Ok, I have updated the Loot List.
A question for GM Shadowbloodmoon, did we find a ring (magical, glowed for Sileven's vision, https://paizo.com/campaigns/RiseOfTheRunelordsWithATwist/gameplay&page= 71#3545 ) on the ghoul?
To the party: We need to spend some time using spellcraft and such to figure out what certain things are - like the magic rod, the war-razor, the sihedron medallion ... (also, I assume at this point, Grenz has the Hand Wraps of Magic Fang +1).
I do :)
Oh, yes, the ring. That was in the loot too.
I can't access the loot table.
Google is being a pain again...
Doing a look, Drek does not have the staff.
It was suggested that I leave the staff with Drek and Grenz when I meet the priest.
The idea of stashing the staff was shot down and ruined by discussing it in the open, so Zarque never tried it anyway.
Then Khamul voted not letting me keep the staff except that was ignored and not responded to nor mentioned, especially ignored by me, since in Zarque's eye Khamul is a spiteful little monster that is an enemy, in a social way, but still untrustworthy and whose opinion doesn't matter.
I don't think it was openly said, but I assumed an unspoken agreement that Drek'Thar would carry it. It was also the group's majority vote, if I remember correctly.
Nobody but Zarque wanted Zarque to have the staff.
Telling us that you don't care what we want is just a perfect example of why nobody trusts the character.
I've come close to walking away from this table because of how you play your character a couple of times. It is directly contradictory to what I'm looking for when I play this game. It is uncooperative, showboating, and disruptive, with no alterations based on the other players disliking the behavior.
The staff is the only thing about which your accusations have ever had any merit. You call her greedy but she has never been greedy in any way.
You need the direct action of a god to steal from Zarque's inventory. Technically a gm decides whether a wish would work, but if a wish could do it, they wouldn't need to find it in a tomb anyway, and in Zarque's inventory would be even more difficult as now it requires crossing planer boundaries.
No other party member counts as even being secure at all compared to that, and the safety of the town, perhaps even the whole region depends on the protection of that staff and the key. Putting them where the direct action of a deity is required for an enemy to aquire them is only responsible, regardless of what others think of her. She keeps them because it is the only safe thing to do to keep her home safe.
How can anyone else count as a better place to keep the staff? It is logical.
I don't think it was openly said, but I assumed an unspoken agreement that Drek'Thar would carry it. It was also the group's majority vote, if I remember correctly.
Gotta be careful about the unspoken, different people will walk away with different ideas about it.
Also, only two people "voted," one of which was Khamul well after the conversation.
Also, the original mention was not for you two to forever hold it, but only to hold while I visited the priest. Big difference.
The majority of conversation then was actually about the idea of putting it at sandpoint or not.
Zarque is a bit showy and a bit big headed. Both traits I figure fit her well as a character.
But she also is helpful and nice and not at all selfish. A bit ruthless at times, and strategic.
Milah also voted. The IC discussion simply did not carry further, because the action ‘skipped ahead’.
So I think it made sense to go with the assumption that the group did not want Zarque holding onto the staff, and you knew that. For me it is a matter of ‘PbP etiquette’ so to speak.
That being said, now we know the group would not have agreed to it, even though we not exhaustively RP it out. So I still think it makes sense that Drek’Thar would have the staff.
I clearly stated an opinion, and then you ignored the previously stated opinion in order to manipulate the vote to your advantage. Part of the behavior I was mentioning.
I don't enjoy actually arguing while playing a game whose design includes the assumption that we are cooperating.
---
And I'm not talking about Zarque being a showboat. I'm talking about the player being a showboat. When you have to be the one who goes to solve everything, you actually stop other players from doing what they designed their characters to do. Sil's not designed to do much, so low direct impact, but you never stop stealing the spotlight from other players.
That's not cooperative story-telling. Not even close.
Incorrect, Milah voted to not take it to the sandpoint vault, in favor of keeping it with the party, and here I quote, "regardless of who carries it."
That is not a vote for Drek.
And frankly, it honestly baffles me why anyone in the group would want the staff in a massively more vulnerable position.
Two other aspects here, a) ooc it makes sense for zarque to still have since it was never ic handed over and zarque is still in the active group, while drek has departed, keep the party loot with the party.
And b) it should be rp'd rather than ooc assumptions because neither I nor zarque can justify the risk, because that is exactly what it is, risking an extremely important item needlessly in a way that may very well destroy the town or worse, and the only argument against the safe option ic is that sil thinks zarque is greedy, a small price to keep her home safe, and ooc, that Sil's player doesn't like how I play the character and a few unspoken expectations. There hasn't been any arguments for why it's better to greatly risk the item for zero gain, and without such a reason, zarque would keep it safe, even if that meant leaving the entire region, right now, her top priority is the town's safety, and the group wants the staff for no other reason than their lack of trust in her, while from her perspective, the trustworthiness of the others is a moot point beside the their inability to keep the staff anywhere near as safe and untouchable as her extradimensional storage.
