Aubrey the Malformed's page

One reason I do not like game rewrites, is I have a very long campaign running. It seemed easier for me to convert my campaign from AD&D ( I always played a 1st/2nd hybrid)to 3rd edition, than from 3rd edition to 4e. I prefer a new edition which allows you to continue with the characters you had previously. I actually found 3rd edition converted AD&D characters rather nicely. It seemed additive. Converting from 3rd edition to 4e seemed subtractive. It felt like I had to make characters LOSE something to fit in the 4e ruleset. Powers were new and added a new aspect, but the characters would all play much differently from the way they were in third edition.

Fair enough. 4e is a highly readical departure from previous versions. Particularly when there weren't that many races and classes available it wouldn't have been very appropriate to convert a long-running campaign to.

Until you hit a tipping point where there's no manufacturing so the consumer is broke because they don't have a job. Not everyone can farm and you can't have a service or financial industry without some sort of base to support it.

Er, no: first off, not everyone works in manufacturing. One of the major things that has happened in the last few decades is the rise of the services sector. And that's a good thing, by the way. The theme running through all of this is how things must be preseserved exactly as they are: jobs, industries, and so on. Actually, economies adapt and change over time. I've made the point before, but should we have an internet tax to protect booksellers and travel agents? Or should we just accept that new technology comes along and changes the game. How many jobs have been lost in booksellers that have been gained in courier firms? How much has the drop in book prices helped consumers spend on other stuff, stimulating the economy more generally? As well as new technologies, other countries come along and change the game too; the US did in the late 19th/early 20th century, when they industrialised. The UK seems to have survived its relative decline without being reduced to a wasteland, so I assume the US will manage its own.

And that also goes to your rather silly point about competition driving the consumer into the ground. It won't happen, because the economy would adapt. In fact, trying to stop it is probably a really good way to make the transition longer, harsher and more brutal when it comes.

This is lump of labour fallacy again - your favorite theme.

Of course, you could adjust with a high level of socialism, high wages, larger government and mandatory shorter working hours. Thats what happened when corporations moved from England to America, but in America that's socialism!

The allegedly free market isn't going to offer a solution that benefits most people.

There are certainly issues that need to be addressed arising from the boom and the bust of recent years. However, I doubt much of what is being proposed on this thread is really that helpful. I never cease to be amazed how, with one breath, you castigate politicians, and then with the next breath propose solutions which basically require those self-same politicians to rescue you with activist policy. A lot of what happened happened because of interference by politicians, regulators and so on. Getting it right requires them to be very smart, incorruptible, and alert - which is why it hasn't really happened. The reason I prefer a market-led approach is because, while the market is not kind, it gets the idiots who have screwed it up in the past out of the equation more. There is a role for government, but it isn't to hold the economy is aspic.

Or china placing high tariffs on American goods and Americans being too spineless because they lent us so much money.

Well, kicking your biggest creditor in the teeth ain't smart. On the other hand, if people in the US had saved more rather than borrowing and spending, it wouldn't be like that - which is a broader issue for the American people to grapple with rather than necessarily blaming China. No one much was complaining when they were lending the cash at the time.

China is a protected market, but it is also not a highly developed one (despite the terror of the Chinese economy, it is still smaller than the US and much smaller on a per-capita basis). It doesn't have sophisticated markets, so their policy-makers are reluctant to liberalise too much too fast - which, in a totalitarian state, would also have political ramifications. However, suggesting that raising tarriffs on China would simply cause them to turn the other cheek strikes me as recklessly naive.

1) Canada puts out more greenhouse gas per person

2) In terms of pollutants greenhouse gases are not the only name in the game. Look at a heavy metal dump site 50 years after it was closed down. Global warming is bad but there are FAR more harmful things out there than C02.

Well, that's alright then - destroying the world's climate system is alright in comparison to a bit of local heavy metal poisoning. And, in case you haven't noticed, there are a lot fewer people in Canada than in the US. I mean, I don't deny there are issues with the environment (mostly around CO2 emissions, actually) that require coordinated government action. But from your previous comments, I'm pretty sure you aren't that bothered about kids in China being poisoned as such, so long as US jobs are protected. I'm not sugesting you are heartless, but I am suggesting that your desire for environmental protection is more about hampering competition than improving lives in developing countries. But it's a hypocritical stance to take when living in a CO2-emitting glass house.

