Not that we necessarily know it at the moment, but isn't everyone going to need shelter eventually? Sleeping outside overnight in the temperate plains, where the worst the weather can do is thunderstorm on you all night and make you miserable, is one thing, but as we head north it's going to get colder and start involving environmental cold damage, right?
Joana brings up something else I've been thinking about. Are we really preparing for a caravan going to Brimewall or are we preparing to go on one to Tian Xhi? Personally, I'd rather stay in character and make plans for the former. I don't know if we'll have an opportunity to resupply later but it wouldn't make sense if we couldn't. It seems like it'd be a lot better to plan for a relatively small, tight party to get to Brimwall and then when our characters discover our journey isn't over, to look at things again and plan for that.
Wander Weir makes a good point there.
Umbral DOES COUNT as a traveler and toward consumption.
The pc's can be guards. Hiring guards is 100g per month. No way we should do that.
I wasn't planning this trip for Tian Xia. I was planning it just to be prepared. It's just the way I do it. If I knew how far this place is, then I would plan for that. But seeing how I haven't been informed how far this place is, I'm one who automatically prepares for the long haul. Rajah would do the very same. Make sure there's enough food and repairs for the long haul. Do any of you know how far this place is? One day? Twenty days? Anybody? If so, that would've been helpful to know before planning this. If not, how can it be judged that I'm planning for a trip to Tian Xia?
It doesn't matter if we all walk. Or if we all had horses. According to the rules, if you are with the caravan, then we ALL count as travelers, so we ALL are included in the count. Umbral doesn't ride in any wagons, yet he takes up a traveler space. Even Shalelu(who I'm assuming is going to be scout) is still counted as a traveler. Even though, she spends her time away from the caravan, scouting up ahead.
Travelers: Travelers are all creatures who belong to the caravan with the exception of any draft animals used to pull the wagons. Player characters, NPCs, animal companions, mounts, and cohorts are all considered travelers for this purpose.
Source: Player's guide.
If I knew how far this place is, then I would plan for that. But seeing how I haven't been informed how far this place is, I'm one who automatically prepares for the long haul. Rajah would do the very same. Make sure there's enough food and repairs for the long haul. Do any of you know how far this place is? One day? Twenty days? Anybody? If so, that would've been helpful to know before planning this. If not, how can it be judged that I'm planning for a trip to Tian Xia?
She takes a deep breath. "I need to find out more. Does anyone know of this Brinewall place? Where is it?"Corinna pauses at the threshold and sighs. "It doesn't exist anymore. It's a ghost town. I've seen it on some old maps, , at the mouth of the Steam River. That's all I know." She turns to Gilfroy. "If you're going back into the swamp, good luck." She nods to the group and leaves.
How long it takes to travel 500 miles by caravan, I have no idea. And once we're there, we're already aware that Brinewall is a ghost town; there'll be no chance to resupply north of Riddleport. Even if we assume that we're returning to Sandpoint afterwards, we have to plan for a journey of at least 1000 miles.
Edited to add: Varisia map. Brinewall is a long way from Sandpoint.
Edited again: Brinestump is the swamp, isn't it? Why make two place names in the same adventure for two locations so far apart so similar, Paizo? :P
Okay so at 32 miles a day, that's around 15 days. That's without having to stop for repairs. Which requires to spend an ENTIRE day stopped.
So, barring that, we can be there in 15 days. The best scenario I threw out there, food will last only ten days.
The others about 8 or maybe 9. Doesn't sound like a planned trip to go around the world to me. Average 9 days worth of food for a 15 day journey? I really don't see it as out of character the way the rest of y'all do.
But, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. To each his own.
I'm sure there was nothing personal going on here, and more that some of us are completely unfamiliar with the caravan rules, and these numbers seem big and strange. To me, having people suggesting we load up on furs, firewood, and wands of endure elements would have smacked a lot more like meta-gaming to the north pole than some figures on food consumption.
But since nobody did that, let's all be friends again and get this caravan on the road.
Traveler and Cargo Capacity: These values indicate the maximum number of travelers and cargo units your caravan can carry.
A traveler with independent travel means does not need to be carried by the caravan. The ones that do need to be carried, need to occupy a legal spot on a wagon. Being a traveler with the caravan does not mean you have to have a spot on a wagon. Think about it: otherwise a large mount would have to take up 4 traveler slots on a wagon.
