Which is why they never made a sequel.
Which is why they never made a sequel.
Would that I could un-see those.
So lets drop Lord of the Rings out of the discussion, but how do you all feel about these as D&D movies?
Beastmaster
Clash of the titans (original)
Conan The Barbarian
Dragonslayer
Dune
Hawk The Slayer
Jason and the Argonauts
Krull
Labyrinth
Lady Hawke
Legend
Willow
13th Warrior
I havnt seen BeastMaster since maybe middle school, but I remember it being awesome.
Conan s amazingly awesome still to me.
13th Warrior is also pretty awesome.
I like Dune but Im not quite sure I see it as a d&d movie.
Krull is completely terrible and Im willing stand with a blade over that.
Ive never heard of Hawk the Slayer.
Which is why they never made a sequel.Would that I could un-see those.
It's okay, join us. Once you say there were no sequels enough, you believe it.
Beastmaster <- Great cheese
Clash of the titans (original) <- Love it (all of Harryhausen's stuff)
Conan The Barbarian <- Masterpiece of cinema
Dragonslayer <- need to see it again
Dune <- LOVE the Lynch version, even if it's not the book
Hawk The Slayer <- not sure
Jason and the Argonauts <- Quod vida
Krull <- Do NOT rewatch this. Remember it as it was.
Labyrinth <- Love it
Lady Hawke <- Needs a new soundtrack. Music is SO bad
Legend <- I remember enjoying this a lot
Willow <- just made my gf watch it for the first time. Love it.
13th Warrior <- Still holds up
Also:
Harry Potter is most definitely a Paizo Adventure Path ;-)
The D&D cartoon is EVERYTHING a D&D movie should be. It's EXCELLENT.
The Dark Crystal
The Princess Bride
Record of Lodoss (cheating, it is technically a D&D movie)
Excalibur
Bridge to Tarebithia
The Black Cauldron (Best Disney movie EVER)
It's okay, join us. Once you say there were no sequels enough, you believe it.Which is why they never made a sequel.Would that I could un-see those.
The third Sequel That Wasn't was marginal, but at least watchable. The second was 85 minutes of my life I wanted back. I didn't pay to see it — a friend picked up the tab cos I was out of work at the time — and I still felt like I got taken.
Beastmaster, Dragonslayer, Ladyhawke, and Willow were fun, even if none of them really stand the test of time. (Ladyhawke has the only decent acting of this bunch, which is kinda surprising when you recall who's in Dragonslayer and Willow.)
Clash of the Titans (original) was decidedly better than Jason and the Argonauts, but the stop-motion stuff is classic, so the latter gets a pass.
Conan The Barbarian (assuming we're talking about Ah-nold's) is a classic. So is Labyrinth; I still find remarkable depth in this one.
Dune was decent as a Lynch film, but I enjoyed the SciFi miniseries much, much better.
Krull was awful. Total attempt to cash in on Star Wars/Raiders craze. (Fun fact: both Robbie Coltrane and Liam Neeson were in this piece of tripe. We'll forgive them.)
I vaguely remember Legend. Tom Cruise, Mia Sara, Tim Curry. Not much else sticks out in my mind. May have to rewatch that.
I'm not sure I've ever seen Hawk The Slayer or 13th Warrior.
As for Chris' additions:
- I concur that Harry Potter is an Adventure Path (a pretty good one, too). So is the Chronicles of Narnia (though a much more uneven one). Part of me would love to see the first Shannara trilogy in film, and part of me would hate it.
- The Princess Bride is stellar. It's a notch above Holy Grail simply because it's more coherent (thank you, Rob Reiner). I only wish my games had a handful of that film's many, many terrific lines of dialog in them.
- Excalibur is like Bizzaro Princess Bride; not amusing in the least, it does a pretty good job of showing how awful living (and dying) in the Middle Ages likely was.
- The D&D cartoon *would* have been a better D&D movie. (Then again, ninety minutes of a test pattern would've been better than the D&D movie.) But take a step back and I think it's a little too "deus ex machina" for my taste. (Admittedly, that was a Gygax-esque DM, but still.) And I think I always wanted to punch Eric the Cavalier out more than Venger. Venger was at least cool.