The consumer only gets richer to the point when he loses his job and income to chinese competition.

Hasn't happened to me. Hasn't happened to a lot of people. Probably never will. Some people have lost jobs in basic manufacturing. Competiton benefits the economy as a whole (lower process, lower inflation) but there are losers. But economies are dynamic things which change over time (otherwise we would be still sitting round fires dressed in skins). Pretending you can stop change is stupid - and a great way of wrecking the economy. The jobs in an economy and their nature will change over time anyway - that's got nothing to do with China, it's just called history. Want another example - perhaps mecahnical weaving should have been banned

And that competition drives the costs lower is a meme that doesn't always comes true.

I'd like to see your evidence for that.

Your linked document states that Smoot-Hawley was a bad move because it led to a trade war at the wrong moment, not that it was at the root of the Great Depression. At the time, the playing field was leveler, nothing like the imbalance between China and all of us, occidental countries.

Is there a right time for a trade war? Actually, it feels very similar: a banking crisis a couple of years ago brought the world economy to a dangerous precipice, so why don't we hurl it off with a trade war? Hooray for trade protection! The lessons of history suggest maybe it's not such a great idea.

Quote:

There is a reason a lot of people favour free trade.

Because it lets them make oodles of money making things where the labor is cheap and the environmental regulations are non existent.

No - it makes the consumer richer because goods are cheaper through lower cost production and increased competition. And because trade barriers often result in retaliation which then subsequently leads to massive loss in demand and mass unemployment. Like I said, Smoot-Hawley - look it up. And I get pretty sick of Americans going on about the environmental standards in other countries as a reason to promote protectionism when the biggest producer of greenhouse gases out there is the US.

I haven't read the quote, but actually it does't make much difference. It's worth pointing out that capital is international these days - it goes where it is cheapest to go. That includes financial transactions as well as the "real" economy. Tax is one of many potential costs to a project or transaction, and if the overall cost is cheaper onshore (or it will generate more revenue, customer loyalty and so on) then it'll be onshore. But racking up costs in the naive assumption that businesses won't notice or care is foolish.

Oh, and tarriffs are not a cost-free way of ensuring stuff stays onshore. See Smoot-Hawley - retaliatory tarriff-raising could be great way to seriously damage the world economy. There is a reason a lot of people favour free trade.

Well, actually they might, if there was a choice of doing it somewhere where the tax was lower. That's off-shoring. There's nothing different or mystical about tax - it's a cost, businesses will do what they can to minimise it.

The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

I was also addressing in a more general sense a specific (and I believe nonsensical) argument I saw made elsewhere. This argument was that if businesses had to hire people to figure out how to handle the new healthcare system requirements then it was good for the economy because they were hiring people. But, hiring people just to try and figure out the red tape adds no value to the product produced (a separate argument than the healthcare itself may add value...) but it does add to cost. Thus, lowered competitiveness.

Paying for the costs of doing business adds value in that you get to continue doing business.

The nature and amount of those costs change over time, but even when they increase, it's never a good idea not to pay them. It's like Warren Buffett said, I've never known of an investor who walked away from a deal because the tax was too high.

That's nonsense. Tax is a significant cost and central to a lot of business decisions. If tax (together with other business costs) means a particulr deal or transactions doesn't pass the hurdle rate, you don't do it. That's basic investment appraisal. I very much doubt Buffett said what you say he said, in the context you are suggesting.

If they named 3.5 D&D 4th edition would it still have bothered you? Technically the difference between 3rd edition and 3.5 was as much of a difference as between 1st edition AD&D and 2nd edition AD&D. I think enough has changed with Pathfinder to call it a new edition (only reason it has not is because it is PATHFINDER) I do not consider it 3.75 any more than 2nd edition was 1st edition.

Though it is different, the spirit is the same. The chemistry book I always refer to is on its 8th edition. Each time stuff has been taken away or added, but it is generally organized the same.

Game editions seem to be a mix between book editions and software editions.

I think it's fair enough for PF to be called a separate edition. However, it is also backward-compatible with 3.0 and 3.5. 2e is fairly backwards compatible with 1e. 4e isn't backward-compatible, however, suggesting a more substantive change.