The rules are not their to impose a new reality on the world mechanically, but to codify reality with sensible rules.
|
It goes on to define a traveler as "all creatures who belong to the caravan with the exception of any draft animals used to pull the wagons. PCs, NPCs, animal companions, mounts, and cohorts are all considered travelers for this purpose." If you are with the caravan, no matter your means of transport, you are a traveler and fall under the caravan rules.
Of course, I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that just because you're a traveler with the caravan, you don't have to comply with the wagon traveler capacity limits.
A "traveler" has certain mechanical impact (for example affecting the caravan stats and consumption). And a traveler that travels by wagon needs to comply with the wagon capacities. But it doesn't state anywhere that every traveler also needs to fit into a wagon capacity. Riding a wagon is optional so to speak.
There is a difference between how many travelers can be with a caravan, and how many of them can be carried by the caravan. The number of travelers with a caravan are limited by consumption, the number of travelers riding on a caravan are limited by wagons.
To reduce the problem to the limit of absurdity: if all 6 our PCs were cavaliers with mounts; then we'd need two additional covered wagons (without people in them other than a driver each) just so our mounts fit "traveler capacity".
I'm beginning to see why the caravan rules got so much flack from players.
Anyway, I wasn't trying to criticize anyone. I was just horrified at how complicated the trip was becoming and assumed for the level of complication that was arising that a longer trip than one of 500 miles was being planned.
Now that I've been corrected, let me state that I'm even more horrified than I was before. It's a good thing we're not following these kinds of rules for our trip to Saventh-Yhi in Serpent's Skull!
Okay, so here's another question: Can we use survival checks on this trip to add to the food needed for the consumption levels? Obviously that would consume some travel time but as far as I understand it, it's not like caravans move especially fast anyway. If some of us are traveling on horses perhaps some could try to hunt/ gather food along the way while still keeping up with the wagons.
Thanks for answering the question I'd originally asked, LoreKeeper.
@Wander Weir:
That is encapsulated (and actually simplified) by the "scout" job on the caravan: requires to have ranks in Survival and reduces consumption by 2 (or if consumption is less than two actually adds provisions, though that is an unlikely scenario).
The caravan rules don't make provision for that, but arguably you could say that every 5 ranks in Survival increases the benefit by +1.
The caravan rule in this case is a simplification/generalization of the normal Survival skill rule - and arguably could be replaced (when doing a "scout" job) with a classic skill check. If somebody like Tevyn (or perhaps Shalelu) would do that and Take 10 they might be able to consistently feed 6 or more people in a day.
"Sensible" rules, LoreKeeper?
As Wander points out, most of us are undertaking a longer trip over more inhospitable terrain over in Serpent's Skull by foot, with no provisions at all and no cargo other than what we're carrying ourselves. You know, like adventurers have been doing for years. Then along comes this new rules system to slap us in the face and say, "Silly players! Don't you know what you've done in every other adventure you've ever run in is utterly impossible? We have to discuss logistics ad infinitum before you can travel 500 miles over temperate land! Isn't this fun?"
There's such a thing as too much realism in one's fantasy. It's why I never got the popularity of The Sims. I tried the original game and was like, "Seriously? Trying to fit work and sleep and eating and keeping the house clean into a limited number of hours in a day? I don't need to play this game; I live this game."
To some extent, I think you have to metagame to set up the caravan. Certainly none of our characters should have this kind of knowledge of what goes into planning a trip by caravan, and the very thought of a bunch of rookies with no experience offering advice to Sandru, who has been doing this most of his life, is ridiculous. So we can't do this IC and are all already dealing with information none of our characters should have.
@Wander Weir:
That is encapsulated (and actually simplified) by the "scout" job on the caravan: requires to have ranks in Survival and reduces consumption by 2 (or if consumption is less than two actually adds provisions, though that is an unlikely scenario).
Yeah, by RAW, the only way to hunt is to be a Scout, be away from the caravan, and do no other job for 24 hours. And during the 24 hours you are hunting, you cannot also provide Security.
|
|
Back to good old page 17. Under Traveler and Cargo Capacity it says that if either the traveler or cargo capacity is exceeded the caravan cannot move.
In discussions with those who game with me face to face, I am known to say "Don't try to put your reality into my fantasy." There is no game system that can realistically portray the how things would work in real life. I hope we can all agree to that. Therefore, it is understood that any system used is an abstraction (to one degree or another) to approximate (to one degree or another) real life. I think the problem is that some find it difficult to either discern or accept the level of abstraction that the rules call for. Lore's example does show the limits of the system, but that is the way the rules work.
