Geoffrey's Finest (Inactive)

Game Master CampinCarl9127


10,151 to 10,190 of 10,190 << first < prev | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | next > last >>

Some games require the DM to make a complex plot and moral quandary to have the party bickering among themselves.

But other games you just need to bring popcorn to.

*munching*


Skills:
Appraise +21, Bluff/Diplomacy +16, Fly +15, Know(Arcana/planes) +21, Know(other) +11, Perception +2, Sense Motive +0, Spellcraft +27
Defenses:
AC 11/11/10 HP 68/68 / F +6 R +5 W +9 (+2 vs. Enchantments) / Init. +2
Spells:
DC = 17 + lvl. (+2 if transmutation) (+1 if on Druid list)
DM Omen wrote:

the party bickering among themselves.

Makes for the best games.


HP 43/58 | AC 22/14/19 (24/14/21 vs. humans or undead) | CMD 21 | Fort +4 Ref +8 Will +5 | Per +14 (+18 vs. humans, +16 vs. undead), Low-Light | Init +3;
Class and Skills:
Ranger (Infiltrator/Sky Stalker) 6 | Acro +6 Climb +6 Disable Device +13 Fly +10 Heal +9 Ride +7 Stea +13;
Combat:
30 ft. | Melee +7/+2/+8/+4 (k, w or t, and b); +9/+4/+4 (n and b); +9/+9/+9 (2 c and b); Ranged +9 CMB +8 | all attacks add +4 vs. humans, +2 vs. undead;

Is it good popcorn, with butter or maybe cheese? It's not that bland, unsalted stuff, I hope?


Skills:
Appraise +21, Bluff/Diplomacy +16, Fly +15, Know(Arcana/planes) +21, Know(other) +11, Perception +2, Sense Motive +0, Spellcraft +27
Defenses:
AC 11/11/10 HP 68/68 / F +6 R +5 W +9 (+2 vs. Enchantments) / Init. +2
Spells:
DC = 17 + lvl. (+2 if transmutation) (+1 if on Druid list)

I will be heading to GenCon this week, so my posting windows will likely be restricted to the evenings, yet that shouldn't be horrible here, for I believe this conversation will continue for a while. Dalton is not convinced the plan is truthful in aim or mechanism at this point, and there will need to be a back-and-forth to get him on board.


Female Dwarf Priest 6/Exalted of Bolka 3 l HP: 62/62 l Init: +5 l AC: 11 [T: 11; FF: 10; CMD: 13] l Fort: +13, Ref: +7, W: +15 (All saves increase by +3 for p, sp, and spls) l Per: +11

I have to agree with Dalton. This plan/situation does not currently make any sense to me out of game given what I know about political systems in general and even what we have been told about Erandor in the past. I briefly spoke to Bjorkus last night and he is also confused by all this.

Perhaps we are missing some key piece of the puzzle.


HP 43/58 | AC 22/14/19 (24/14/21 vs. humans or undead) | CMD 21 | Fort +4 Ref +8 Will +5 | Per +14 (+18 vs. humans, +16 vs. undead), Low-Light | Init +3;
Class and Skills:
Ranger (Infiltrator/Sky Stalker) 6 | Acro +6 Climb +6 Disable Device +13 Fly +10 Heal +9 Ride +7 Stea +13;
Combat:
30 ft. | Melee +7/+2/+8/+4 (k, w or t, and b); +9/+4/+4 (n and b); +9/+9/+9 (2 c and b); Ranged +9 CMB +8 | all attacks add +4 vs. humans, +2 vs. undead;
Ianna Trealamhgabha wrote:

I have to agree with Dalton. This plan/situation does not currently make any sense to me out of game given what I know about political systems in general and even what we have been told about Erandor in the past. I briefly spoke to Bjorkus last night and he is also confused by all this.

Perhaps we are missing some key piece of the puzzle.

I just posted Pazeek's "tinfoil helm" theory to all of this :D.