Vic Wertz wrote:

Frankly, in this industry these days, companies are pretty lucky if they can cover their costs on release. Generally, profits come from the "long tail."

Who's ready for "'Boogie Nights': The RPG"?

I think you'll find that's fat tails, not long tails.

I might give you that AD&D is not modern, but we are not talking improved graphics here. Everythign in RPG's is an abstraction, and 4e is just as abstract as AD&D. I like 3rd edition most out of the older editions of D&D. Still, it is not like jumping from an Atari 2600 to an XBOX.

1st edition codified the archeology that was OD&D. 2nd edition was a reboot so TSR would not have to pay Gygax. 3rd edition was made by WOTC to save the industry. At first I was not onboard but it became my favourite edition.

4e well some claim it fixed problems, but I still think it was an excuse for a moneygrab.

Marketing has convinced we gamers we need new editions. That is the reason we hope for them.

I didn't prefer RQ because of the marketing, I preferred it because it was better. I liked 3e because it actually learned some stuff from skills-based games like RQ and incorporated it into D&D. So you can see evidence of progress and cross-fertilisation - that's not marketing.

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

You're talking about a company that laid off its best and brightest, who marketed its newest version of the game in an ill-advised way, and who introduced draconian measures to control 3rd party content in its initial liscensing for that version.

And, just as the Wizard's of the Coast of 2000 was different than the WotC of 2008, the WotC of 2011 is yet again a different animal than it was just 3 short years ago (at least as far as how things seem to be run)...

Just some perspective to think about...

Quite - which is what I was alluding to. They had no real competition, and they screwed up. Now, the landscape is different, and WotC seems to have raised its game.

10-20% of Americans are just sitting at home, stoically refusing to work, because they're jealous of rich children.

-OR-

Propoganda inflates and obfuscates an issue that means nothing whatsoever to almost anyone to such a large degree that nearly everyone in its target audience imagines they are somehow affected by it.

No, they are sitting at home because the world has suffered a global banking crisis that was caused by, in part:

- global flows of money from China and Germany to the US
- reckless borrowing by a lot of people, mosthly of ordinary or less-than-ordinary means
- reckless lending (and, yes, investing) by banks
- regulatory problems, too numerous to mention in this glib soundbite I'm typing
- governmental incompetence (especially in Europe)

What I'm not seeing is a conspiracy by rich people to f++! over everyone else.

Freehold DM wrote:

Net worth vs. income. Hm...

Does the distinction really matter much? It's not like there isn't a lot of overlap between the 2 populations.

Especially if you consider the very elite. The 0.1% or less that are the real problem.

You are aware of how much tax these people pay, as a proportion of the tax take? There is some controversy about the reasons why, and whether they are repeatable, but since taxes were cut in the 1980s the proportion of tax payed by the very wealthy as a proportion of the total tax take has increased a lot. I don't have the figures in front of me but the trend has been very significant over the last twenty to thirty years. I'm not sure if this is the problem to which you refer?

DΗ wrote:

Heh. I suppose thats true. I wasnt thinking timeline-wise. Maybe I wont have kids until I'm 60.

Okay. Grandkids then. lol.

If I put the effort into saving money instead of blowing it as I get it, why would anyone have a right to tell me what I can do with it?

I dont understand how anyone can accept taxing inheritance.

Some people are horribly offended by the prospect of people having more money than they have, and this is one way to take it away.

Inheritance tax is basically a form of social engineering - it was introduced by the Labour Party in Brtain, for example, specifically to break up the estates of the landed rich. Whether that was a good or bad thing depends on your point of view.

Huh? Since when did receipt of a short term bonus count as investment?

Investment may be a bad term, but it's better than working. The short term nature and the huge potential returns encourage only short-term thinking, with no concern for the long run. If I can make millions in bonuses by boosting the stock price this quarter, who cares if it's bad for the company, I'll be gone, with a few more million in my golden parachute before it crashes.