- I liked Dark Crystal and Black Cauldron.
- Never saw Bridge to Terabithia or Record of Lodoss.
Adding a few:
It wasn't true "sword-and-sorcery", but The Lion In Winter is a marvelous film and it taught me a lot about roayl interplay and political manipulations.
The Last Unicorn was a terrific book that was done pretty fair justice as an animated film.
Dragonheart was actually a pretty decent popcorn flick. So was Eragon (though I didn't read the series, so maybe it wasn't true to the book).
And, in the vein of "marvelous cheese", the 1980 Flash Gordon flick was campy as hell. Awful acting (even with Timothy Dalton and Max von Sydow), worse special effects...and one of the best wedding vow scenes ever.
"Do you, Ming the Merciless, Ruler of the Universe, take this Earthling Dale Arden, to be your Empress of the Hour?"
"Of the hour, yes."
"Do you promise to use her as you will?"
"Certainly!"
"Not to blast her into space...uh, until such time as you grow, uh, weary of her...?"
"I do."
I'll only add a few things.
Conan: defined the S&S genre
Excalibur: hot dam, I love that movie. I even can get past the piss-poor sound dubbing. Watching Patrick Stewart beat the sh1te out of about a dozen bad guys is worth the price of admission.
The Princess Bride: don't get me started, or I'll never stop.
Ladyhawk: awesome D&D movie, but the horrible disco soundtrack and dressage-prancing warhorses ruined it for me on a rewatch a few years back.
13th warrior: DMTS--dude, you need to see this. Totally a one-shot D&D module.
I disagree with you on Dragonslayer: I think it *did* stand the test of time, with the exception of the final fight scene between wizard and dragon. Pretty lackluster, but a really good movie otherwise. It included a verbal component that I wanted to use but never got the chance. :-(
Legend: I recommend the director's cut. Has a neat riddle scene with Gump and ... the hero (I forgot Tom Cruise's character's name) Tim Curry is awesome as Darkness, what an amazing makeup job.
Bridge to Tarabithia: I've never seen another movie that was simultaneously so sad, and so uplifting. Honestly...I rate this movie as "great" but only a fair D&D movie--that's not its focus, so I opine that if you watch it with that mindset, you'll be disappointed. I can count on one hand the number of movies that can make me tear up, and this is one.
Nice a few movies I need to check out some of them again.
I will come clean and say yes Krull was a horrible movie I only included it because when it came out everyone wanted a glaive like his not only IRL but their characters too
Ohh and would you believe Michelle Pfieffer (forgive my spelling) is the ugly one between her and her 2 sisters. I had such a crush on Michelle after that movie.
Bridge to Terribithia. I read the book in 5-6th grade. I remember they had some sort of "makebelieve" world out in the woods. But I dont remember that part too much. I remember the real life part of it more with his friend dying when he wasnt there with her.
Is the movie much different then the book?
Im not sure if Ive ever seen dragonslayer. Ill have to watch it.
Excaliber was great imo.
By the way - I read the Eragon books. They are borderline cheesy, but considering a kid wrote them they are excellent. The books are 10x better than the movie too.
I used to think a Dragonlance Chronicles movie would be the height of awesomeness, but now I pray no one ever does it. It could only be utterly inadequate. Although I remember when we first heard the Peter Jackson LOTR was coming out we were expecting the worst. I recall Jaykobe predicting they were casting Chris Rock as Gollum and making Gandalf hispanic for some reason.
I'm not stealthy, but here's what I'll do:
Get as close as possible.
Smack a baddie with the Evil Eye. I'll go for one NOT targeted by a Kappi backstab. After I'll Daze him. The odds of a simple bandit getting whacked with a Daze under the influence of my Eye are pretty solid.
GM's note: add Iron Will to all mooks.
;-)
Is Joe still gone? Do one of us need to autopilot his oracle?