Dalton Barrowwheel wrote:
I will be heading to GenCon this week, so my posting windows will likely be restricted to the evenings, yet that shouldn't be horrible here, for I believe this conversation will continue for a while. Dalton is not convinced the plan is truthful in aim or mechanism at this point, and there will need to be a back-and-forth to get him on board.

Have fun, and thanks for letting us know!


I will say this as omniscient game knowledge so we can stop beating this dead horse:

The Aestherics are being honest with you.
They are genuinely trying to help people.
They are not withholding information about this mission.
They are the good guys.

If you want to keep arguing with them, do as you please, but as the creator of this universe I'm telling you that you're barking up the wrong tree and it's not going to accomplish anything.


Female Dwarf Priest 6/Exalted of Bolka 3 l HP: 62/62 l Init: +5 l AC: 11 [T: 11; FF: 10; CMD: 13] l Fort: +13, Ref: +7, W: +15 (All saves increase by +3 for p, sp, and spls) l Per: +11

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here.


HP 43/58 | AC 22/14/19 (24/14/21 vs. humans or undead) | CMD 21 | Fort +4 Ref +8 Will +5 | Per +14 (+18 vs. humans, +16 vs. undead), Low-Light | Init +3;
Class and Skills:
Ranger (Infiltrator/Sky Stalker) 6 | Acro +6 Climb +6 Disable Device +13 Fly +10 Heal +9 Ride +7 Stea +13;
Combat:
30 ft. | Melee +7/+2/+8/+4 (k, w or t, and b); +9/+4/+4 (n and b); +9/+9/+9 (2 c and b); Ranged +9 CMB +8 | all attacks add +4 vs. humans, +2 vs. undead;

Eh, if pressed on his stance, Pazeek doesn't honestly care if they want to help folks or rule them. So long as the tengu get treated right and the agreements between them and the Aestherics are observed, it's all good to him.

Honestly, playing something other than (X) Good is going to be interesting :D.

Hope you enjoyed that theory too. I honestly just scraped it off of the wall, jiggled it into something approaching plausibility, and slapped it on the table. Pretty much exactly what Pazeek himself, being--though he'd die before admitting to it--an inexperienced backwater hick (and a nasty, low-minded, and suspicious sort, yes), would come up with based on what little he knows to that point.


Female Dwarf Priest 6/Exalted of Bolka 3 l HP: 62/62 l Init: +5 l AC: 11 [T: 11; FF: 10; CMD: 13] l Fort: +13, Ref: +7, W: +15 (All saves increase by +3 for p, sp, and spls) l Per: +11

I don't think anyone was saying they are evil at the moment. I think people are saying that their plan vis-a-vis Brumik is some combination of dumb, naive, and/or confused depending on whom you ask.


I am saying the Aestherics don't have ulterior motives and aren't trying to trick you guys, so continually probing into their plans with the suspicion of foul play will be fruitless. I am giving you a blunt and open DM hint that there's no story to be chased down that line of thinking.

Lol yes it was very entertaining Pazeek.


Ianna Trealamhgabha wrote:
I don't think anyone was saying they are evil at the moment. I think people are saying that their plan vis-a-vis Brumik is some combination of dumb, naive, and/or confused depending on whom you ask.

Well than I guess you and I have completely different ideas of what makes a plan dumb.

If you want an open sandbox problem to address, we can go back to that, but based on previous experience that doesn't make you any happier.


Male Dwarf Paladin (Stonelord) 11 l HP: 105/105 (127/127) l Init: +1 l AC: 30 (44 v giants) [T: 12 (14); FF: 27; CMD: 29/33(43)] l Fort: +13 (+15), Ref: +7, W: +9 (+11) (All saves increase by +5 for p, sp, and spls) l DR: 5 (Adamantine) l Per: -1

So their plan is to go to four locations and agitate. When pressed for specifics and concrete goals for what counts as success Heff said there weren't any. Ianna specifically reminded him that sending in Toramin and Bjorkus in without clear, concrete goals usually results in a coup.