I clearly stated an opinion, and then you ignored the previously stated opinion in order to manipulate the vote to your advantage. Part of the behavior I was mentioning.
I don't enjoy actually arguing while playing a game whose design includes the assumption that we are cooperating.
---
And I'm not talking about Zarque being a showboat. I'm talking about the player being a showboat. When you have to be the one who goes to solve everything, you actually stop other players from doing what they designed their characters to do. Sil's not designed to do much, so low direct impact, but you never stop stealing the spotlight from other players.
That's not cooperative story-telling. Not even close.
I'll think on this, but at first look I disagree with this premise.
I don't care what YOU can justify, or how you define our character's thought.
This is NOT Zarque's story. It is the GROUP's story.
DarkLightHitomi is not writing fiction that goes the way he wants it to go.
We're all supposed to be working together to write a story that doesn't go quite the way any of us want or expect.
One of the few hard and fast rules of table-top-role-play gaming is that it is about working for EVERYONE involved to have FUN. For everyone involved to enjoy the experience.
No one player should ever dominate any aspect of the game, because it violates that rule.
I don't have a 1st Ed PF book at hand, but my 2nd Ed book is right here. Page 7. Sidebar. "The First Rule", final sentence: "The true goal of Pathfinder is for everyone to enjoy themselves."
Everyone. Not me regardless of the how others feel about it.
DarkLightHitomi I would say, you are very confident in doing what you think is best at all times, regardless of anyone else's input.
In the case of the staff, your route may well be the safest route. It does seem pretty airtight from every approach other than 'convince Zarque to give you the rod'.
In other cases, such as locking the door when everyone else was preparing readied actions, all you did was give the badguy advance notice and waste all the parties readied actions.
Your willingness to do what you think is best regardless of what we all think is best is what really breaks trust with the rest of the group. And trust is, well, exactly the sort of thing you would need to be trusted with sole responsibility over the macguffin.
I'm a person who believes every personality trait has an upside and downside, and Zarque's maverick nature leads to independent ideas the rest of us don't consider, but also a lack of trust.
However, to draw things more simply, the current issue is exactly:
"Was Drek'thar or Zarque entrusted with the staff."
My vote would be I think the party would be quicker to trust Drek'Thar. I agree with Grenz there.
Excepting the situation where the GM wants Zarque to have the macguffing for meta reasons, where I'd defer to the GM of course, my opinion would be that Drek'Thar should have it.
And frankly, it honestly baffles me why anyone in the group would want the staff in a massively more vulnerable position.
Most members of the group do not know you well enough to trust you to put the staff away on some sort of 'extradimensional space' you control all by yourself. I find this IC reasoning quite solid.
This is NOT Zarque's story. It is the GROUP's story.
This is the crux of the problem I think. I'm not here to write a story at all. A story is a thing external to the course of events. A story is judged as good or bad according to a metric incompatible with the metrics the characters make decisions on.
I don't spend a single thought on what makes a good story bevause I'm not here to make a story. I am not collaborative storytelling.
I am roleplaying. I see what the character sees, I feel what the character feels, I hurt when the character hurts, I laugh when the character laughs. I put myself inside the character and become the character. I am here to experience what the character experiences.
This is a drastically different thing than collaborative storytelling.
I'm not out here deciding what I want the character to choose, I become the character to know what they have chosen. It's similar to the movie the mask, I've got a little mask in my mind, and when I wear it, I am the character. There is no out of game considerations at all.
We're all supposed to be working together to write a story
This is but one of multiple ways to play an rpg, and frankly, I've never liked this way. If I tell a story, I'm either writing an actual story, or I'm gm for an explicitly railroaded game. I don't do storytelling as a player.
One of the few hard and fast rules of table-top-role-play gaming is that it is about working for EVERYONE involved to have FUN. For everyone involved to enjoy the experience.
No disagreement from me on this one, but people have different expectations and sometimes those expectations are incompatible.
No one player should ever dominate any aspect of the game, because it violates that rule.
Usually true, but not always. Also, really depends a lot on what you have defined as aspects of the game and how much the various people at the table care about those carious aspects.
For example, if only one person cares about being awesome at combat, it is entirely possible for them to have minmaxed themselves into epicness and no one else care, because for the others, the combat is a sideshow.
===
The issue here is that you are judging my choices according to vastly different values than I am judging everyone including myself.