Good call. Forgot about that. Yeah, let's play it safe and have him shoot a bolt from afar.
Yeah the thing with the hireling rules is that they don't come with morale, and I know from experience that building a subsystem is a pain. I have a cheapy pdf from a while ago that has the rules, but nothing like 1e. Too much work.
In light of the playtest release yesterday, I wanted to offer anyone the opportunity to rebuild using one of those if they want. Since we're still at level 1, it's not a biggie to rebuild.
If no one wants to, no worries, we'll continue as is. I just thought, since Paizo's looking for feedback, we might could offer some.
Oh man..... So tempting... Some of those classes really speak to the demi human 1st edition player in me.... But now, I'm now fully vested.
Thank you though!
No worries. You can make one once I kill your characters off. ;-)
After Vojtek rages at the wrong guy I want to make a Warpriest
|
I will tell you one thing I have found out from this module though. The maps they provided kinda suck. Everything is so cramped that tactical movement is absolutely horrid. I mean a 25'x15' stable even in game terms they are only fitting 5 horses in there and this was supposed to be a garrison outpost?
Take a look at this current map. We have many avenues of approach, but are limited to where we are at. Setting up multiple avenues of approach/egress, or any kind of ambush from cover and or concealment that isn't just a few feet from the lodge.... either they are trying to railroad in a direction, or they didn't want to waste the printing space in the module.
I'm also going to complain a few seconds about most D20 games in general. The topic is Ranged combat. For low tech games it isn't as apparent, but increase the tech level, and you see just how much ranged combatants get screwed. Rarely will you ever get a true ranged weapon to it's max distance, again not as apparent with low tech, but when you get into rifled firearms tech and beyond it is very skewed against them, and their capabilities.
Adam can back me up. The biggest thing about a ranged weapon is the area that they control, a competent user of a pistol can control and suppress movement up to about 50' unless there is good cover. Rifles can cover much more than that. When I say control an area, because in real life when someone charges a competent person with a gun from say 60' away they normally die before they get there, but no not in RPG's the guy with the shivs or the sword, or even the bad ass grappler runs in a straight line up to the ranged person because he charged and the ranged person gets nothing but attacked, and now his major advantage of distance is not only gone, but he gets a free attack against him if he tries to use his ranged weapon. So I ask the question what good is a bow or crossbow if with very little chance of death/injury the melee specialist can run to you crit from 15-20 power attack for +763 damage vs your crit of 18-20 and paltry damage.
There are reasons for it, like physical map size, supposed game balance, trying to keep core mechanics from a fantasy setting to a tech setting, and probably several others, but this rant is long enough as it is.
Just think about it if your designing an encounter, campaign, or game system.
I totally get you Joe, but a counter point:
1. The solutions to your valid points are found in war games. In Warhammer et al. we see ranged combat coming into its own. You get the realistic engagement set ups.
2. Pathfinder, and D&D before it, while born of wargaming, was designed to be "zoomed" in. In the early days dungeon difficulty was calculated by what floor you were on. Plots were sometimes, "you arrive at the dungeon."
Yes, gaming has come a long way. As we nail down all manner of new twists and perks of the game - we simultaneously forget the "game" part, and we long for the parts of the game lost through time.
It's akin to speciation (sorry, it's the science teacher in me). Common ancestors adapt and eventually become their own beasts, literally. So I think your points are valid, but the evolution of the two types of games makes them near impossible to play at the same time. Playing WoW and Empire Earth at the same time would simply be too much.
Didn't take any offense, no worries.
And I doubt the Paizo folks did either. ;-)
If there's a shortcoming to d20-based rules, it's that no matter what it's an abstraction of reality. And in PF the guns are (supposed to be) primitive and notoriously unreliable. Especially when compared to magic.
Also, what S said about the "zoomed in" effect and plot shortcuts.
|
|
LOL I'm glad that you didn't, and even if they read this forum I could care less about Paizo's feelings, criticism should only help make better products in the future, and well if we were table top like the module is designed for the GM could expand the map quite easily.