I think the rules could work if they are used to represent what they are intended. As Lore's example illuminates, the rules penalize the group for having a bunch of horses. Is that a flaw in the rules or is that because the rules are meant to represent a bunch of folks taking an extended journey riding in wagons rather than a group of knights of to slay the dragon and rescue the princess.
The "sensible" rules bit is about mounts don't occupying slots on a wagon - not so much whether it is necessary to have the rules in the first place. :p
The purpose of the caravan rules is not to make things more painful or realistic for players, but to give them a new toy to play with (similar to running a kingdom in Kingmaker). We can perfectly well toss it out and just play without them if we want (or perhaps more accurately: the GM wants), but Dax at least looks like he's having fun thinking through wagon stats, feats and things. And it is something new that we get to try out.
To some extent, I think you have to metagame to set up the caravan. Certainly none of our characters should have this kind of knowledge of what goes into planning a trip by caravan, and the very thought of a bunch of rookies with no experience offering advice to Sandru, who has been doing this most of his life, is ridiculous. So we can't do this IC and are all already dealing with information none of our characters should have.
I actually justify that in a different way: our PCs aren't doing much for the caravan; but our GM allows us to play one of the NPCs a bit: we are basically Sandru, when we organize the caravan.
I'm beginning to think this is a great example of how something can look great on paper, then when you actually try to use it, all the flaws start to show up. :)
I really didn't envision this being quite so fiddly, and I think common sense has to come into play. For example, whatever the exact words may say, I would say that mounts and other animals, like Umbral, count as travellers and count towards consumption, but DON'T count towards caravan capacity. Likewise if Gilfroy were to choose to keep his own food supplies for himself and Umbral on their little cart, neither would need to count towards consumption either. Both consumption and capacity should be seen as an abstraction for normal food tracking and nothing more. Keep in mind, too, that there will be stops along the way. The maps don't show every little village between Sandpoint and Brinewall, so there will be opportunity to restock food and other supplies. Sandru may not have ranks in Knowledge (geography), but he does have experience of this area, and he knows what to expect.
To some extent, I think you have to metagame to set up the caravan. Certainly none of our characters should have this kind of knowledge of what goes into planning a trip by caravan, and the very thought of a bunch of rookies with no experience offering advice to Sandru, who has been doing this most of his life, is ridiculous. So we can't do this IC and are all already dealing with information none of our characters should have.
This absolutely is metagaming, and while it may seem odd at first, it's kind of the point. The idea is that, since the group is going to be somewhat beholden to the caravan, the players should have some control of it. The caravan becomes like an extra character played by all the players. This isn't necessarily meant to be your characters planning the journey; it's meant to be everyone, including NPCs, planning it, and you as players get to make some of the NPC decisions as a result. It helps keep some of the control of what you do in your hands, so that it doesn't become a game of the GM saying, "So after that, the caravan turns this way and you go with it whether you like it or not. The adventure says you have to go this way, so Sandru doesn't want to go the way you want to go."
That said, I really don't want anyone to feel bogged down and frustrated by this, and I'll put the caravan rules as prominently or as unprominently in the game as people are comfortable with (even removing them if that's preferred).
At any rate, I think I made a mistake putting the main game on hold while this was discussed. I've made it look like this is more important, and that may be contributing to some of the frustration. I will be resuming the main game within the next hour or so. (I was going to do so yesterday, except that I ended up spending most of the day fixing all the teething problems on my wife's new laptop.)
Back to gaming! :)
Funny, I always thought that a Scout "scouted" out the terrain and dangers ahead of a traveling party. Hunting or gathering food is a totally different business.
I haven't been any sort of hunter since I was a teenager, but back in my wild days in Colorado we used to set snares and things at night, collect what we caught in the morning and/or fish for an hour and then travel, stop before sundown and fish and gather the wild berries, roots or whatever (in the right season) cook stuff, set snares and go to bed.
So this version of 'reality' actually seems less authentic than Serpent's Skull, to me. Stupid rules.
Once again I find myself wishing they'd spent less times cobbling together a bunch of nonsense extra rules and focused on decent character traits for the AP start. Given all the set-backs to the new pirate AP I really shudder to think of what they've come up with for that.
Anyway, I have no problem with this if people are having fun with it. Those of you who are enjoying it can go about planning whatever you want to your hearts content and I'll go back to sitting quietly in the background.