You seem to expect me to consider first the fact that this is a story, then that this is a coop game, and then to decide what my character thinks based on those metagame factors.
I don't and never will make choices like that, so naturally you won't agree with my choices.
This is why I had a problem with you calling me greedy last time around, because it only looks greedy from the outside when you focus on the idea of this as a game. Even if you distrust my character and desire her to not have the staff because of that distrust, it is not reasonable to consider her arguments for keeping the staff as anything but valid and reasonable even if you believe them as not the real reasons. Because in game, the possibility of theft or loss is real and a pocket dimension is truly far more safe.
But out of game, you don't truly expect the gm to do something like steal from the players, because of the social etiquette that you ascribe to, and therefore, do not consider it a valid concern. This is metagaming.
You are a storyteller, I'm a character player. You think about the game from the outside, I think about it from the inside.
Sometimes such an opposition can work anyway. Sometimes not.
But do not for a moment think that I'm just inconsiderate, when in fact, we are just not playing the same game.
If the group feels that is a problem, then I'll leave. Zarque keeps the staff for in-game reasons, and Grenz has a point that a lack of trust of Zarque is a perfectly valid concern which is orthogonal to the protection of the staff, but Zarque's first priority is protecting the town, and she's logical, not social. To her, the logical consideration outweigh the social ones because to her the social considerations are insignificant.
It would break the character to hand over the staff because of peer pressure or your trust issues.
And frankly, you don't trust her, but why should she trust you, especially when it is her word given on recovering the staff, and no one else can give her a logical reason to give it up.
I the player will leave if you want, but it would break the character to hand it over. Her word is important, the safety of her home is important. Both of those things means keeping the staff until needed elsewhere or it can be broken depending on what it's for. I can't play broken characters.
So Zarque, how do you expect to reconcile the fact your character would be broken by handing over the staff with the fact other characters not trusting you to keep it? I think it is in these moments that (even though I am not CRAZY about it) you need to go into a mix of OOC and IC considerations, concede the point to the majority of the group, and find a way to wrap your RP around it.
This is very frequent in PbP games, at least until players develop some trust and connections to each other. Otherwise most of these games would never even be possible.
What I am seeing here is that you are not offering a solution. You are focused on what your character wants, which is ok. But what about what the other characters want? What solution do you offer? Because
I think this is what Sileven means when he talks about playing the game - you simply cannot simply say 'my character thinks he/she should keep the staff, so tough, and you all need to deal with it'. That is not how it works, regardless of how much you want to immerse yourself in the game.
As far as gameplay goes, there isn't really a solution but there isn't really a "problem" or more accurately, the problem is symmetrical to all sides. Sil talks as though Zarque is somehow the only untrustworthy one, as though we are supposed to just trust each other while telling each other how untrusting we are. Give the the staff to anyone else and the question remains, why should we trust that person? But of course, you have that same questiin but also have the added risk of all the ways the staff can be stolen, lost, broken, etc.
Besides, thus far, in-game, the only thing about the issue has been an accusation of greed, an unfounded accusation which is of course going to be met resistance. Who wouldn't resist against such insult?
As for out of game, till this point, Sil seemed to be the only who had strong feelings about it, plus myself of course, which seems to be motivated by a complete difference in what we are playing, which isn't going to be resolved by simply giving in to every demand he makes anyway. Either he has a moment of "oh I understand what is actually going on now" and thus gain a greater ability to work with me realizing what's motivating my choices and boundaries, or he will buckle down on needing everything to go his way in which we simply consider it a case of incompatibility.
Thus far, it seems to me that for the most part, everyone else wants the issue resolved so we can move on, for which the theoretically simplist solution is to just hand it over, but without a good in character motivation, I can't really make that work, and even if I could, it just pushes the problem down the road to crop up again with the next decision he doesn't like. That means there is no real solution for me to provide. I can already tolerate Sil just fine, the real question is whether he can tolerate me or if I should leave.
Yep. Done. Good riddance.
Edit: Extraolation.
I've given ground every day I've played this game to try to let you enjoy it. Now you not only refuse to acknowledge the cost you've imposed on others, but you also refuse to bear any of the burden.
You're a selfish child with whom I am no longer willing to waste any time trying to interact.
And the GM has empowered you every step of the way.
We are going around in circles.
Thus far, it seems to me that for the most part, everyone else wants the issue resolved so we can move on, for which the theoretically simplist solution is to just hand it over, but without a good in character motivation, I can't really make that work, and even if I could, it just pushes the problem down the road to crop up again with the next decision he doesn't like. That means there is no real solution for me to provide. I can already tolerate Sil just fine, the real question is whether he can tolerate me or if I should leave.