So we are talking about the difference between long-term investming and short-term speculation? You realise that it's quite difficult to genuinely differentiate between the two. At its basic, what if I am a shareholder in an investment bank - am I speculating or investing? If a trading desk in that bank makes profits, they might be speculating, but as a shareholder I am getting a stream of profits. And some long-term investing isn't that great. A company that has "long-term" shareholders who may never sell can probably ignore what they say. Some "vulture funds" have led to improved corporate governance and returns in sleepy, crappy firms. After all, Rupert Murdoch is a long-term investor in newspaper firms, but his corporate governance is s#%@. You are aware that Lehmans was largely brought down because it was invested in long-term assets (property) that it couldn't sell when it came to it? So, in your estimation, when does "short-term" stop and "long-term" begin?

What exactly is the difference between an "investment rich" and a "working rich" person anyway? This seems like the difference between "rich people I disapprove of" and "rich people I approve of". After all, a CEO, even a banking CEO, has a job, so he is working - working rich. And what is fundamentally bad on "investing"? If no one invested, there wouldn't be any industry, no workers, no nothing.

"Investment" these days isn't like it used to be. It's not providing capital to start or grow a business, that's too risky, too slow and not profitable enough. It's gambling. Putting bets on the economy. Generally on short term movements in the markets. The real money these days is in high-frequency trading. Skimming tiny percentages off of high volumes of trades. The kind where you need your computers closer to the "trading floor" so the network lag time is less.

But anyone who's rich, even those who are still working, are likely also heavily invested in the market. What else are they going to do with their money, put it in a big vat like Uncle Scrooge?

I'd start calling you "investment rich" if half your income is coming from "investments".
Mind, as I said above, I'm really concerned with the top ~0.1%, not doctors, lawyers and others making good money.

Investment ain't what it used to be when you were a nipper?

High-frequency trading is certainly a growing trend, but whether that's where the "real money" is is debatable. The jury is out on the impact of it, and there can be some positive effects, such as increased liquidity, which brings down the cost of trading for everyone. And at its basic, from the moral perspective we are taking here, it isn't very different to trading off the basis of a chart, instead of fundamental analysis: you are looking at the trend in the share price, not the company. People have been using charts for a century, probably, or more.

Your cut-off is a bit arbitrary: if I own a successful firm into which I have poured my money and effort, and still own it and derive income, am I an investor or a worker? And what, fundamentally, is different about a doctor or a lawyer? In fact, they operate on the basis of closed shops with high barriers to entry, and probably earn money doing stuff someone could do for you much cheaper. That's fundamentally anti-competitive. I should know, I'm an accountant - same thing.

Becasue it's everyone's business what one does with one's money.

No, seriously, it isn't.

As I suggested, I think it's the investing rich that are the problem. And CEOs of some of the big companies, but they're closer to investing rich than to working rich, since much of their income usually comes from bonuses based on short term company performance.

Huh? Since when did receipt of a short term bonus count as investment?

There really aren't a lot of working rich. As I said above, I'm a lot more worried about the 0.1% than the 1%, but that's not as good a sound bite.

Edit: It should be clear from the "Wall Street" focus of the movement, that they're more concerned with the "investment rich" than the "working rich".

What exactly is the difference between an "investment rich" and a "working rich" person anyway? This seems like the difference between "rich people I disapprove of" and "rich people I approve of". After all, a CEO, even a banking CEO, has a job, so he is working - working rich. And what is fundamentally bad on "investing"? If no one invested, there wouldn't be any industry, no workers, no nothing.

I'm not saying they should "cater to 3e fans". I'm saying they probably want to reclaim the D&D mantle. Like it or not, it's pretty divided right now. There's quite a schism in what used to be a fairly unified fanbase.

If they can please both sets of fans, they stand to make a lot more money. And money's the bottom line when it comes to selling products.

Actually, no, things are not very divided now. In the 80s heyday of roleplaying there were loads of systems out there, and now there is basically a couple, one of which is an older the version of the current version of D&D. I didn't even play 2e in the 80s - I played RuneQuest, because I thought 2e was a fairly poor system in comparison. And honestly, D&D is still called "D&D" - it has the mantle.

Moreover, I don't think a hegemonic WotC is good in the long run anyway. Most companies respond to competition by upping their game. You could argue that WotC maybe took its fanbase for granted in the swap-over to 4e, due to its dominant position. A more humble, wiser WotC that has to compete harder for the business will probably be good for gamers.

