o_o
I guess that's why ogre's always have clubs. I need to start double checking rules before making declarative statements. Sorry!
He could however take one of the guard's clubs.
If Melocracy/Gunter manages to save him, he will probably take a little club. If he doesn't... well, I guess we don't have to worry about the Ogre anymore.
I think if there is an item more than one person could use equally well we should always roll off for it right away. If it's an item only one person in the party can clearly use they get it.
Actually the best way to do loot to completely avoid conflict is a buy out system where all the loot is considered to be sold and the gold divided amongst the players evenly. Then if one person wants an item not to be sold, they use their portion of the virtual gold (or actual gold) to buy it out. They can go into debt against future party loot, but won't receive anything until their debt is satisfied. If two people want the same thing they bid for it up to the item's full price and then roll off.
Example would be we add up all the stuff we've found so far and divide it by six. For ease of example lets say it comes to 50 GP each (including the masterwork sword). Whoever took the masterwork sword would forfeit their fifty and still owe three hundred some to the party. When they pay it back, it's divided evenly amongst the other PCs.
That requires an amount of record keeping that I'm unwilling to undertake though.
That's my preferred system, I vote for that! Especially in an evil party I think it makes sense, and Asmodeus is the Lord of Contracts afterall.
Do you wanna keep track of it all? :P
Loup/Lysander hasn't posted in another game I'm in with him, or on any of his main aliases since March 7th. Hate to say it, but I'm afraid either something happened to him IRL, or he just went cold turkey on Paizo's boards. I've played with him a fair amount and it's definitely not normal for him to go this long without posting.
Cool. That's probably best then. Most fair way to do it.
Hey, I'm back, and Katrin/WesternWolf nailed it--RL hit me with a bad illness which has kept me more or less occupied for this time. I'd love to jump back in.
Good to see you back! The only thing that's really happened since you left was that we finished the combat that we started while you were still here (I was out for a few days due to travel), and now we're just dividing up treasure and attempting to heal Grumblejack (in Melocracy/Gunter's case).
I like the buyout system as well and that is what I usually advocate in a group.
My only issue with what has been suggested is with the random element. I don't see the point, or how it could be better than a natural system of acquisition. In every game I have ever played in, the character who discovers an item, first acquires it, or brings it to the group, has first right of claim or refusal on it, unless he is already above the party average in terms of items, or another players is far more suited to the item.
It makes no sense to me that when a character picks up an item they are capable of using, that is not necessarily better suited to another character, that they would not keep it. In a place in the story where all characters are equal in terms of what they have (nothing), then no character has more claim in general, and therefore no one has better claim than the one who acquired it.
Now, if he already had something while all else had nothing, of course he should give it up; unless of course the group voted to pool all the best equipment with one character so they could tank or something.
As far as I can tell, it is just as fair in terms of overall distribution, and makes far more sense in terms of in-character sensibilities. The random element seems to be a massive separation between in-character play and OOC convention.
Now, in this case, I gave it up because I don't feel like a fight. But I think that had Taemon'dow wanted it, he would have had, and should have had, every right to lay claim on it.
Of course, if I am the only one who feels this way, I will go with the player majority and ignore this aspect of RP for the sake of game cohesion. I vote for a buyout system, but with natural acquisition. The random lots to be used if the discoverer declines or is ineligible, and there are multiple party's interested and willing to count the item against their share.
Its not like real life though, because the person who posts first simply gets to pick things up, and that sort of system will make it in a characters best interest to be fighting they guy with the best loot as opposed to being where it serves him best tactically. I've never played with a group that went with first come first served.
I also think it makes little sense in the group, there is no way Darsis would let someone take the human bane greatsword of his dreams because they picked it up first. However if we make an IC agreement and bid for things everyone can hopefully end up satisfied, and if you loose an item you wanted its because someone had more funds or you weren't willing to pay as much as they were.
Also never played in a group that does first come first serve. Seems especially horrible idea for an evil group that have little reason not to just kill each other to begin with.