You cannot make giving the staff to someone else work IC, while others cannot make it work that you kept hold of it. That is when matters become OOC instead of IC, and people cast their opinion - you should accept the voice of the majority, and try to make it work for your character. Sounds simple to me.
"Give the the staff to anyone else and the question remains, why should we trust that person?"
Depending on how you act, people may be more likely or less likely to trust you. Because everyone else in the party acts in a manner Idun as a characters trusts more than Zarque, Idun, would, in character, be quicker to entrust the rod to the Sheriff than to Zarque. I'm roleplaying my character when I say she would rather trust Drek'Thar with the staff than Zarque.
--
To make the situation more obvious by resorting to exaggeration, I'm going to draw a situation for you.
I have a powerful magic sword I want to keep safe. There are two people I can trust with it.
One is the Dark Lord Doommantle. He has a magically guarded treasure vault. I rate my trust in his capability to keep the sword safe at 95%. Only a crit success could bust in.
The second is the friendly innkeeper Borbear. He can hide the sword in a floorboard under the bar. I rate my trust in his capability to keep the sword safe at 25%. A bad guy might not look such a lowly place.
Now, clearly, Dark Lord Doommantle should be given the magical sword because he can keep it safer right?
Well, we forgot to include personal trust in the equation, rather than just trust in their capabilities. Because their capability to keep the sword safe only matters if they actually do what they said and try to keep the sword safe.
Dark Lord Doommantle... I don't exactly trust. I figure that there's a chance that I'm just misjudging him and he's really a good person deep down. I rate my personal trust of him at 5%.
Innkeeper Borbear is a nice guy, I trust him, and I don't think there's a big chance he's an evil man in disguise, but possibly someone evil could find leverage against him or I'm judging him wrong. I rate my personal trust of him at 75%.
Now, we multiply.
.95 x .05 = Trust Rating of Dark Lord Doommantle: 4.75%
.25 x .75 = Trust Rating of Innkeeper Borbear: 18.75%
Despite Innkeeper Borbear's strategy being entirely security through obscurity, not a terribly reliable plan in a world with divination magic, he scores almost 5 times higher than Dark Lord Doommantle.
--
To draw it back to the situation at hand, Idun's personal trust of Zarque is so low that she would rather give the rod to someone whose plan to guard the rod is 'put it in their backpack', but who seems trustworthy.
You're playing your character, alright, fair enough, but what do you do when the way you play your character means everyone in the party doesn't trust your character? If you truly can't jive with the fact that the party wouldn't trust you with the rod, I believe that leaves you with one option.
Conflict, if Zarque cannot abide by not having the rod, and the party won't let Zarque the rod, then Zarque would, presumably... do something about that? Steal it, or fight the party, or leave, or whatever.
And conflict is not always a welcome thing in roleplays.
I think at this point, while I appreciate that we are attempting to have a civil conversation about this, I will need to step in. Here is the thing: I enjoy the fact that everyone is trying to play in character, as that is part of how a story is built cooperatively. The problem starts when one or more characters start to use the reasoning of “that is just what my character would do” as evidence to backup something that goes against the cohesiveness of the rest of their party. This steps into the lines of purposeful disruption of group play. That said, the interaction between Zarque and most of the party has been pretty much true to character, but has caused a more than significant amount of strife in the party.
As far as I am aware, (Sil, since you called me out on it, I would like some evidence to the point), I have not simply pandered to Zarque’s requests. We have had some disagreements about how things play out, yes. Most of you who have gamed with me for a bit know that I am pretty much a “sure, let’s try that” type of GM. As long as it doesn’t take away much from the spotlight of the others, I usually let players play something that makes sense to them. Due to the inherent West Marches type of campaign that PbP tends to gravitate towards, we lose characters left and right and once a core group gets going and we add a few more, the common player and character trust has to constantly be reestablished. I had hoped that since all of us were pretty used to PbP by now, there was an unspoken rule of let’s try to work together to keep the story going. I am seeing that at this point, we have come to a head on this.
Bottom line is you are supposed to be a team. Yes, you each have your own individual ideas on how things should go, but for the most part, the group has to stick together, even if not everyone agrees on the course ahead. This of course opens up the lines of “I told you so” or whatever, but that can be played out in game. More to point, the staff. I am not a GM who likes to take things back from players that they have won fair and square. If the bad guy takes it back in game, that’s different, but I won’t arbitrarily remove something from a player’s inventory. So that is a moot point in this argument.