My only question is why should they make something new? If 4e works it works. Why would one want a new system where you have to learn all new paradigms, all the tricks, and all the loops to run an adequate game when the current system already works?

People that play 4e seem happy with it.

But times move on as well. I don't think anyone (well, OK maybe a few) would really call the original version on D&D up to snuff now, what with everything that has happened in other RPG systems, the rise and influence of video games, different media and the rise of the internet, and so on. So setting a game in aspic is probably a great way to go out of business - 2e got run into the ground, and the new edition led to a renaissance in D&D. I was happy playing 3e, but I'm probably, on balance, happier playing 4e. I might be even happier still playing 5e - who knows? Most of us don't have the time, inclination and experience to design RPGs completely the way we might like them, or to even be aware of everything out there that could improve the gaming experience. The professionals do, so why not let them innovate? And simply pulling up the drawbridge and pretending that nothing is going on in the world that could possibly influence gaming seems close-minded.

I'm quite certain when Ed sold the IP to TSR that he knew full well that they'd make changes he may or may not like. Even as it got further away from Ed's original vision, it shows great character for him to stay on for as long as he has to provide us with great lore and information, even if he may not use it at his home table.

It shows great character, or simply a desire to receive fees and royalty cheques. FR is his meal-ticket, after all.

Does anyone here have a degree in Finance?

I thought about doing one about ten years ago, decided not to bother.

Yeah - frankly, the sooner they default, in some ways, the better. At least the government will have some money then.

No worries - they have blocked google.docs at work for me too now.

Hopefully the only austere thing is his intellect.

If you want to get into a game, regularly check the Recruitment section of the board - you'll find that in the Online Campaigns section. There are usually games there looking for players. The character classes don't make any difference - normally it's a good idea to be open-minded about what you want to play, in case someone has taken the role or class you wanted. I.e. tailor the character concept to the game.

7,500gp - so if you have the cash, you can get it done here.

It turns out Veth doesn't have Craft Magic Armour and Weapons, so you would have to find someone to actually do it outside the party. So you would have to pay the whole difference (6,000gp) between +1 and +2.

A quick post to stop this dropping into the archives and losing all of its dots.

I think a lot of us don't really know the legality issues that come with the discussion of GSL vs. OGL vs. PfRpGCL. For me, mainly because I don't care. I know PF puts out some ridiculous, well informed, and fun adventures. I know 3PP have put out some fun, interesting, and useful information for D&D 4E. I hope people keep putting stuff out for both.

I think WotC put out a slightly more restrictive license because they want to retain the rights to pull stuff that might, at some future point, become a big competitor *hint-hint* (at least that's probably what BIG WIGS think). They can never pull the OGL but they can be strict about what goes into it from their post OGL products (which they have been).

Also, if someone wants to support 4e after 4e's demise, they can't do so under the aegis of an official licence. That encourages companies who want to support WotC product under an "official" licence to convert too rather than stay with an older edition in perpetuity. Which makes sense from an anti-competitive point of view. In retrospect the existence of the OGL in its current probably damaged their market, as they couldn't end it.

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

Arazni wrote:

...It's very hurtful cause I know I love him, but I have no idea how he feels about me...

Have you considered that possibly the issue is that YOU have rejection issues. Your partner sounds like a fairly typical monosyllabic male. You seem crazy about this person, but you seem to be looking for an excuse to break up. Are you trying to protect yourself by trying to dump this person before they dump you and break your heart, possibly because you think that you don't deserve to have a good relationship (basic lack of self-esteem)? I don't know either of you and only can see what you wrote, so the above needs to be taken with that caveat, but I get the impression he isn't unhappy with the situation, but you are for reasons that seem, basically, a bit trivial. If he was slapping you around or belittling you, that's different. But I don't get that impression.

If she's not even sure he loves her, I don't think that's trivial. Like you, I can only work off what we're presented with here, but not even being sure he loves her would be a pretty big deal if I were in her place.

Depends on how long they have been going out, really. Not long, based on the subsequent comments. And someone who needs that constant reassurance of "Do ya love me? Huh, huh?" might come across as needy, which might be an active turn-off.