A sand box is the last thing anybody wants here. What we are asking for in character is an action plan with clear goals.

This is related to but distinct from Dalton and Toramin's confusion about how the council can believe that anybody would be put off by someone blaming those "bandits" and it not escalating to a border war. In fact, Heff's goal of agitating different factions within Brumik seem primed to set off a civil war. The council when ask about this seems in Dalton's words "oblivious" to the problem. It just doesn't pass the smell test or suspension of disbelief.

Now nothing about this means necessarily that they are operating in bad faith. Two things spring out to me as potential sources of the confusion.

A) There is something about the situation that you are trying to convey that we just don't get yet. (If so please feel free to expound.)

or B) They are in over their heads when it comes to thinking through the military and political implications of the merchants' plans.


Skills:
Appraise +21, Bluff/Diplomacy +16, Fly +15, Know(Arcana/planes) +21, Know(other) +11, Perception +2, Sense Motive +0, Spellcraft +27
Defenses:
AC 11/11/10 HP 68/68 / F +6 R +5 W +9 (+2 vs. Enchantments) / Init. +2
Spells:
DC = 17 + lvl. (+2 if transmutation) (+1 if on Druid list)

Dalton's question in the gameplay thread stands.

Given the statements of what we're to assume above, Omen, that would mean the Aestherics (or at least the council) is struggling to grapple with 2nd and 3rd degree diplomatic interdependencies here.


What would you suggest as a solution?


Male Dwarf Paladin (Stonelord) 11 l HP: 105/105 (127/127) l Init: +1 l AC: 30 (44 v giants) [T: 12 (14); FF: 27; CMD: 29/33(43)] l Fort: +13 (+15), Ref: +7, W: +9 (+11) (All saves increase by +5 for p, sp, and spls) l DR: 5 (Adamantine) l Per: -1

To which problem?

In terms of a clear action plan, I would treat it as if I were a project manager creating an outline.

As for the military and political ramifications, I'm in a bit of a bind. Out of game, I have a few thoughts that might help prevent a war between Andril and Brumik. But it is not in Toramin's interests to share those with the council. He wants Andril to ultimately absorb Brumik. What are Geoffrey's interest in the matter? He is likely Toramin's equal, or perhaps superior, when it comes to the military and diplomacy stuff.

Or, if you want my thoughts completely out of game and off the record, I could share them with you.


To the first problem, I'm trying to avoid railroading you. As it is, more details will quickly become apparent as you go to each area. It will be straitforward, trust me.

For the second, perhaps you and I just have radically different thoughts on how politics works. I don't know if that's a barrier we can overcome.

As for absorbing Brumik, the Aestherics are strictly opposed to that. You would not find common ground with them on that.


Female Dwarf Priest 6/Exalted of Bolka 3 l HP: 62/62 l Init: +5 l AC: 11 [T: 11; FF: 10; CMD: 13] l Fort: +13, Ref: +7, W: +15 (All saves increase by +3 for p, sp, and spls) l Per: +11

Perhaps, but were I you I might be concerned that none of your players seem to understand what you think will happen here or think that the things that your experts believe will have the exact opposite effect of what those experts want.

As for my characters preferences they clearly diverge, from the NPCs. That's okay. They don't need to converge. And my suggestions for how council could get from A to B has nothing to do with my character's preference.


Well since it is my universe, I know all of what's going to happen. It's based off of how my cognition functions. So what you see as unrealistic and unreasonable, I don't. In fact in this world the "experts" that are the council are very good at predicting and influencing things.

Perhaps we just wildly differ in how we see things. Perhaps I'm actually really ignorant of how these kinds of things work. Regardless, I can't suddenly change how my mind works. This is what the campaign is, what it has been, and what it will continue to be. The question is: Is this something we can overcome? Or is it an impassible barrier that is simply making us butt heads instead of having fun, incompatiable?