Going forward, if we can not come to a consensus, one of three things will happen: we can agree to disagree and try to move forward with the game in a more cooperative manner, or someone can decide this isn’t the game for them and move on (I had hoped it wouldn’t come to this, but I sometimes forget that not all groups get along), or finally (and this is my worst case) everyone decides it isn’t working and we close down the game. My vote is obviously the first option, but I feel that many of you are leaning towards the second. All of us (I am making a big assumption here, as I’m basing this on what I know of the vocabulary skills of children), are adults and I assume that as adults, we can work this out to an agreeable solution for everyone. Now, I am going to step back and let you decide how you want to proceed.
You cannot make giving the staff to someone else work IC, while others cannot make it work that you kept hold of it. That is when matters become OOC instead of IC, and people cast their opinion - you should accept the voice of the majority, and try to make it work for your character. Sounds simple to me.
First, not that simple. I need in-character motivation to work with, and no one has given me any.
Second, this is not really an in-game issue. Consider for a moment, why can others not accept me keeping it?
I have stated my reasons for my side of the issue and stated what the problem is, in character motivation required. Anyone here can try to offer a solution, or even try to just roleplay out the issue.
But what about Sil? Sil's reasons boil down to his lack of control and/or trust. Nothing about the game itself.
Basically, we each had in-game things we want that are contradictory. Sil is angry because it didn't go his way. He does not care why, and the gameplay isn't what matters to him, because if it did, he would try to solve it in-game where the trouble is. Except the conflict is not in-game, that is why he doesn't care about the in-game issue. His problem is out of game. I didn't immediately appease his demands, so he has a problem with me, not my character, me. He can't accept any solution tjat isn't his except for my removal. To just hand over what he wants is called Appeasement. Turns out that simple appeasement is a bad idea, all of ww2 happened because people thought appeasement would avoid further conflict, but it just makes things worse. Sil is demanding appeasement. Nothing good will come from that. Giving in just to avoid the conflict will only buy a bit of time before the next time he doesn't get his way, and it'll be worse next time.
I said what my issue is, so that anyone can help provide a solution in-game.
But also consider this, Sil is all about the players and story, so why is it so important to him? It may be an issue of trust for the characters, but what about the trust of the players? Sil isn't attacking in game because his character has a problem trusting zarque, Sil is attacking me the player out of game because he doesn't trust what is going on out of game. We are better off if zarque still has the staff because then the active party would still have the staff. Not a concern for Sil. Also, when it comes to out of character, does it really matter who has it, after all, if an active party member has it, then presumably the whole party has access to it. And as a game, better for the party to have it. But Sil doesn't care, he only cares that I didn't give in to his demands. He doesn't try to negotiate. He doesn't try to narrow down on the barrier to be overcome in some way so we can find a solution in game. His only acceptable solution is to do what he wants, his way or else.
Yea, I admit the rest of group wants to just give him what he wants, to appease him. No one has offered a comprise except the implicit compromise I offered of giving me some in-character motivation. No one offered a solution when I drilled down and described the lynchpin problem so that a solution can be worked on, (the "help me with a solution" was implied I admit, but should still have been quite obvious), if that lynchpin problem can be solved then we could move on, but no one offered a solution. Sil in particular stated that he doesn't care what my problem is. He doesn't want to find a solution that works for everyone, he only wants a solution that works for him. I can't abide by that. I'll never appease. We can work together to find a compromise, or go separate ways, or something else, but I will never give in to people who bully their way into getting what they want regardless of the cost to others. I've dealt with that enough in my life, watched family burn because of it. To hell with appeasement.
Hope you guys enjoy the rest of the game. I'll be around the boards somewhere.
It probably means little to you, but from my perspective, you were the one who wanted your own way or nothing else. I thought this whole time we were appeasing you, over and over, to avoid conflict, and Sileven was the one who finally snapped and said no more appeasement.
" it would break the character to hand it over. Her word is important, the safety of her home is important. Both of those things means keeping the staff until needed elsewhere or it can be broken depending on what it's for. I can't play broken characters."
If I had said this to you, meaning that Idun would not give you the staff or would be a broken character I could not play... what then exactly?
Is it on you then to give to me a reason, to my own satisfaction, that Idun should give Zarque the staff?
Clearly, all the reasons you've given me so far haven't convinced me, so would you still be in the wrong for not offering me a compromise that I like enough?
In short, I would advise being careful that you do not become what you hate so vehemently.
There hasn't been multiple occasions of appeasing me. Additionally, my problem has been in-character.
To answer this example,
If I had said this to you, meaning that Idun would not give you the staff or would be a broken character I could not play... what then exactly?
Then I wouldn't have a problem with you the player at all.