You both bring up very valid points, and I suppose that I didn't do a very good job of fully explaining my issue. My issue isn't with large Force on large Force battle in war games like Warhammer and the such. That's a big can of worms that will need to stay closed. But back to D&D, you would think after 39 years of existence, well to be fair 36 years of AD&D that it could be better.
My issue is with the "Zoomed in Combats" the combats the PC/Hero's are involved in. Now I'm going to throw a twist from my previous post, which should have been in there to begin with, so I apologize.
What I should have stated is that I have a problem with the lack of incentive to really care about movement or shall I say smart movement. I have an issue with melee combat movement as well, but for this discussion I'm kinda focused on ranged.
I'm glad that you brought up guns and magic. Mechanically they are essentially the same, so say a mage armed with a wand should threaten an area too.
Now I enjoy suspending belief in my games, but I also like to think with a bit of "reason". Ask yourself what would happen if you charged down a 60' tunnel to go engage your enemy in melee combat and he had a gun. Well you would probably answer I'm not going to do that. You would be smart. Now what if I told you that hallway had cover that you could get behind and not expose yourself during you the advancement, but it would take extra time to get down the hallway. You would probably choose it.
Now look at it from a D20 standpoint. The Melee guy would get up there as fast as possible while exposing himself to gunfire without really a care, maybe taking one hit on his HP, then proceed to make the pistol guy much less effective.
My point is that there isn't any real incentive for the character to act sensible when faced with a lethal ranged weapon, if there aren't any real consequences. No matter which ranged weapon you face, each project threat, or shall I say control an area, and should have a combat advantage in that controlled area.
As it being to difficult to provide incentives for characters to move smart? It doesn't seem like it would be hard to do. They already have combat states in the game, just add one called "exposed" and offer AoO's to ranged combatants with increased damage so it really drains HP away. That way a hero might charge the BBEG and take a hit on the way, but dealing with mooks he will be a bit more conservative with his HP so he can make that mad heroic charge to the BBEG. Just a base idea, but not that hard. Balance issues maybe a few but there's a reason the atl'atl was replaced by the bow.. the crossbow.. the firearm. Its because they are better.
Yes, they're better...but part of the reason they're better is because it takes less specialized skill to operate. By eliminating that specialized skillset, you necessarily broaden the group from which you can draw those to use it, and thereby render the specialized skillset less and less important.
Magic can (and in the D&D/Pathfinder world, does) work similarly as an equalizer. Yes, within the use itself there are varying degrees of power, but having that power is inherently more powerful than not having it. Even those who don't cast magic spells end up using magic in some fashion (i.e., items). It's the crux of every discussion about god wizards and such: without them, the "lowly" fighter is worthless. Never mind that same "lowly" fighter being the principal reason the wizard survives to higher level in the first place.
An abstraction like a set of game rules isn't going to be able to address every contingency, or else you'd get caught up in minutiae like "you got hit last round, that's six more bleed points and two saves and another to resist gangrene and..."
And I just don't wanna play that game. YMMV.
|
|
Pretty much everything TS said. I'll add a bit of a cheater response, but its one that I hold dear.
I don't want a game where sensible is the nest way to play. It's a huge part of the escapism for me. I remember when I was a kid, Phil's (Kappi's) older brother was the first to tell me how people really acted in a firefight. Totally makes sense in the real world sense. But I enjoy charging dragons, swinging from chandeliers, and running down a hall like Ol' Jack Burton. Oh and needlessly elaborate dungeons are near and dear to me. Logical architecture doesnt factor into it.
Don't get me wrong, I get you, and games built on your points are out there. A super strictly run GURPS game, Aces and Eights, etc.
Pathfinder, for me, delivers the balance between childhood fantasy and realism that suits my tastes.
Also, Paizo THRIVES on feedback. I've met everyone on the design team. They're gamers through and through. They love the data.