Male Dwarf Paladin (Stonelord) 11 l HP: 105/105 (127/127) l Init: +1 l AC: 30 (44 v giants) [T: 12 (14); FF: 27; CMD: 29/33(43)] l Fort: +13 (+15), Ref: +7, W: +9 (+11) (All saves increase by +5 for p, sp, and spls) l DR: 5 (Adamantine) l Per: -1

Certainly fiat is an option on your end.

I'm willing to discuss examples of how similar circumstances on Earth have worked out, if you are interested. If you are unwilling or unable to do an actor analysis (what do each faction want? How do they know when the succeed or fail?) or an analysis of what happens when borders are violated, I can only shrug and say "sure man, whatever you say."

Not everyone is an expert on everything. I certainly believe you have logged more lab than I ever have. So, ignorance real or imagined isn't a personal criticism.


HP 43/58 | AC 22/14/19 (24/14/21 vs. humans or undead) | CMD 21 | Fort +4 Ref +8 Will +5 | Per +14 (+18 vs. humans, +16 vs. undead), Low-Light | Init +3;
Class and Skills:
Ranger (Infiltrator/Sky Stalker) 6 | Acro +6 Climb +6 Disable Device +13 Fly +10 Heal +9 Ride +7 Stea +13;
Combat:
30 ft. | Melee +7/+2/+8/+4 (k, w or t, and b); +9/+4/+4 (n and b); +9/+9/+9 (2 c and b); Ranged +9 CMB +8 | all attacks add +4 vs. humans, +2 vs. undead;

For my two cents, I'm not having a problem with anything here. In fact, I'm actually quite interested to see how the problem of Burmik obviously being behind any military action--regardless of how strongly they claim "bandits"-- is resolved (as long as we don't fail, of course). And finding out what the council has in mind with its own plans is of equal interest.


As interesting as it would be to workshop ideas in, this isn't the right medium by which to do that. It would no longer be a game of Pathfinder, it would be more akin to developing a novel or show.

So the question stands: Do we think we can move on with the "sure man" option and actually have a game that everybody can enjoy? Because it seems for the past few months that we have been unable to do that.


HP 43/58 | AC 22/14/19 (24/14/21 vs. humans or undead) | CMD 21 | Fort +4 Ref +8 Will +5 | Per +14 (+18 vs. humans, +16 vs. undead), Low-Light | Init +3;
Class and Skills:
Ranger (Infiltrator/Sky Stalker) 6 | Acro +6 Climb +6 Disable Device +13 Fly +10 Heal +9 Ride +7 Stea +13;
Combat:
30 ft. | Melee +7/+2/+8/+4 (k, w or t, and b); +9/+4/+4 (n and b); +9/+9/+9 (2 c and b); Ranged +9 CMB +8 | all attacks add +4 vs. humans, +2 vs. undead;

Onward!


F AKA Chibi Kerchiechoo Halfling Invstgtr 11 | HP: 63/63 | Init: +6 | AC: 26 [T: 19; FF: 20; CMD: 25] | Fort: +8, Ref: +18, W: +13 (+2 agnst fear) | Per: +10
Spoiler:
IP: 5/9 | Luck 4/4|Grit 1

I see this as collaborative fiction bounded by the rules of Pathfinder and DM Omen’s campaign world. Are each of us having fun and getting some manner of fulfillment from this game? I hope so! What has impressed me about this game is that were are able to discuss out of character issues without them getting too heated and dramatic. I appreciate the maturity displayed. My vote is to proceed with the campaign.


Skills:
Appraise +21, Bluff/Diplomacy +16, Fly +15, Know(Arcana/planes) +21, Know(other) +11, Perception +2, Sense Motive +0, Spellcraft +27
Defenses:
AC 11/11/10 HP 68/68 / F +6 R +5 W +9 (+2 vs. Enchantments) / Init. +2
Spells:
DC = 17 + lvl. (+2 if transmutation) (+1 if on Druid list)
Dalton Barrowwheel wrote:
Dalton's question in the gameplay thread stands.