So I owe the group half the gold worth of a masterwork longsword.
I've never played in group that randomly distributed things, so I suppose we're even there.
What I have talked about is not 'First Come, First Serve' it is First right of claim, and there is a world of difference. I see no difference between a person having claim because he found it, and another having claim because the lots said so, except that one make sense IC. Why would a character give up an item that is already in their hands and that they all ready consider theirs to chance? The dwarves did not make Frodo give Sting up to lots because he found it, if they had, the story would have been very different.
You mentioned that if we make an IC agreement to bid, etc. That would be great if there had been a discussion, but there was not. One character came up to another and demanded the weapon that he had just rested from the foe he was fighting. IC it would make very little sense to even give that the time of day. Only if an explination of how someone else could use it better or had better claim had come with it would Taemon'dow even acknowledge it.
You do have a point about PbP not being like live-play, and it's a good one.
I agree that having no agreed upon system is probably a terrible idea for an evil group, and to be honest I considered whether T should kill D for his impertinence (or attempt it), but decided against it, as that is a quick way to derail a game.
I think you have good points about the game play issues, and how PbP issues exacerbate that, but I think at this juncture you are relying far too much on your OOC thinking to validate it in game. If you want there to be an agreement in game, there needs to be an agreement in game. I still contend that while we are fighting for our lives is a poor time to discuss such matters.
I don't want this to be a confrontation or digress into an argument; you just apperantly come from a different set of players than I do. I'm not exaggerating when I say I have never heard of doing things that way. As I said, I disagree with your thinking, but am willing to go with the group. I'd like to hear from the other players to see where the majority of opinions lay.
"Why would a character give up an item that is already in their hands and that they all ready consider theirs to chance? The dwarves did not make Frodo give Sting up to lots because he found it, if they had, the story would have been very different."
The dwarves weren't evil. We need to use this system, so that we don't ruin the game by just killing each other.
Also, we could waste a bunch of time talking about it in character (days of real time arguing most like), which would quickly degenerate into threats of violence (the only way we have to force our wills on each other at this juncture) OR we can just agree on a fair way to do it OOC like you would at a table with a real gaming group and get back to playing the game.
Granted, this is an evil group, and therefore different than a typical group. I'm disagreeing with your position though, not necessarily your solution.
Fair enough we can agree to disagree, I don't think debating the issues further is going to be very helpful. So we have two votes for the proposed system and one against?
Hmmm, I suggest we only take the longbows, chainshirts, and rapier, other than items we wish to use. The total weight of ten longbows, and ten chainshirts is 280lbs which is easily distributed amongst us. We might want to ask the Sergeant if there are any horses near the prison...
I'm not sure how wise trying to kill everyone in the prison would be, but Darsis is up for giving it a shot. We probably need to deal with the wizard to ensure he does not send for help, etc.
Okay, Mavro, I know you're going to be upset with my action. First of all lets address out of character reasoning. Aspros should scout as he can be summoned back and we can't. Not to mention that he has a +7 stealth (without looking, I'd guess that's the highest in the party).
Now for the in-character reasons. On her character sheet, I listed three things Katrin always does. You hit two of them in one go.
1) "She'll always avenge an insult."
2) "She'll never back down from a man."
Would Mavro really antagonize the completely insane giant murderous woman that he just met, or is he just doing that because the player knows there's no PVP? Mavro has seen that she could probably chop him in half in one blow, and OBVIOUSLY has a huge psychotic chip on her shoulder. I took the action that Katrin would have taken (actually she would have just killed Mavro, but I know that's off limits as a player). Next time you want to get somewhere with Katrin don't insult her.
If you would have responded as Aspros, or in a less obviously combative manner this didn't need to escalate. I was making a smart suggestion, worded the way magically ignorant Katrin would say it. I fully expect Mavro to get her back someday, or to allow her to die at some point. Just sad it had to go this way. But if there are a bunch of meta walls in the game to prevent us from acting the way our characters would actually act then there is no point in playing evil characters at all.