Okay. This was fun, but "de gvstibvs non dispvtandvm est.". Back to the regularly scheduled program. :-)
-Posted with Wayfinder
One other point to remember is that HP themselves are a huge abstraction, and only partially represent physical punishment the creature can take. AT 1st level, you can becher bottom that I'm going to be taking a much more cautious approach running down that hall you mentioned, because my character doesn't have the experience to survive. But a 5th level character might be more willing to take that chance--he's been through arrow storms before and knows how to partially dodge them (each hit takes a smaller percentage of his hp) The 10th level fighter doesn't give a crap...(remember in the movie Legend when Darkness charged Jack, and Gump fired 2 or 3 arrows that stuck into him and he didn't slow a whit?)
There are lot of things that arent super realistic about D&D combat. I sometimes get annoyed with them. All in all Im okay just to go along with it. I dont want to get bogged down in super serious ridiculous rules. I suck at math and having to take 7 minutes to do up the calculations of a few seconds of combat takes most of the fun away.
Besides having exact calculations for all that stuff isnt very "realistic" either. In my personal experience with fights and more serious shooting/stabbings. There seems to be a fair amount of randomness going along.
I do totally get your point w/ ranged combat Joe.
Yeah. If only there were a way to introduce an element of chance into our attacks...
|
|
Thanks for your responses. I am enjoying the discussion, and I hope I'm not taking away of anything in character. I've talked about it with my local gaming group, and at my local gaming store. In general the idea gets very positive responses. I appreciate talking with you all about because your a different set of people, and as far as S goes a "lifelong gamer through and through."
Please remember that my topic is "semi" smart movement, and how to inspire players to take that the guy throwing daggers or lead is possibly lethal.
Magic can (and in the D&D/Pathfinder world, does) work similarly as an equalizer. Yes, within the use itself there are varying degrees of power, but having that power is inherently more powerful than not having it. Even those who don't cast magic spells end up using magic in some fashion (i.e., items). It's the crux of every discussion about god wizards and such: without them, the "lowly" fighter is worthless. Never mind that same "lowly" fighter being the principal reason the wizard survives to higher level in the first place.
Very true. I agree that the topic of "magic" is a deep and well dissected topic. I only bring up magic and it's use aside from point of view that a wizard armed with any kind of wand that deals direct damage should threaten an area just like a person with a crossbow.
An abstraction like a set of game rules isn't going to be able to address every contingency, or else you'd get caught up in minutiae like "you got hit last round, that's six more bleed points and two saves and another to resist gangrene and..."
There are lot of things that arent super realistic about D&D combat. I sometimes get annoyed with them. All in all Im okay just to go along with it. I dont want to get bogged down in super serious ridiculous rules. I suck at math and having to take 7 minutes to do up the calculations of a few seconds of combat takes most of the fun away.
Again I agree, and I wouldn't want to, nor would I play in a game like that for very long. To too like that not everything is realistic, in fact I would say I like them hmm how to say it cinematic. I am ok with suspending my belief on most things in the D&D world. It is a part that is very fun.
Any solution to this issue (semi-smart movement) must keep the game flow going, and not add silly convoluted complications. Pathfinder already places "Conditions" on characters when certain conditions are met. So when a Character/NPC moves through a threatened area he/she gets the "Exposed" Condition. Mostly this will probably add an AoO roll, which will result in damage, or maybe say "suppress" that characters movement.
I think that example although not complete is something simple enough to implement, and will achieve the goal of making a hero/npc think if charging down the hallway with nary a care is worth it. Of course there could always be a feat or two to help with not being or limiting the effects of "Exposed"
One other point to remember is that HP themselves are a huge abstraction, and only partially represent physical punishment the creature can take. AT 1st level, you can becher bottom that I'm going to be taking a much more cautious approach running down that hall you mentioned, because my character doesn't have the experience to survive. But a 5th level character might be more willing to take that chance--he's been through arrow storms before and knows how to partially dodge them (each hit takes a smaller percentage of his hp) The 10th level fighter doesn't give a crap...(remember in the movie Legend when Darkness charged Jack, and Gump fired 2 or 3 arrows that stuck into him and he didn't slow a whit?)