It would entirely be in character that anything occurs. If Idun had actually grabbed the staff rather than demanding it from Zarque. Zarque would try everything to convince her to hand it over, maybe even try to steal it (which has the added benefit of pointing out how easily it can be stolen). Of course, she'd only go that far because she gave her word. If she hadn't given her word, she'd not try theft, but she'd keep a real close eye on Idun, almost like Idun had grown a kobold from her hip, and if the staff got stolen or lost or misused, Idun wouldn't hear the end of it.
But the point is, I wouldn't be making demands of you the player, and I most certainly wouldn't be calling you a bad person because of it.
Clearly, all the reasons you've given me so far haven't convinced me, so would you still be in the wrong for not offering me a compromise that I like enough?
I haven't figured out a compromise, but I can say this, it'd need to be handled in character. Idun or the others would need to convince Zarque to hand it over, which would require some sort of justification.
Grenz originally asked for him and drek to watch it while I spoke to the priest. Zarque didn't particularly like that, but would've agreed had that actually ended up happening because there was some legitimate issues there. Putting the person with the real staff in the same room as the priest is naturally a concern. Zarque would feel safe doing so anyway because the priest wouldn't even be able to detect it, but the concern is legitimate enough.
But that is not what ended up happening. And Sil expects me to hand the staff over for out of character reasons, while giving me nothing but reasons to withhold it from him both in and out of character.
Also, given Sil's demanding behaviour with no regard for our differences in values and no effort to understand the issue and try to resolve the issue in way agreeable to everyone, I'm not sure I want to even try playing with him.
You Caprice are the only one to really ask the good kind of questions, the kind that engenders faith that if was you and I as the primary participants in having the problem, I figure you and I could work something out, eventually figuring out some way to resolve everything.
Grenz wasn't to bad, but seemed fine with superficial solutions that are not really working for deeper reasons.
Ok, I suppose I have to chime in here...
IMO, rpg's are a team game. That means that we do need to work together. Just like a basketball team can't afford one player refusing to pass. And apparently you're that player Zarque. There are things as the arcane type that you should be handling, but haven't, even when I drop blunt hints in discussion. We still haven't had a spellcraft check on the staff. Not to mention assorted amulets, etc... You don't pay attention to anyone else's opinion, as this discussion has demonstrated, not to mention this, or blowing up a perfectly good ambush on that last ghoul...
And to be very blunt, if we're going on about in character motivations, it would entirely be in character for Khamul to buy a garotte and use it on Zarque one night. He's willing to keep the relationship to business (and I think I have), but you keep poking at him and there will be a response...
Guys, I am going to remain silent on this debate going forward. I think everything has been said already.
That means that we do need to work together.
True, but working together doesn't mean just doing whatever I'm told.
Just like a basketball team can't afford one player refusing to pass.
There is a problem with your analogy here. A pass is made to progress the team's strategy, to become closer to winning.
I'm not hindering the progression of the story by holding the staff. No one has need of it, Zarque isn't refusing to let the party investigate or anything.
Quite literally, the only in-game aspect of this problem is that I didn't do as Sil told me to. Sil didn't even tell me in game, he merely complained in an insulting way.
Out of game, Sil has been aggressive and rude. Not once did he ever try to diplomatically try to resolve anything. He never tried to have a nice calm conversation "Hey man, you're doing this thing and I don't like it. What's the problem? Can we work together to solve this issue?" Nope, he never tried.
To use basketball, he joined the team and decided he was going to just give orders even though he has no authority to do so, and when a player doesn't do as he commanded, he berates them for not being a good little soldier and following orders.
That's not teamwork.
And apparently you're that player Zarque. There are things as the arcane type that you should be handling,
Who the hell decided I should be handling what?
There are common concepts, but not all of those concepts are shared by everyone, and many of them are not in the rules at all, some even contradict the rules.
There was no checklist given at character creation for all the jobs I needed to perform to qualify.
You should be careful about unsaid expectations. Others will not always share those expectations.
That said,
even when I drop blunt hints in discussion.
I honestly haven't caught any hints. I'm seriously bad at catching hints. Don't hint at me, as I'm unlikely to notice even when the hint seems big and obvious to you.
We still haven't had a spellcraft check on the staff. Not to mention assorted amulets, etc...
Not exactly good at identifying things, it's not really something I expected to be doing.
Also, I miss stuff a lot in pbp. It's one reason why I prefer the table. I'm only doing pbp because I can't do a table game right now.
You don't pay attention to anyone else's opinion, as this discussion has demonstrated, not to mention this,
This wasn't a lack of listening to opinions. You posted, then the gm posted and just assumed that I ignored you. I certainly didn't post ignoring you.
Additionally, once I did post and you reposted in the discussion thread, I did take your opinion into account, as I said I would have waited for everyone to get away who wanted to, which is exactly what you said you wanted. Of course, the gm had already posted less than 90 minutes after your opinion, and basically said that the rumbling wasn't me anyway so nothing to worry about.