@Arazni. I suggest you take it slowly. Rome wasn't built in a day. If the guy enjoys hanging out with you, it's a good start - in the end, that's pretty much what a long-term relationship boils down to. Pestering him to see if he feels the same way you do is probably not a good way to prolong the relationship in an early stage. I'm getting the impression you are at an early stage in this relationship, and you seem to be being carried away in a tidal wave of emotion / love / lust right now. I suggest you chill, enjoy it while it lasts, and when you are maybe a bit calmer reassess how suitable you two are together. Trying to get him to commit now may only scare him off, especially if he isn't used to commitment. And you might need to get used to the idea that he doesn't feel the same way about you, at least right now - he may need longer to come around. I felt no cataclysm of love when I started out with my wife, but I'm very happy now.

Okay, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and ask for some help from this wonderful community of free thinking and fairly liberally minded individuals.

I am in a relationship with a really great guy. The physical aspects of the relationship are phenomenal. I feel ten thousand times beyond great when I'm with him, that is, just being with him not the physical aspect of the relationship.

My problem has been developing over some time, but its just now gotten to the point where its causing regular gastric distress and other emotion-related distresses. He's not very communicative. I keep asking him to tell me what he's thinking and feeling because I share that stuff with him all the time, and he just clams up. It's very hurtful cause I know I love him, but I have no idea how he feels about me.

What's really sad is that he asks me how I feel and think, and I tell him all the time, because I want to express how much he means to me... but he won't give anything back.

I've gotten angry with him a few times about this, but he just clams up tighter. I don't know what to do, and I'm at wit's end, because I'm absolutely crazy about him (maybe thats the problem), and I cried myself to sleep the other night because I was thinking of leaving him to find someone who could communicate their feelings more.

Any help at all would be appreciated. Please... :(

Have you considered that possibly the issue is that YOU have rejection issues. Your partner sounds like a fairly typical monosyllabic male. You seem crazy about this person, but you seem to be looking for an excuse to break up. Are you trying to protect yourself by trying to dump this person before they dump you and break your heart, possibly because you think that you don't deserve to have a good relationship (basic lack of self-esteem)? I don't know either of you and only can see what you wrote, so the above needs to be taken with that caveat, but I get the impression he isn't unhappy with the situation, but you are for reasons that seem, basically, a bit trivial. If he was slapping you around or belittling you, that's different. But I don't get that impression.

It's about waist height. You can use Acrobatics to jump it, otherwise it takes two squares of movement to cross.

No, it's cool and is good for the story and atmosphere, plus it doesn't change anything fundamentally. I prefer it when people get stuck in and make decisions. There might be a slight issue in making up too much stuff but a peripheral thing like this is fine, plus it's a good use of your power. That said, Kevis isn't caravan-leader - Grandma is - but he might have been "duty watch" tonight.

Also, a fairly trivial comment on Calla's new character sheet - you can't tell which powers are at-will, encounter or daily.

Gorad, before I forget to mention it, I notice you are using the Brothers in Battle background. That's actually from Scales of War, not Dark Sun. I wouldn't mention it but it is mechanically superior to the other options available in DS, namely giving a +3 bonus instead of +2. I'm happy for you to take it if you want, but I'd like the actual bonus to be reduced to +2 to put it in line with the others. Alternatively, you can choose another DS background which will give you a +2.

The game has kicked off in the gameplay thread.

In that case, yes we are!

I have the food and waterskin that comes with the adventurer's kit, and I bought desert clothing. If it would be easier to use survival days instead I'll trade out what I have and get those instead.

IC, I think Arakan would not carry them for the fact that I would imagine that the caravan feeds and waters the guards, and if need be he understands nature, so would be confident that he could keep himself alive if need be. He doesn't realize, despite knowing about nature, that he doesn't know as much as he thinks (Read: trained for a total of a whopping +5).

The clothing doesn't come as part of survival days, but the food and water probably does. I'd swap them out for a similar value or stash the cash for future use.

Memo to self - check what items from the Adventurers' Kit are actually available in DS.

Also, have you all purchased Survival Days?

Fine. I think we are more-or-less there. I'll start working on the opening scene.

Introducing Jareen. Ex-Templar, on the run.

As The Rev put it last night I "certainly shouldn't run out of things to do in combat"...