The only reason I spoke up in the first place is that it looked like Javell was getting a little frustrated and I felt bad for not helping out. Personally, while I don't mind Tevyn contributing to the caravan as needed, he would like to purchase some supplies for himself with his own coin. One of which probably would be a horse rather than riding in a wagon.
(Ha, and now I see Navior weighed in while I was writing this post (and dealing with work) but I'm going to post it anyway.)
I actually justify that in a different way: our PCs aren't doing much for the caravan; but our GM allows us to play one of the NPCs a bit: we are basically Sandru, when we organize the caravan.
Except that Sandru has a decade's experience setting up caravans rather than cramming a whole new ruleset over the space of a week. And Sandru can't argue amongst himself when all the different parts of "we" don't agree on what should be done. Yes, Dax and Javell and Lore all find the rules interesting; the problem is that they don't come to the same conclusions about what our priorities should be. It just seems to be adding more tension to a party that's having a hard time getting along in the first place.
I mean, the whole thing would make more sense to me if it were meant to simulate our characters setting up a caravan themselves and possibly botching it spectacularly because they're all rookies. The whole point of hiring an NPC expert is to reap the benefits of his expertise.
I find the caravan rules interesting, too, and would have chimed in a lot more if not for report cards and Holy Week slamming me during the discussions. Of course, the rules didn't have the chance for a rigorous playtest because of Paizo's intense publishing schedule, so there are bound to be problems, and Navior will just house rule things that make sense to him, like horses not taking up space in the wagons.
By the way, the food in the cart is for Umbral, not Gilfroy. No way he's missing out on Ameiko's cooking so he can eat some dried rations. Gilfroy's going to buy a couple bags of oats and other horse feed, a comfy sleeping bedroll, a warm blanket, and a sheet of oiled canvas to hold it all and put over top of the cart on rainy nights.
A lot of the caravan rules seem necessary to play out things like a tribe of attacking ogres (goblins, whatevers). Without the abstract rules for the caravan, we end up with battlefields with dozens of characters and dozens of actions to go through. If we'd rather utilize the PCs as some sort of strike force component of the caravan, so when there are these ambush scenarios, Navior can just whip together some small portion of the battle for the PCs, like seeking out and taking down the ogre leader, weaving through onrushing hordes of goblins to rescue the lead wagon containing the food supplies that had bolted from the outset, or whatever, while just hand-waving behind the scenes stuff that happens to the caravan, I'm fine with that, too. It just puts more work on the GM, where these caravan rules help shift some of the workload to the players.
Hmmm...looking through the list of vehicles in the PRD, there's actually nothing listed that can be pulled with just one medium creature like a pony. Even the basic cart requires two. I've seen carts pulled by ponies before though, albeit at petting zoos, so such must be possible.
Is it okay to do a small-sized cart, give it 20 hp, 1d6 ramming damage, have it be medium sized taking up one square (maybe 3 ft x 5 ft), and costing 10 gp? There aren't any rules for altering vehicles by size, so that's all a guess.
I can forsee a rank in Handle Animal in Gilfroy's future, after a very amusing second level of wayward cart driving.
No way he's missing out on Ameiko's cooking so he can eat some dried rations.
Oh, for Pete's sake. Ameiko can sing! And Ameiko can cook! And Ameiko's so beautiful and exotic and has such a way with words, and everyone loves her, and it turns out she's actually a Pretty Pretty Princess from a Mystical Land!
Kill me now. Is it any wonder poor 10-Cha Corinna can't stand her? Can you imagine growing up in a small town with that in your immediate social circle? It's like competing with a Disney Princess. I bet the woodland creatures stop whatever they're doing to gather and listen to her song. ;P
No way he's missing out on Ameiko's cooking so he can eat some dried rations.Oh, for Pete's sake. Ameiko can sing! And Ameiko can cook! And Ameiko's so beautiful and exotic and has such a way with words, and everyone loves her, and it turns out she's actually a Pretty Pretty Princess from a Mystical Land!
Kill me now. Is it any wonder poor 10-Cha Corinna can't stand her? Can you imagine growing up in a small town with that in your immediate social circle? It's like competing with a Disney Princess. I bet the woodland creatures stop whatever they're doing to gather and listen to her song. ;P
All it speaks to is Corinna's unhealthy obsession with her social status and the opinions others have of her, the fact that she can't find her own identity except what others give to her, all nicely bred into her by an environment of anti-Kajitsu hatred and self-serving noble Valdemar superiority.