So no, that was not an example of me ignoring your opinion. You wanted to stand clear first, the gm then posted before I could even catch up on what happened. I certainly didn't have an opportunity in the game thread to respond to you in any way before the gm posted. I can't be blamed for that.
or blowing up a perfectly good ambush on that last ghoul...
I tried something. It didn't pan out.
The lack of a surprise round wasn't entirely on me, though admittedly I had a big effect on that. Still, surprise is when it is npt expected that there will be combat. Not exactly a normal expectation from a mysteriously locked door.
Besides, I didn't see you interfering with her plan nor even trying to get her to not try it, and since you posted, you clearly could have.
Thankfully it didn't make a difference anyway. The only difference would have been you guys killing the minion rather than the bad guy.
And to be very blunt,
Extreme bluntness is usually best policy with me.
if we're going on about in character motivations, it would entirely be in character for Khamul to buy a garotte and use it on Zarque one night.
Actually, I want to thank you for that. Usually when I play a monster race, that fact is entirely ignored. So it was refreshing to have a character that obviously thinks the reputation is correct.
Still, it just means that Zarque doesn't trust you either. I mean seriously, you want to kill her.
Would've been nice for that to change over time though.
He's willing to keep the relationship to business (and I think I have), but you keep poking at him and there will be a response...
Khamul makes remarks too. Seemed like really good rp to me to have the friction, but if that's not how you see it, then my apologies.
I did kind of think that way myself, but I figured I'd let everyone chime in... That said, we still need to figure out what to do next.
Personally, unless we get something time-critical from ghoul or Red Fist, I'd actually like to take a couple of days of downtime in game, because we have chores to catch up on. First Id'ing the loot, disposing (either keeping or selling) and upgrading our equipment... Also, there are so many things we should be researching (or at least commissioning someone like Quink to research)
Also, something we need to settle. Who's still in and do we want/need to recruit? I think I can safely say Khamul, Idun and Grenz are all still posting...
Agreed with you on all accounts Khamul, but I am not sure the characters can take downtime 'per se' - there is still a murderer on the loose...
I am not adverse to some loot though :P
Agreed with you on all accounts Khamul, but I am not sure the characters can take downtime 'per se' - there is still a murderer on the loose...
I thought the ghoul we fought and captured was the murderer?
He was under the impression he hinted at something else? Being controlled? Did I imagine it?
Yes, he hinted at being controlled. However, in terms of the guy with bloody hands, he's it, I think.
Also, something we need to settle. Who's still in and do we want/need to recruit?
I'm leaving it up to you guys whether you want me to stay or go. I won't be offended either way. I think we all know Sil's vote though, if he is still here. If he is, it is probably choosing which of us stays.
Yes, he hinted at being controlled. However, in terms of the guy with bloody hands, he's it, I think.
Ok, got it.
I'm leaving it up to you guys whether you want me to stay or go. I won't be offended either way. I think we all know Sil's vote though, if he is still here. If he is, it is probably choosing which of us stays.
Also, something we need to settle. Who's still in and do we want/need to recruit?
I am not going to cast votes either way - not my place to decide whether a player stays or is removed from a game. Not trying to shake responsibilities, but I think that is up to the DM.
In any case, does this mean you have changed your stance on the whole 'staff incident'?
No. That is something that is important to her, and therefore to be played out ic.
I can see why your characters might be concerned about it. I do not see why you the players would be.
In any case, if there something that needs doing with the staff, Zarque'll be supportive, such as getting someone to identify it.
Telling her she is untrustworthy and not allowed to hold the staff is not something she'd consider a "need." Not to mention the fact that she'd simply respond in kind, telling you that you are also untrustworthy, and she'd ask for a better reason to hand it over. If you can give her one, a reason to give up on her word (she is lawful, so promises important), then she'd do so, hesitantly perhaps.
Understood. I will wait for DM ShadowBloodmon decision then regarding your permanence in the game.
Also, something we need to settle. Who's still in and do we want/need to recruit? I think I can safely say Khamul, Idun and Grenz are all still posting...
Honestly, I'm quite happy with Khamul, Idun, Grenz as a party. We seem consistent (even if sometimes Khamul has to DM me, thanks for that!), and roleplay well together. We seem to be a startlingly effective combat team, and, through all the lost players, have a very deep pool of allies to call on for areas of expertise that fall outside our domain, such as identifying mysterious magical artifacts and such.
That said, if you want to recruit, I'm always fine with trying new people.