Exactly Ali I think you support my point very well. The end result I'm going for is that cinematic feel of danger, and movement through an area. Just like the fact that I love environmental aspects being brought in causing the scene to change for those fights that are mostly melee
Think about it in this manner. If you saw someone charge down the hallway filled with arrows you would say that's one crazy brave dude, and it would make an awesome scene. Now if you saw that same person charge down every hallway filled with arrows you would come to expect it, and it wouldn't be that heroic or special simply because the one doing the charging has HP to waste.
Making it dangerous only adds to the rewards/ myth and memories when it is done. It also makes those higher level characters still respect the ring of 1st level rangers pulling cover duty on you while you try to talk your way out of crap.
Brings me back to the example. Hero doesn't charge down the hallway most of the way through the Keep, but is still sturdy enough to charge the BBEG when they get to the throne room, and it is amazingly heroic as he bats aside most of the arrows taking "minimal" damage so he can take care of the BBEG.
Pathfinder, for me, delivers the balance between childhood fantasy and realism that suits my tastes.
Also, Paizo THRIVES on feedback. I've met everyone on the design team. They're gamers through and through. They love the data.
Okay. This was fun, but "de gvstibvs non dispvtandvm est.". Back to the regularly scheduled program. :-)
Pathfinder is imo one of the best of the D20 versions out there. Star Wars Saga Edition, is my personal favorite. Mostly because I love the genre, second it is low magic. It has it's issues, but most of the stem from the fact that it's a Sword & Board foundation with a Star Wars Overlay. I only tried 4e for a little bit, and to be honest I wasn't impressed at all.
S I'm impressed that you met everyone on the design team. It brings me one step closer in the "Six Degree's of Seperation Theory". If you ever do waste any thought on the issues I've presented or any of the fixes. Mention it to them if you talk to them again.
Thanks everyone for listening to me. I hope I have provoked a few thought processes, and not just wasted anyone's time.
Ok Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
Interesting thoughts, really. Maybe the "Exposed" condition reduced movement or something, as long as it was relatively simple. *shrug*
Im just throwing out ideas/thoughts. (Not really looking for solutions or anything).
I know I havent played quite as much D&D as some of you guys but I have played many games and had many characters since I was in 4-5th grade till now. In all those characters Ive played (mostly warriors and cleric/priest types) I have had ONE guy with a shield. (my awesome paladin Barret).
Even a small shield is big and bulky and a pain in the nuts to carry around. But a shield wouldbe super useful while charging across the open space providing cover. Ive never been in a real fight carrying a ballistic shield. But Ive carried a shield while taking fire from "sim" guns. And they are still a huge pain in the nuts but haveing at least one shield on your team to help provide "moving cover" is a huge advantage.
Here is another thing. My ranger in my other pbp game is a two weapon melee fighter. But a ranged weapon is still often useful. My ranger carries a humble sling. Part of the reason is his background, but the other reason is for "ease of carry". I know it sounds kinda stupid but has anyone ever carried around a bow and quiver of arrows in reality. My ranger is also pretty stealthy. Its not impossible but carries some extra difficulty to avoid smacking it into stuff while carrying it. While the sling folds up almost to nothing and is super light. A small pouch of lead bullets is also much easier to carry around then a full quiver.
They're all good points. Phil, one of the reasons why I always push to get handy haversacks and the like. It helps me picture a more reasonable amount of encumbrance.
One other thing while we are talking about unrealistic stuff.
I have some experience in reality with weapons. Ive had some kali (stick/knife) and years of fencing. I know Mike and Chris have fenced too.
A guy armed with a sword gets an AOO every round fighting an unarmed guy (who doesnt have any feats). But a guy with a knife doesnt have disadvantage squareing off vrs a sword weilding opponent?
They're all good points. Phil, one of the reasons why I always push to get handy haversacks and the like. It helps me picture a more reasonable amount of encumbrance.
Yeah, at work I hate carrying extra stuff. I took a bunch of stuff off my belt just to make it lighter and easier to move around.