And Ameiko, being perfect, would probably smile encouragingly at Corinna while urging her to find herself, doing her best to be sincere and unpatronizing and probably seeming in Corinna's mind to be exactly the opposite.
Okay, just finished going through the equipment section on d20pfsrd, outfitting Gilfroy and his cart. That was fun! Navior, if you want to have a look through and veto any of his purchaces, go ahead, though I didn't grab anything unusual or rare, save for an everburning torch. I understand if they are too rare for a town like Sandpoint, though I do recall a certain wizard with a fondness for both Sandpoint and making money who happens to lack the common sense necessary to understand what happens to a town's economy when you make and dump fifty-or-so magical torches into the consumer marketplace.
Okay, just finished going through the equipment section on d20pfsrd, outfitting Gilfroy and his cart. That was fun!
I think that right there pretty much outlines some key differences between some players. Equipment purchases are my least favorite part of character building and I know I've seen Joana say the same thing in the past. That's probably why all this caravan planning bugs me so much. It's pretty much the same kind of thing.
It wasn't the nitty-gritty of buying equipment, it was Gilfroy's expression in my mind's eye going through the general store, buying this and that because he liked it. I can also envision him in his cart, camped out at night, with a small fire, sitting in his folding chair, welcoming somebody to his fire, and offering out the second one... Hmmm... I think I need Gilfroy to take up the classic fantasy past-time of pipe smoking. I haven't had a pipe-smoking character in a long time. The last one must have been Piotyr, but he gave it up when he became a vamp.
I really hate that those folding chairs weigh 10 lbs, though. Given that they are wood-framed with canvas seat and back, why do they weigh so much? How is Gilfroy supposed to mage hand his folding chairs around for people when they weigh 10 pounds? I mean, moving chairs with cantrips is classic wizard stuff! Maybe I'll have him buy a cheaper 5-lb chair for guests that he can mage hand around to his heart's content. Just don't shift around too much when you're sitting in it!
Okay, just finished going through the equipment section on d20pfsrd, outfitting Gilfroy and his cart. That was fun!I think that right there pretty much outlines some key differences between some players. Equipment purchases are my least favorite part of character building and I know I've seen Joana say the same thing in the past. That's probably why all this caravan planning bugs me so much. It's pretty much the same kind of thing.
I see three options:
1) We carry on as we have been with the caravan rules and planning, possibly frustrating several people. I'm not seeing very many advantages to this option at the moment since frustration has already set in for several people.
2) We assign a smaller group of players to handle all the caravan stuff, from tracking resources and costs to selecting feats and assigning ability points. Of course, people outside the group could still make suggestions if they felt like it, but the final decisions would be made by those 2 or 3 people in charge of the caravan. This has the advantage of allowing the players who enjoy this kind of thing to continue with it, while those who don't enjoy it don't have to be involved and don't need to feel pressured to be involved. It has the disadvantage of giving a subset of players the ability to make decisions that could affect the rest of the players.
3) We just scrap the caravan rules, and I'll handle everything in the background. Your characters could still make in-character suggestions to Sandru, but I would make the final decisions. This has the disadvantage of removing a system some of you may have been interested in playing around with, but it has the advantage of putting all the players on a level playing field that they're all familiar with (i.e. doing things the way it's always been done).
Personally, I think option 1 is a bad idea at this point, and unless there's a unanimous call for it (which I highly doubt there will be), we shouldn't do it. As for the other two, I'm willing to hear your thoughts before making a final decision. Option 3 is slightly more work-intensive for me, but I'm a DM and I'm used to doing all those kinds of things anyway (and when necessary, I can just hand-waive it), so don't feel constrained by that when offering opinions.
For the record, I don't consider myself to be "frustrated" by the caravan rules. I would be if I were trying to work with them, but as there seem to be enough people willing to digest them so that I don't have to, I've been employing option 2 by default. I haven't even looked at the stuff on wagons, just looked over the traveler roles so that I'd know what I would have to deal with personally. I think the rules are arbitrary (really? Corinna can automatically be a healer or a scout despite knowing nothing about healing or nature just because she's a spellcaster?) and largely unnecessary, but as long as I don't have to deal with them, I hardly have any right to complain about them.