OK, a few comments arising from the character sheet:

- I notice Jareen doesn't have a wild talent (although I also notice that the CB has a habit of forgetting what you chose, so that could be a system issue).
- Jareen doesn't have a high Bluff. To some extent, I wouldn't expect him to - as a sanctioned arcanist in Balic he didn't have to conceal his power - but now he's out in the cold he might consider some Bluff training further down the line, or have a lot of angry people trying to kill him on principle.
- he also doesn't have the Arcane Defiling power, as far as I can see.

Good idea - that whiff of sulphur about you doesn't need reinforcing.

What neat stuff are you talking about?

I'd say the caravan is about half-way to Tyr from Balic. As for the mystery package...

H

Hey Aubrey, that's all good. I'd much prefer to work collaboratively on Calla's background and have her well integrated with the story - it's what I'd do in a round-the-table campaign anyway.

So if her family is from Tyr, then the caravan is probably attached to either House Vordon (iron traders, still powerful), or House Ianto (former slave traders, now trying to diversify and re-brand). House Ianto probably has more scope for plot and incident. They are looking to relaunch business through 'speculative cargos'. What are Calla's family transporting on this latest trip? Does she know?

Rather than a stint in the Balic Legions, perhaps some incident on the most recent journey has led to the recent tension with her family? Or perhaps it's just to do with growing up... and the incident is just about to happen.

How does all / any of that sound?

Oh, and part of my reason for switching to a Balic background was the meta-gamey desire to get streetwise as a class skill. Tyr backgrounds have that too :) So she's a naif about some matters, but knows where to go in a market to get the best deals, and how to find crew, and which areas in Tyr to avoid... but inexperienced and young. She's never had the chance to make her own decisions, or set her own goals. Ingenue.

Like it - I'd run with house Ianto. And natural bolshiness is reasonable - or maybe Calla is stary-eyed about abolition in Tyr, which could be resented in a House practically ruined by it?

I am sorry thought you were out of town. I don't mind it getting rough.

New back story:

I grew up in the dwareven city of Kled on the Great Alluvial Sand wastes, as a Mul I was never especially well treated so I tended to fend for myself where possible. When I got old enough and brave enough I ran off to the Screaming Ravine to live where I thought no one would bother me... big mistake... After a almost a year of living on my own in this harsh region the blood curdling screams that would echo out from the dark led me to explore deeper and further than most would dare. But don't doubt that the allure and danger didn't bring some adventurers... I found the bones of many taht went before me. That is where I learned I had an affinity with spirits, I could not only see them but I could talk to them. I couldn't live those close to such a trouble spot any longer I had to flee back to Kled. Unfortunately some spirits followed and I was caught talking to them... The dwarf leaders of Kled took me to the natural geyser in the Lost Oasis so taht Durwadala the thri-kreen druid could pass judgement on my "devious" ways. She determine that while I may be a friend to death I was no enemy of life and asked that I be released.

Those bastards released me alright... right into the waiting arms of slave traders... I was almost given away, doubly cursed a dirty Mul(half breed) and a spirit talker... They didn't even let me keep my secret... The slave traders quickly sold me into the service of King Kalak... his secret agents always had a need to speak to the recently deceased... When I refused to use my powers in their evil plans I was thrown into the gladitor pits to die. But I got a lucky thrust in and didn't die... and the other gladitors learned that those around me tended to live through the most ghastly wounds as well. We formed a symbiosis of sorts, I helped them live and they helped cover for my less than stellar fighting skills...

Now that king Kalak is dead I can't go home, if you...

Like it, so many enemies my cup runneth over..,

It might work better if she was a native of Tyr rather than Balic (and her house also Tyrian). And while she might have military training, I quite liked her as an ingenue (with maybe a bit of education in thw Way rather than military service) though I leave that up to you. (Sorry to work over your concept quite a lot but the opening of the capaign is "Calla's story" a bit.)

Also, Glod: are you still out there? Not heard from you in a few days.

Incommunicado until Monday morning.

By the way, guys, I'm feeling a bit like I'm talking to myself here. Are there any problems? This game will slow to a crawl if everyone else waits for someone else to make a decision.

Incommunicado until Monday morning.

By the way, guys, I'm feeling a bit like I'm talking to myself here. Are there any problems? This game will slow to a crawl if everyone else waits for someone else to make a decision.

Incommunicado until Monday morning.