As for Zarque. Um, just from what's been posted in this last few OOC posts, I feel like if Zarque's on the team still, we just get to argue about the staff and whose fault things are and what's the proper way to roleplay again for a few weeks instead of making progress, because that still seems to be a do or die for DarkLightHitomi.
Normally I leave such things up to the players to vote on, as it is their game, as well as mine. Here is the thing: Zarque is not going to give up the staff lightly, especially in light of recent events. Her upbringing and sense of loyalty to Sandpoint, despite what the other residents may think of her, don’t allow her to. On that note, Zarque also has another agenda that doesn’t directly correlate to the story, but can be easily played out via PM.
My proposal is this: The current party (Khamul, Idun, Sil, Grenz) continues, knowing that the real staff is in safe hands for now. Zarque will go to PM and continue her journey on a different path. I will tie in parts of the story if they interrelate with one another as needed. If that is not acceptable to the party, then we can discuss other options.
I realize this puts more work on me, but I’d rather that than simply kick someone out because they have a difference of opinion. At this point, I am not ready to add even more people to the pile. I think the rest of the group has developed a decent sense of camaraderie and we can continue with that.
Very well.
I'll be around folks, good gaming till we meet again.
Ok, so Zarque is off with the real staff, doing her (evil, tricksy, koboldy) thing.
So the staff that we is discussing, Here, is the fake...
I'm putting this in discussion because this is going to get long, involved and OOC...
As a party, we have issues right now. Khamul is built as a scout and a brute for general purpose work (and has quite a bit of fill in the cracks tools for downtime if it's available). Sileven and Grenz are both brutes. Idun I'm not quite sure about (a haste effect is pretty potent for a lvl 4 caster, and so is her perception boost. But I'm not too sure she what else she has for utility magics.) A big question is how do we handle healing? (I can only UMD (+8 for the record) a wand of CLW).
Our current jobs list looks like this
1) Interrogate ghoul and red fist. Who does social skills?
2) Figure out our loot. Who does Knowledges and spellcraft?
3) Grenz wants to go see Habe (who owns the sanitorium somewhere out of town). Not sure why?
My best ideas for solutions:
We take a "down" day today. I seance (yeah, I didn't do my seance yet today deliberately) trickster and pick up Intimidate and Diplomacy (and a bonus to my sense motive), so we have the skills to do the interrogations. During this day we take the magic gear to Quink and try to get him onside to do the figureing out of the loot. We can also ask a lot of questions around town during this day - A) Follow up at the Pixies Kitten wrt to the messages to the Bloody Knuckles gang, b) Find out who's basement wall we dug a brick out of, c)...
Depending on what shakes out of the interrogations, we go see Habe tomorrow.
What does everyone else think?
Khamul, all this discussion had a point. And the point was that Drek’Thar would have the true staff. That is what I am assuming.
As for the rest, I am a old school player, so my approach is also old school - it does not matter that much we are missing certain skills or roles, we have to make do with what we have. Whatever it is we need to do, we try to do as best as possible with our characters and the rest is all part of the story.
If we need a particular ability, or skillset we do not have, heck, we search for it around town, we use our connections, enlist the help from the sheriff or the mayor, etc. Bottom line, we play it out and see where it takes us. I do think there is such a thing as too much OOC chat ;)
As for your seances, personally I would very much like to see you starting to role play them, instead of using them as an utility belt - perhaps there is a seance you cannot actually carry out, or even better, you do not want to? Dunno, stuff along those lines. I know versatile characters are useful, but I do not think a player should take advantage of a relaxed downtime approach, to change characters from one day to another, by swapping ‘loadouts’. I actually prefer dealing with the hardships of not having all the keys for all the locks, and needing to use the tools we actually do have as best as possible.
That being said, Grenz wants to see Habe because the sheriff has brought him in to check the undead we captured. So he can go do just that with Sileven or Idun, while you interrogate the Red Fist.
About loot, my logic is the same - if we cannot do it, we need to find someone around Sandpoint to help us with it. If we cannot find anyone for now, doesn’t matter - either we forget it for now, or we try to pay for a specialist to come in from the closest largest city and then help us with it. It can be a whole side arc/story finding and securing help for magical identification of items. Who knows, maybe even one of us can find a patron who will teach us the fine art of Spellcrafting? This is an RPG, anything can happen.
WRT to who has the staff, that call got made, HERE, by ShadowBloodMoon.
WRT to the rest of it, I guess we can do it IC. It doesn't actually sound like you have much of a different plan than I do. Although I hadn't gotten that Habe was coming to Sandpoint (Belor :"I’m bringing Habe in on this, maybe that weasel can figure out what is going on."), not us going to him... So today's plan is to spend time in Sandpoint asking a bunch of questions.
Solid.
This is what had me saying we should 'go to Habe'