My main concern is that, among the four players who have shown an interest in the fiddly bits, they don't seem to be approaching any kind of consensus on what should be done. If they were all saying, "We should do X, Y, & Z," and Wander and I were just moaning about how stupid the rules were, that would be one thing: We could just shut up and be glad they're doing it so we don't have to. But they don't seem to be in agreement. Or perhaps they're closer than they seem to be, and I just don't see it, through not understanding the rules?
Just one more thing regarding the caravan rules:
Back to good old page 17. Under Traveler and Cargo Capacity it says that if either the traveler or cargo capacity is exceeded the caravan cannot move.
Again I agree, if travelers making use of traveler capacity exceed said capacity, then the caravan doesn't move. Fortunately, the rules make no hard connection that travelers automatically have to make use of the traveler capacity; unfortunately they do not explicitly prohibit it either. So, by RAW, both Dax's and my interpretations are valid (but conflucting). I like mine better (obviously) as it successfully applies Occam's Razor to make a more playable game.
...
I agree with Joana that I'm using option 2. As I said at the start, neither me nor Melon are interested in shaping the specifics of the caravan; but I did leave some thoughts on what I considered important. The bottom-line after that: I don't think it really matters how the caravan is built in the end. The adventure continues regardless. Whether our characters suffer through a badly designed caravan or travel in style a la Queen of Sheba. Since >we< don't experience it first hand, it is just fine either way.
Oh, for Pete's sake. Ameiko can sing! And Ameiko can cook! And Ameiko's so beautiful and exotic and has such a way with words, and everyone loves her, and it turns out she's actually a Pretty Pretty Princess from a Mystical Land!
Kill me now. Is it any wonder poor 10-Cha Corinna can't stand her? Can you imagine growing up in a small town with that in your immediate social circle? It's like competing with a Disney Princess. I bet the woodland creatures stop whatever they're doing to gather and listen to her song. ;P
Shame on the woman for putting ranks in Perform (sing) and Profession (tavern keeper). If she dies on this journey that minmaxing harlot had it coming! ;P
I'm sure if there's any danger, all the deer and bunnies will go fetch the dwarves to save her. :P
Apparently, my RL group differs from the rest of yours. At my table, the best way to make sure the party hates an NPC is to give them a high Cha and then spend a lot of time building up how great and accomplished and well-liked they are. Best campaign I ever ran was a sandbox for 3 paladins and a radiant servant of Pelor, and the characters the players hated the most were the NPC paladins who had better stats than them. We're just a bunch of envious jerks, apparently. :)
It depends on the group for me but my preferred group and I just like to interact with NPCs regardless of how they're built. I don't ever really have NPC envy. But then, I don't like to play super powerful characters either so it's not like I'm bothered by not being the best at something.
hahahaha classic! Though it may (I wasn't there) have something to do with how subtly snooty paladins can be to each other. Particularly if different gods are involved.
Is hard to fathom exactly why Corinna's got issues with Ameiko. She's just as well-off, and actually has her family (some of which she actually gets along with well). Does Corinna envy her popularity? Seriously? She's what? 30?
Is hard to fathom exactly why Corinna's got issues with Ameiko. She's just as well-off, and actually has her family (some of which she actually gets along with well). Does Corinna envy her popularity? Seriously? She's what? 30?
Yet another example of "you've never been an actual woman." :P I'm older than Corinna, and I still have issues from high school. Heck, I still have issues from junior high. I can just picture Corinna at the 7th-grade dance sitting against the wall desperately wishing some boy would ask her to dance, but they're all clustered around Ameiko, showing off to get her attention, begging her to sing or to cook for them.... ;P
And I'm happily married, reasonably successful, and far more attractive than I was during my unfortunate teenage years. Corinna's still single, never-been-kissed, and has a low-paying job which, while prestigious in Korvosa, makes small-town Sandpoint people's eyes glaze over when she tries to explain what she does.
Clearly Corinna and Ameiko simply need to pound each other awhile, then go drink beers and watch a football game together. Problems solved. Belching and synchronized package adjusting optional.
Clearly Corinna and Ameiko simply need to pound each other awhile, then go drink beers and watch a football game together. Problems solved. Belching and synchronized package adjusting optional.
Gee, dude, they're not guys. :)
I was thinking that Corinna's attitude toward Ameiko was pretty reminiscent of high school. From my own memories of that long ago (and not lamented) time, I can't recall there ever being a quick and easy resolution to those types of issues.