Its a pretty big IC assumption to make that other characters have read your character sheet Katrin. She probably should not attack Mavro IC because the rest of us would cut her down in seconds. Mavro does not know much about Katrin, and its not his responsibility to do so I suggest you tone down Katrin's qualities a bit given the current situation. IC we really have seen nothing to indicate more than that she does not like to be touched and is pretty aggressive.
I really suggest you change that action because I see no reason why Darsis would not just have decided you are an untrustworthy mad woman and decided to try to gut you. Its your responsibility to make a character who can play within a party not everybody else's responsibility to walk on egg shells because you are crazy.
Why does he need to insult me for making a completely reasonable suggestion? What would Darsis have done if Mavro had done the same to him?
Threatened him and tried to give a clear IC indication that he was second away from attempting to kill him. Remember IC we are in an extremely stressful situation with very dangerous people, taking his eidolon away is like disarming a summoner only more evocative because they are likely very emotionally attached to their eidolon. Its particularly bad for Mavro since his archetype gives up the Summon Monster ability so he looses a big chunk of his power.
Its also potentially a valid in game action, as a DM I'd always make a player roll bluff or stealth to get a surprise round.
Maybe you could have the sword stop at Aspis's throat or some such since you crit, and say say something like that to me again or something?
We are kinda all IC nasty arrogant self centered people, we all need to be a little flexible for this to work.
I'm getting sick of all the posturing. In real life, in ancient times all the way up the 19th century, if you insulted someone that way it was well within your legal right to duel with them and kill them. That's why people used to have manners. You can't go around casually insulting murderers and not have there be any consequences. We'd probably all be a lot more respectful of each other in character if we were actually thinking like people of those times.
Katrin's only threatened another character when touched without her permission, or when someone tried to deny her armament. She's never insulted any of the other characters. Unless you count calling Gunter "the mute".
In the end, what's the point in threatening each other constantly if it will never come to anything? It just increases inter-player antagonism and encourages us to argue more. The insult just came out of nowhere, and Katrin responded in kind. She demands the same respect she offers everyone else.
I'd rather, that instead of being called a coward for no reason and having her intelligence insulted, that some other action was taken by Mavro so that I could respond more reasonably without breaking character. I'd like it even more if we could agree to stop being so nasty to each other. We've all seen that the others are dangerous badasses by now, so lets stop posturing and start working together. Aspros is the best scout for multiple reasons, if Mavro doesn't want to send him out fine. Say so in a reasonable way, and he will get a reasonable response.
I'm going to hold of my exploration posts until the whole inter-party conflict is done, partially because I'd like it to get settled, and also because it's be kind of odd if in the middle of a really intense debate I just started telling everyone about the vegetable garden.
I hope the party will settle down a little, for while I do enjoy the roleplaying, there's a real danger here of the guards killing everyone.
Would you be cool with me changing my action if Mavro changes his DM?
I would be fine with that. If it's past the point where you guys can edit the posts, just make sure to note in the ooc text that it's a retcon.
Jesus H. Bloody Christ on a Stick, do you just do things because you feel like it, or was this all just planned out, Katrin? Upset? I'm just positively livid. I once had a game with a player who acted like that. I almost kicked him out before I killed him and taught him that kind of lesson.
Mavro is obviously a pompous jackass. He believes himself enlightened above all others. He believes he is the scion of all things intellectual. I thought it was understood that we are all jerks, and that I wouldn't have to clarify a mean comment. No offense personally was meant by it, but it seems this vindictive nature goes beyond the throes of character development. This seems personal.
Look, I obviously don't have as much time every day to post as much as you guys, so I at the very least try to make my posts have at least a little punch when I get the chance. Having two characters around to write for is challenging enough so I usually just let one or the other speak. I didn't get around to it for awhile. I was going to have Aspros say he was fine with scouting anyway. I never threatened you though, but now you've cut off my legs right out from under me. Darsis is right, you just f!%!ed me for no other reason other than a supposed "character motivation" which I really don't bite. It was a mean comment, sure, and it's obvious your character is that kind of brute, but could you have at least threatened me first?
