherwise you're for no apparent reason giving miners a mechanic that's supremely better suited for a job that ALREADY EXISTS on-station, and not encouraging cooperation between the two. This is a great opportunity for roleplay - for working out a plan of attack as a team and going on this expedition to uncharted lands. But when people suggest "make them work together!" you shoot it down because not everything needs to include science. This is right. Not everything needs to include science. But if it's a scientific field, it should include science. It would be like me including medical duties to science. It might give them something to do, and medical doesn't need to be involved with everything, but that's medicals job. You want solutions? Here's some: incorporate things into these dungeons that need a variety of people to solve for whatever reason. Things that only miners have the tools to beat. Things that only xenoarchs have the tools to beat. Puzzles that need small numbers of people to solve. There's nothing gained from beating a dungeon but cool loot and street kred for risking your life if you do it on your own, but the roleplay that can be gained from investigating this cool-as lost tomb is substantial. The walls can't be taken down without explosives. Bam, you need mining on your side. They know how to use the C4 things they get. This crystaline power-source needs disabling, good thing a xenoarch has the tools for that.

you're literally doing the exact same thing with scientists It's a research station. Mining is meant to support research. Science is under no obligation to provide experimental tools to mining (though they often should), as they are just that, whereas mining literally does their job specifically to support science. Mining is pretty much obligated to report anomalies and ruins because it's not their job. In the same way that medical is obligated to report guns they find rather than picking them up and stowing them away, or science is obligated to report dead bodies instead of just looting them.

CPR is a messy, ugly, and unreliable. It has a success rate of less than 10%. You're likely to break their ribs, make them throw up, and give them whatever fuckin diseases you have. It's supposed to be a last-ditch effort to keep someone alive while emergency services are on their way. We shouldn't be afraid of weakening something to better reflect what it really is.

This is a complaint on CCIA's practices, which we have all encountered, and so I feel it's fair that I be allowed to post here too. And it's a big one, so I can convey why I think this issue has arisen. The idea that CCIA is purely IC is silly, because nothing is purely IC. Everything is done with OOC intent, even if that intent is only to play a believable character (though it's practically impossible for this to be the case). Even when playing a character, you have OOC expectations placed upon you (ability to do your job to at least a limited degree, ability to fit into our lore), because that is necessary to keep the gears of the game turning. The main difference between CCIA and, say, a captain, is aside from the judgement of their own characters, no-one on-station possesses the means to irreparably change your character or their position. Realistically, a captain would be able to make the kinds of decisions that CCIA makes, including firing employees (at the very least lower-level ones). But they do not have this, primarily because of the kind of OOC issues that it can cause. Unlike many other roleplaying games, you do not earn your position, and thus you're neither held subject to most of it's responsibilities or most of it's benefits. Thus, just playing your character is to a large degree OOC - you have to be here, because there's nowhere else to be, and other people have to put up with you. There's no accountability for your hiring, for your position, except for you as a player (or, to put it another way, it's OOC because you OOCly put your character aboard the Aurora, instead of working up to it through the system ICly). Now, the issue with this is that since your characters position is a large part OOC, any changes to it are going to reflect that. You cannot avoid CCIA decisions. You can literally work around anything ICly, but if CCIA decides to, at the extremest level, fire your character, there is nothing you can do about that if they don't budge. There's nowhere else you can go. You can't join Hephaestus or Einstein or Zeng Hu and keep on playing. This is unquestionably OOC - an unavoidable damage to your position in the game. Of course, anything mechanical could be considered OOC, but consequences are erased between rounds. So the question is, why is CCIA allowed to make permanent OOC decisions for characters while Heads of Staff and regular characters can only make incredibly temporary ones? The generally agreed answer to this question is that they're whitelisted - while a head of staff is trusted to make decisions that will greatly impact a single round, CCIA is trusted to make decisions that will greatly impact every round. We would not have whitelists if there wasn't an understanding that this system applied incorrectly could cause major OOC discontent. I don't know the correct solution to this, but I do know that we need to decide just how OOC IR's are. We can't just point vaguely to "a little of column a, a little of column b". We need to clearly define why CCIA exists, both ICly and OOCly. I'm going to quote Synnono's post because it's just so well worded: Which, unfortunately, conflicts somewhat with this: The first claims that IR's hold both an IC and OOC purpose, which are distinct between each report, and the second claims that they are one in the same. There is a strong difference between using IR's as a roleplaying tool and using them as a punishment tool. It looks to me that CCIA is not entirely in agreement about when each falls into effect. I believe that when players, staff, and CCIAA's all agree just what CCIA is for, these issues will fade out, and CCIA can finally be enjoyed like it's supposed to. Until then, these grievances will continue to be held, both publicly and privately.

bit optimistic there. wizard is hyper-variable, rev can choose what they're rioting about, cult and ninja are considered two of the worse game-modes and even they have a degree of customization in their presentation and gameplay (especially ninja with recent additions). i love the devil gamemode a stupid amount because i love the theme, but i wouldn't support having it in HRP (except as an admin-spawn event) one bit. coalf makes a pretty good description of why, mechanically, it's not particularly the best, but i'll add a few more reasons why. Antags are canon. We'd need to acknowledge that, in-universe, the devil exists. It's the least freeform antagonist we'd have, with the exception perhaps of the Cult. Even changelings have freedom to choose their backstory, even cultists have developed histories that could explain how they found their powers. Other antags have even more freedom. Yet Devils have only one reason for being here, one goal, and one backstory: they're the devil here to steal you soul. This would be fun, but after three rounds, you've seen it all, ESPECIALLY with their incredibly brief set of powers. Speaking of their powers, the fact they're weak is not half as bad as the fact they're linear and boring. Giving a wider degree of powers, in addition to limitations and boons, would be fascinating. Bear in mind that, on /tg/, he main thing to catch the devil is to look up it's name and to find it's weakness, which greatly varies. The only way to make sure the devil stays dead is to meet these requirements, or to keep killing it until it burns all it's souls. That's awesome, and the thing that makes devils so interesting, which is a shame that's not copied over in the suggestion. The randomized limitations and restrictions create an interesting, variable antagonist that you genuinely need to mix up fighting each time. With this, it's exactly the same. Use holy. If they win, use sword. Imagine if Wizards were restricted to only one spell loadout, or syndicate operatives to e-sword, e-bow, and e-mag. The inability to be stunned or to fight back will create no end of annoyance, both ICly and OOCly, especially when everyone knows who the devil is but can't do shit. It would just lead to security arresting anyone who talks to the devil and needing to just walk around him telling everyone to fuck off. Basically, fuck if they're balanced or not: they're not variable, and thus, not interesting as anything other than a very rare gimmick. Bring back randomized limitations and abilities, remove the hard-set weaknesses, give them more options for powers, give room for character customization, and you've got something people might enjoy.

it is the lore changing to suit the players, because we're having a poll.

this is exactly the kind of thinking that makes it carry so far we're a heavy roleplay server. 'the roleplays' should be the main thing that carries us anywhere, with everything else coming second. i agree with bauser - make it roleplay-only, and make it special. if a chef can find pleasure in building their own foods, then suddenly their variety is special, and any interactions you have with them will reflect that. also stfu. he made a less-than-optimal change, that he took steps to improve and eventually revert when people disliked it. if this is how you treat contributors, you don't deserve anything they produce.