Just one more thing regarding the caravan rules:
Back to good old page 17. Under Traveler and Cargo Capacity it says that if either the traveler or cargo capacity is exceeded the caravan cannot move.Again I agree, if travelers making use of traveler capacity exceed said capacity, then the caravan doesn't move. Fortunately, the rules make no hard connection that travelers automatically have to make use of the traveler capacity; unfortunately they do not explicitly prohibit it either. So, by RAW, both Dax's and my interpretations are valid (but conflucting). I like mine better (obviously) as it successfully applies Occam's Razor to make a more playable game.
Of course you like it better, your interpretation allows you to circumvent the rules and choose to do whatever you feel like. Sheesh. And as far as I'm concerned, your interpretation has no validity to it whatsoever. But that's just my opinion. Along with the entirety of this post. Which is worth nearly a penny and a half. And no matter how much you choose to twist it all around until it sounds good to you, your interpretation is not how the caravan rules work.
Why don't we all just walk, that way, the only folks that are on the caravan are the drivers and Ameiko and Koya. So there, that ought to take care of it all. Now we only need 3 caravans for 4 people. So I ask: What's the point of the freaking caravan rules if you're just gonna find a way to "dance" around them?
To me, it all goes back to Joana's pc that for some reason CAN'T HEAL HER WOUNDED LEG. If you want to do jacked up stuff in your game, fine. Me? I prefer to be able to do what the rules allow. And I don't try to "find ways around them". Otherwise, there's no challenge. Don't know about you, but I like a challenge. That's what makes a game fun.
I like the caravan rules. But I like them as they are, not as they are "made up".
Anyway, I'm done with this. I can rant and rave and cry and whine about this all day and it'll change nothing. But I've said my peace. It's quite obvious, the way you choose to play the game and the way I choose to, are far, far different. Again, nothing personal(even though it may appear so), just my opinion.
Just because that's how the rules are doesn't mean that's how they should be, or how they would be if the authors had been able to play test them more thoroughly. They may not even be what they intended, and mistakes in wording crept in.
The main issue at the moment is that a horse you ride counts towards maximum capacity. Why? Maximum capacity for travelers is determined by the wagons and space they offer. Clearly the horse isn't riding in the wagon. Is this representing the horse's food? Either a person can sit in the wagon, or the bag of oats can? Is it the horse's blanket and spare harness taking up this space? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to allocate these things as cargo, not seating space?
Reading over the rules myself (finally), it seems that this clause was put in to prevent parties from loading up on 75 gp horses to avoid having to buy extra wagons and burn Extra Wagons feats. So maybe it is reasonable that riding a horse doesn't reduce the rider's impact on the maximum number of travelers, so riding a horse or a wagon should be a matter of choice. This gets around the exploit...but why should the horse take up seating space? If a wagon holds six people, five people ride in it, and a sixth person decides to bring along a horse to ride, that stops the caravan, but if the sixth person squeezes in too without having a horse along that's fine? Tying a single horse to the side of the wagon stops the whole caravan? I get why the caravan can't move if there are too many travelers. It's not like a quick trip to the mall where you can sit on someone's lap. Those spaces have to represent sleeping as well as riding. Another reason why you shouldn't be able to reduce traveler load by bringing a horse unless the person is prepared to sleep in the saddle for several months. But if the horse is sleeping in the wagon, you want to really hope he doesn't kick in his sleep. Who cares if the dreaded realism is creeping in, I'd just like common sense.
Whether it's a valid interpretation of the written rules or not, I suspect that the issue stems from wording the authors used without fully thinking through the ramifications, that PCs might choose to ride a horse the entire time. So the GM makes a judgment call on the one situation. That's not cheating or "dancing around the rules", it's making the rules make sense in the specific situation.
Yet another example of "you've never been an actual woman." :P I'm older than Corinna, and I still have issues from high school. Heck, I still have issues from junior high. I can just picture Corinna at the 7th-grade dance sitting against the wall desperately wishing some boy would ask her to dance, but they're all clustered around Ameiko, showing off to get her attention, begging her to sing or to cook for them.... ;P
hahaha - oh my life that's funny. I think I'll file this under first world problems
To get back to Navior's original options post, I vote for Option 2 as well. I don't want to get in the way of anyone's fun. If you like the caravan rules, have at it! I'll support the eventual decision. Though I do still want to buy a horse for Tevyn.
And to comment one last time on Ameiko: Sure she can sing, cook, and is admired and respected far and wide. But then, she did have a severely dysfunctional family. And she just found out that some evil force appears to want them all dead. So I've gotta say, it does kind of suck to be her.