No, I'm not going to alter my comment so I can soothe you or your character's ego. Fine then, kill Aspros, but you had better roll initiative first. It's obvious that you'll just nick him and blast the bastard away. At least give my snake the chance to bite your shins before you go along brutally murdering it. I've got one use of Corrosive touch left, and dealing 1d4 damage to the barbarian isn't going to do shit but give you reason to teamkill, so I guess I'll just eke out the next few weeks as an impotent hanger on who acts all solemn because his one hugely important character aspect was killed in an act of vengeance.
I'm more of the No take backs school myself, but that's just me.
When Taemon'dow and Darsis had their pissing contest over the sword, I had the same thought, to Kill Darsis in a surprise action for being so insulting, and from my character's perspective, so wrong. I decided not to for a few reasons, both IC and OOC. IC, killing an ally meant one less guy to help against the foes, and that since the crazy lady seemed to be on Darsis' side, there might be another fight right after, of which he had at best a 50/50 shot of winning. OOC, going down the PvP path is just something you cannot win at. It destroys the game. I don't think I've ever really seen a game survive it.
As for what actually happened, look to yourself first. You insulted Mavro first, and he answered appropriately, by giving Katrin the tongue lashing she deserved. She was being insulting and condescending, and telling someone else what to do; she was in the wrong. How she reacted to being called out only doubled her error. The score as I see it is two mistakes to Katrin, none to Mavro. Now she is in a hell of a situation as not only as she shown herself to be rude an definitely not a team player, she has just attacked a team mate who only told her what she deserved to hear and shown that we can't trust her either.
He suggestion itself was fine in the meat if it, and it is a smart strategy, but that changes none of how it was Mavro's decision what to do with him. Besides, Katrin was making some very genre savvy assumptions about an eidolon for an ignorant savage. How would she know he could be resummoned? Was there a kn: arcana roll there i missed?
Last, the eidolon might not necessarily even disappear, as Mavro has the option to sacrifice HP to keep him present.
I think the most logical outcome here is that Mavro should do so, then we can give him the healing potion, after we kill Katrin.
This undoubtedly a negative aspect of playing an evil campaign. We're all rude, we're all selfish, and we're all badasses. Unless we come up with a storyline that binds us all together and gets us all to trust each other in a hurry, this game is going self destruct quickly. So far, none of this role-play is been fun (no fault of the GM, the gameplay has been great), all the pissing takes away from the game and just seems to get me agitated in real life. I was wondering if I'm just not cut out for an evil game, but now I'm suspecting that many others are in the same boat.
In order to make this fun, we may have to make a ooc agreement, just as was proposed for gear, that we all trust each other and get along. If we're a team thrown together by circumstances and forged by fire, and loyal to each other (or at least not violent towards each other), then the role play might actually start being enjoyable.
Otherwise, I'm all for going down the pvp road, cause at least it will be over quickly.
I'm going to sum-up some things here, so that I don't ramble.
1: PVP is bad. We should avoid at all costs. That includes attacking a summoner's eidolon in my mind, because the eidolon is essentially part of the summoner. It's like attacking a cavalier's mount or a druid's companion--it's a class feature, it's part of who they are and what they do.
2: We're all big, scary badasses IC, except maybe Lysander since he's gone down in a fight, which may have people looking down on him. We should all, IC, be hesitant to pick fights with each other. We're not certain what everybody did just yet, but I believe we have heard that Lysander attempted murdering the king and Katrin killed a few different guys. Presumably, we all know that Branderscar is reserved for the worst of the worst, so we're all extremely dangerous (and possibly mentally unhinged) individuals. It doesn't make sense for us to jump into a fight with each other, especially when we're trying to escape.