I move to proceed with the conversation in gameplay. Dalton is awaiting a reply to his inquiry.


Ah, my apologies Dalton! I seemed to have forgotten it in the confusion. I'll get to it right now.


Skills:
Appraise +21, Bluff/Diplomacy +16, Fly +15, Know(Arcana/planes) +21, Know(other) +11, Perception +2, Sense Motive +0, Spellcraft +27
Defenses:
AC 11/11/10 HP 68/68 / F +6 R +5 W +9 (+2 vs. Enchantments) / Init. +2
Spells:
DC = 17 + lvl. (+2 if transmutation) (+1 if on Druid list)

It's okay. I can't write very deeply from the convention anyway. I'm headed back tomorrow.


HP 43/58 | AC 22/14/19 (24/14/21 vs. humans or undead) | CMD 21 | Fort +4 Ref +8 Will +5 | Per +14 (+18 vs. humans, +16 vs. undead), Low-Light | Init +3;
Class and Skills:
Ranger (Infiltrator/Sky Stalker) 6 | Acro +6 Climb +6 Disable Device +13 Fly +10 Heal +9 Ride +7 Stea +13;
Combat:
30 ft. | Melee +7/+2/+8/+4 (k, w or t, and b); +9/+4/+4 (n and b); +9/+9/+9 (2 c and b); Ranged +9 CMB +8 | all attacks add +4 vs. humans, +2 vs. undead;

Craft related ruling needed here, Omen.

Using PF's rules for traps, I've got the basic outline for a trap I'd eventually like Pazeek to work on. It's pretty much a bear trap, but modified to be harder to spot, and to deliver a flask of various alchemical nastiness when sprung.

However, the rules are pretty sparse for pricing out traps in any sort of detai. They suggest a base price of 1,000gp x CR(!), but also go on to say that particularly simple traps, like pits or mechanical traps can be priced lower at the GM's discretion (giving a base of 250gp x CR as an example).

So what base price would Pazeek be looking at?

Further, would being caught in the trap affect any Reflex save needed to mitigate or avoid the effects of the subsequent alchemical flask? Could Pazeek specifically incorporate such a feature into his hypothetical bear trap?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Depends on the complexity of the trap. It it's a bear trap with poisoned jaws, pretty cheap. If it's a bear trap plus alchemical syringe projectiles from a complex system of pulls and levers, expensive.

Being caught in a bear trap would definitely hinder reflex saves. Entangled at the very least.


HP 43/58 | AC 22/14/19 (24/14/21 vs. humans or undead) | CMD 21 | Fort +4 Ref +8 Will +5 | Per +14 (+18 vs. humans, +16 vs. undead), Low-Light | Init +3;
Class and Skills:
Ranger (Infiltrator/Sky Stalker) 6 | Acro +6 Climb +6 Disable Device +13 Fly +10 Heal +9 Ride +7 Stea +13;
Combat:
30 ft. | Melee +7/+2/+8/+4 (k, w or t, and b); +9/+4/+4 (n and b); +9/+9/+9 (2 c and b); Ranged +9 CMB +8 | all attacks add +4 vs. humans, +2 vs. undead;

Nothing fancy, just a little flask-sized receptacle under the trigger mechanism that busts the flask loaded inside at the same time that the jaws spring shut.


I would put that at 300gp x CR. As for the save, would probably end up as an all-or-nothing. Successful reflex means they get away, failed means they get both.


Male Grizzly Bear 3 | HP: 30/30 l AC: 19 /T: 12/FF: 17 l Fort: +4, Ref: +5, W: +4 l Init: +2 l Per: +5; Low-light vision; Scent l Movement: 40

Is there any information to be gleaned remotely via research before the party begins this next venture - information that the Aestherics wouldn't immediately have on hand?