Yeah, she had a fairly rough time in the pbp I was playing on here too. Though it wasn't quite that bad.
Sadly, that game just came to a premature end a couple of weeks ago.
My main concern is that, among the four players who have shown an interest in the fiddly bits, they don't seem to be approaching any kind of consensus on what should be done. If they were all saying, "We should do X, Y, & Z," and Wander and I were just moaning about how stupid the rules were, that would be one thing: We could just shut up and be glad they're doing it so we don't have to. But they don't seem to be in agreement. Or perhaps they're closer than they seem to be, and I just don't see it, through not understanding the rules?
Yes, I have the same concern. We've already seen there are some large disagreements over how to interpret the rules, and those disagreements have continued even after I weighed in with my own interpretation of one of the key areas of dispute (and while I am a reasonable GM who listens to his players, in the end, my decision on rules interpretations is what counts). As such, I'm starting to lean towards option 3 being the best choice.
That said, the votes so far have all been for option 2, so I'm willing to go with that for the time being. However, I need to stress that everyone who is on the "Caravan Team" (for want of a better term) needs to reach a consensus soon, or I'll switch to option 3.
For the record, here is my official ruling on the capacity/consumption debate:
Capacity indicates how many travellers a wagon can physically carry. It doesn't necessarily mean those travellers are always on the wagon. People can get off and walk from time to time, and thus conceivably people could take turns using the wagon. However, to avoid complexity, this has to be abstracted out. However, travellers that never use a wagon do NOT count towards capacity. As such, horses, animal companions, and anyone else who sleeps on the ground does not count towards capacity. Note the horse train in the Player's Guide. It adds six horses to the caravan, but those horses actually add capacity! They also conveniently cost exactly the same amount as six heavy horses cost in the Core Rulebook, i.e. they're just the same as if the party members went out and bought a bunch of mounts for themselves.
Unlike capacity, however, all travellers (including mounts and other animals, but excepting familiars) count towards consumption unless the player wants to track food separately (however, someone doing that is really just setting aside extra stores and as such, is not really circumventing the consumption rules at all, making it all kind of pointless).
On a completely different note, how's this to inspire everybody to make a monk character next time there's an opportunity: Music Monks
You have every right to your opinion Nazard. I respect that. But I also have a right to mine. I say we just leave it at that.
Anyway, AK's absolutely right. That was a crass post. So I will apologize for the crassness of it. I will not apologize for my opinion though.
Regardless, having said that, I'm stepping out of the game.
I think we can all easily agree that this is what's best.
@Navior: Dude! You are a top-notch GM and a class guy. Apologies for making this such a headache for you. And for the rest of you as far as that goes. It's discouraging it didn't work out the way I envisioned it would. I take full responsibility, so, no excuses on my part. If you would, I'd appreciate it if you would move the game thread to inactive for me. I think you're the only one who can do that. Thanks.
I'm really sorry to hear that Javell. I hate to think that a disagreement over a rules subsystem has led to anyone stepping out of the game. However, it's your decision and I respect that. However, should you change your mind, you're welcome to come back with no hard feelings.
While I did find your post a little heavy-handed, I'm not sure "crass" is the word I would have chosen for it (indeed, I'm not even certain AK was referring to your post). But whatever the case, I would never hold just one crass post against anyone (there would need to be an established pattern for that), especially one apologized for. We all have our moments when we say or write something that we later realize could have been worded better.
I will switch you over to inactive as requested (you're right that I'm the only one who can do that, although I believe it also automatically does so if a certain amount of time passes with no posts). All the best.
Actually, I don't think it's best, as I have absolutely no desire to see anybody leave. We don't have to agree on interpretations of untested rules to enjoy the game, just agree with Navior's.
Plus, I don't see anything crass in your previous post, unless a moderator came and deleted something without my notice. I'm pretty sure he was referring to Lorekeeper's "first world problem" crack.
Hmmm...I see that I may accidentally have contributed to these hard feelings. I did not mean for the conversational and interrogatory nature of my post to seem directed at you, Javell, but at the rules themselves. The same for my request for common sense. Again, from the rules, not you. I completely agree with your interpretation of the rules as written. My position was just that I don't think the rules are sensibly constructed. I'm very sorry if you thought my post was directed against you or your opinions.
Ditto to the first half of Nazard's most recent post. I definitely don't want to see you go, Javell. I certainly hope I didn't do anything to make you feel unwanted.