3: Lysander has a +8 to stealth if he takes off the chain shirt, which I'm thinking of doing anyway because it helps him a bit, but also hurts a few of his main skills. True, if he dies he's dead, but he might make a good scout--even a better one than a big snake.
IC, if you keep fighting, Lysander's leaving. He'll take his chances in escaping himself and makes his way back to his master. I don't want this game to fall apart, but it looks like some irreconcilable harm has been done. Even if this works out, we've shown ourselves to be a pretty sh*tty team that can't work together very well.
First of all, I should apologize. The attack on your eidolon Mavro was an overreaction, even if it is in character. I would be pissed if I were you (I was also pissed when I posted). Text based communication fails to communicate tone of voice and body language. Rereading your post several hours later it seems less insulting than it did at first.
So far, none of this role-play is been fun (no fault of the GM, the gameplay has been great), all the pissing takes away from the game and just seems to get me agitated in real life. I was wondering if I'm just not cut out for an evil game, but now I'm suspecting that many others are in the same boat.
Agreed. This is not in the least fun for me, I don't want to argue, I don't want to ruin other people's fun. I don't want to PVP unless that's the point of the game.
I will withdraw my action, in exchange for an OOC agreement that we stop insulting/threatening each other. If we can't do that then I'll withdraw from the game and leave you guys to play however you see fit.
+1 to the retracted attack and an agreement not to insult or threaten. I'd also be fine with an amendment that we may insult, but we all understand it's just the characters being their d*ckish selves, and we're all careful not to take it far.
For example, we've now learned that Katrin doesn't take well to being called a coward, nor does she like men challenging her. Mavro doesn't like it when his eidolon or his religion are insulted. I can speak and say that Lysander won't abide his master being attacked, though I doubt that's a big thing that'd happen from a PC.
The apology is accepted and I apologize as well for not making it clear enough my intentions with my characters as well as acting to brashly. I agree with the agreement that we don't threaten each other. None of our characters want to get into a fight anyway as we're all smart enough to realize the folly in that line of reasoning. I'd rather not have the PbP split up because our evilness and contentious natures got in the way of anyone's fun.
That said, it'd be best if we limit in-character insults to a minimum, used only with a degree of character affability. I've had all-good games where someone took the piss out of someone but as long as everyone's in on the joke and it's all in good humor then it should be fine.
I'm glad that everyone's calmed down and this is all settled. For the future, I think I'll be instituting the rule that PvP is simply not allowed, which I admit I took a bit for granted. As proposed, this rule would also involve eidolons, animal companions, mounts, cohorts, and the like. I don't think this is necessary after we've had this conversation, but I'd still like to have this in place- also, specifying cohorts will be good for the future if anyone takes leadership. (I have some other specific rules on Leadership, some of which are my own and some of which come from the AP, which we will get to when that time comes)
It's just hard to tell when someone's joking through reading sometimes (especially since we're all supposed to be evil and none of us are friends IRL). If we were sitting around a table I doubt any of this would have happened.
So yeah, ignore my attack and Gunter's reaction to it. I will post a retcon action.
This aside I think the RP is fine, I like to think of it as building a story and most interesting relationships begin with friction. It would be horribly realistic if the bunch of evil criminals who had never met worked as a flawless team from the off. The group needs to learn to trust one another, and we can force that to an extent IC, but it would spoil the story if it was nonsensical for us to do so, etc.
Yeah, I'm fine with RP, just sick of threatening.
Same here. I'm cool with the working relationship being a little hazy for a while, but constantly giving death threats that we all know OOC are empty gets old fast.
Hey, sorry about not posting! I've been traveling, could've sworn I posted on that in discussion for each game I'm in, but I guess not. Sorry about leaving everybody hanging, but looks like it worked out for the best in the end.
Hey, just a check-in to let you know that I have some family visiting for Mother's Day, so I don't have much time to post. I might get some in at school, but I probably won't be able to post from home for a few days. Please bot me as needed! Thanks.