It seems like a shame to waste a week of potential prep.


You guys will be further briefed at each location. I didn't want to overwhelm you with information.


I apologize for the silence. I've had to spend some time thinking.

After much consideration I think I need to put this game down, at least for now. I could give a long rationale, but the short of it is that I'm not having fun running the game and my performance is suffering because of that, which has turned into a vicious cycle. I don't know how long this will be, or indeed if I even plan on getting the game moving again. I apologize deeply to all involved because I felt like I've lead you on, particularly Pazeek who just joined us.

I'll be here to answer questions, both here and in PMs. I'll still be around the boards elsewhere as well.


Male Grizzly Bear 3 | HP: 30/30 l AC: 19 /T: 12/FF: 17 l Fort: +4, Ref: +5, W: +4 l Init: +2 l Per: +5; Low-light vision; Scent l Movement: 40

Thanks for the game and thanks for the heads up. My final request is that you mark the campaign inactive so it doesn't clutter up folks' campaign summary tabs.

I'm sure we'll continue to see plenty of each other elsewhere. =P


Indeed. I will still be active around the boards.

I'll keep the campaign active for about a day so everybody gets notified and then I'll mark it inactive.


HP 43/58 | AC 22/14/19 (24/14/21 vs. humans or undead) | CMD 21 | Fort +4 Ref +8 Will +5 | Per +14 (+18 vs. humans, +16 vs. undead), Low-Light | Init +3;
Class and Skills:
Ranger (Infiltrator/Sky Stalker) 6 | Acro +6 Climb +6 Disable Device +13 Fly +10 Heal +9 Ride +7 Stea +13;
Combat:
30 ft. | Melee +7/+2/+8/+4 (k, w or t, and b); +9/+4/+4 (n and b); +9/+9/+9 (2 c and b); Ranged +9 CMB +8 | all attacks add +4 vs. humans, +2 vs. undead;
DM Omen wrote:

I apologize for the silence. I've had to spend some time thinking.

After much consideration I think I need to put this game down, at least for now. I could give a long rationale, but the short of it is that I'm not having fun running the game and my performance is suffering because of that, which has turned into a vicious cycle. I don't know how long this will be, or indeed if I even plan on getting the game moving again. I apologize deeply to all involved because I felt like I've lead you on, particularly Pazeek who just joined us.

I'll be here to answer questions, both here and in PMs. I'll still be around the boards elsewhere as well.

I don't mind a hiatus of however long you need, since I quite understand just not feeling it. Kind of annoyed that I can't seem to play my bird though, lol. I've this--and one other--character concept churning in my head for over a year now, and just can't seem to get the character properly going :p.

Ah well, I'll copy/paste the stats somewhere safe for later and recycle the alias elsewhere (since I'm not a fan of alias bloat).


I definitely feel your pain on that one. I have a strix fighter that I just can't seem to get off the ground (heh). Every game he's in ends up dying, and it's hard to sell most GMs on allowing a strix in the first place.


F AKA Chibi Kerchiechoo Halfling Invstgtr 11 | HP: 63/63 | Init: +6 | AC: 26 [T: 19; FF: 20; CMD: 25] | Fort: +8, Ref: +18, W: +13 (+2 agnst fear) | Per: +10
Spoiler:
IP: 5/9 | Luck 4/4|Grit 1

I think a hiatus is a good idea. I hope we can return to the game, but if not, I want you all to know that this has been one of the most rewarding and fantastic play-by-post games I’ve been in. I really felt pushed to be a better writer, in a friendly manner. These are my preferred boards for pbp, so I’ll be hunting for additional games soon. Thank you all for the adventures. Take care everyone!

1 to 50 of 10,190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Online Campaigns / Play-by-Post Discussion / Geoffrey's Finest Discussion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.