We are talking about an ASP and a little can of pepper spray. In d&d terms those would be nothing. But in real life its enough to bug me.
My mounted halfling charger is a low-encumbrance PC by necessity, since his mount is a baby roc. It made me acutely aware of bare minimums, at least until he got a haversack. You have to figure everyone drops their backpack at the first sign of trouble; moving in combat without doing so just isn't reasonable.
Happy Thanksgiving, guys. Hope you're spending time with family (and friends who are chosen family).
A guy armed with a sword gets an AOO every round fighting an unarmed guy (who doesnt have any feats). But a guy with a knife doesnt have disadvantage squareing off vrs a sword weilding opponent?
I think this one is more taking advantage of someone who can't hit you back. Yes, a guy with a knife doesn't have the "reach" (real life, not game terms) as a guy with a sword. But the guy with a knife can still stick you if you leave yourself open--with, say, an extra swing you may not have taken had he been holding a sharp piece of metal.
So when are we back to regular posting?
Sorry, guys. Thanksgiving and then a convention at which I thoroughly shredded my voice happened.
No later than Monday, I'll have an update post done. Hope y'all had a good holiday.
This is amusing for absolutely no reason
Google gives the option to lock everyone out, to lock out everyone except those to whom you give access, or to let anyone with the link at it. I chose the middle one. So you either log in with the gmail accounts everyone gave me, or are unable to edit. Just one of the drawbacks.
The flip side is that if someone else stumbles onto the link (not exactly hard to do on a Paizo messageboard), they can't do anything to it cos they're not on the list to access it. I've read some horror stories about players who didn't get into a particular game messing with the maps, pogs, etc.
Joe you're already old, you cantankerous old b*stard
|
|
Joe you're already old, you cantankerous old b*stard
yes that I am.
I'm not sure what I want to do. I am so not into this campaign. From my experience, and my observed experience. Most PbP start off strong, with good and posting frequently, then fade away and slow down to eventually die.
I am happy to say that over in the CotCT it has been going steady since I joined it about 18 months ago. I feel that it helps that most are long time friends IRL. The posting has been slow on occasion, but it was known when the DM or certain players couldn't post.
I used to check this thread many times a day waiting for something to happen, but mostly waiting for a resolution to what has been posted.
I will be honest, at the moment I can't stand Edward, not sure if it is his woefully inadequate ability to help with anything except a few hp every now or then. Is it just that he is first level, and no sense of advancement, not being able to see the xp count down and that next little carrot called the next level come closer to reality? Not receiving XP after a battle at a table is one thing, things move faster. But to sit and look at a character sheet that doesn't change for such a long time, it needs to be thrown away or put in the retired pile.
I will try to see what happens coming up, and I really want to see what it would be like to have S, M, P, and S in a party together. But if I keep disliking this campaign this much, I will have to move along.
Ohh, and looking at the forces we're against, unless we start getting some good dice rolls this will probably be a TPK, if not it will be close. We are out flanked and out gunned, and I'm pretty sure we haven't come up against the boss, or the lead Fey yet. I'm also pretty sure our magic resources are getting thin.
How's that for pessimism?
Well then....
I for one am loving this campaign. I never get to play in an AP. Party has a good mix, and good characters. Level 2 is likely JUST around the corner. We cut them down faster than they can get to us (we do have a Vojtek after all.)
DMT said that he'd switch the XP style after the first major checkpoint. The AP gives a few methods, and I the current works best for tabletop. I think he plans on switching to the method we use in CocCT after.
I do have a lot of friends who aren't a fan of PBP after the initial burst, no worries. If you want to drop I wouldn't have any hard feelings.
Either way, it'd stink to lose you, but I'm in for the long haul.
I will try to see what happens coming up, and I really want to see what it would be like to have S, M, P, and S in a party together. But if I keep disliking this campaign this much, I will have to move along.
What is that? Sorcerer, Mage, Priest, Sorcerer?
Help me out.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hang in there Joe. If its a TPK then you are done anyway. But whoever lives will probabaly gain 2nd level.