So, the other group may have dissolved and fallen apart. As it is, there's one person left in that group- Travis. I've been talking with him about potential options, and it may end up that he could join this group.
I'd like to approve this with everyone before we do anything, as well as attempt to integrate him and his character into this.
The thing is, I'm kind of stuck on how to integrate him if he did join. My main idea would be that his group was a prior failed escape attempt, with only him surviving, which would make everything he did over there still canon. Though there are some issues with people who are double-killed and the like. Or, if integrated into the group once out of prison, his way in could be edited?
Travis, original members of this group, what do you think? You'll probably come up with better ideas than I have.
Honestly I'd say this game is still a few steps from the grave due to the slow pacing, but if you want to add more blood, he should conform to the timeline he's joining. Either we find him in a cell, or we find him outside if we're not going to pass any more cells on our way out.
Hopefully, with the end of finals and such for college students, the slack might be taken up a tad.
As for the new dude, I'm fine with a new member. If we are going to escape out of the gatehouse, I'd think it unlikely that we'd run into any more cells, but there might be a hotbox or solitary for attempted escapees. Who knows? The double-kill thing is impossible to rectify without a retcon on his end, I suppose, so this is one of the few times I think it's justified.
I'm fine with the new member, but I agree that any retcon should be on his end.
Hey, everybody. I'm sorry for my absence. It was much longer than intended. I really only was going to be away for a few days as family visited. Then the hammer of life came crashing down--AP tests, school work as the year comes to a close, trying to find a summer job... Things piled up. As such, it's been two weeks since I even got on the forum.
That said, school is still in session for a couple weeks, and after that I'm planning to get a job in the summer. All that aside, the absence has made me realize how busy I am and made me think about my ability to keep everything together. As such, I'm trying to get my affairs in order and make sure I'm only trying to do what I can do. I'd hate to bog other people down with substandard playing, and that means cutting some losses.
I'm sorry to have to say it, but I need to drop out of this game, everyone. I've had a lot of fun playing in it, and I wish everybody the best, but I've realized that I'm trying to do too much. I hope to get a chance to play with you all in the future, when I'm more able to participate in PbP games like this.
Best of luck to you all, and happy gaming!
--Loup Blanc
P.S. Perhaps Travis could be worked in to replace Lysander, somehow?
We haven't heard from Darsis in a month, we haven't heard from Gunter in two, it's coming up on two weeks since we've heard anything from Mavro as well. It seems like me an Taemon'dow are the only ones really left playing this game, and two does not a party make. I'd like to either see some new blood brought in, and more frequent descriptive posts from the DM, or I'm probably going to drop out of this and go looking for another WoTW game.
I'd drop now, but I want to give it one more chance to get better before I depart.
Alright, so should two longer posts a day be good, except on days I don't have access to the internet, or would you prefer more? My current living situation is such that I occasionally go to a place without access to the internet, without warning. My parents are divorced, and while I am an adult and can just tell the parent who doesn't have the internet "no, I don't want to go to your house" he is also the parent who pays the most for my college tuition, so I have to be careful not to upset him.
On looking for people: Would you guys prefer four more for the full six, or two more so we could hypothetically go faster? Any particular roles you're looking for? I realize as the DM this is ultimately my decision, but input would be nice in deciding what to do.
Yeah, two people does not a game make. I'd like to have a full party if we're gonna keep doing this.
Alright, re-recruitment thread is up. I've told the group I'm looking for four more people.
Newcomers have been found. I have four more now, hopefully rounding out the party to the full six.
I'm going to attempt to make it so that everyone isn't all coincidentally arriving at the house at the same exact time, so here is where everyone would be. As I said in the recruitment thread, the newcomers wouldn't be in Branderscar or have escaped from there, but rather escaped on the way to there, so please change that if it's in your backstories.
Out of the group, I'd like part of the group to be currently approaching the house at the same time as Taemon'dow and Katrin, and the other part to be already in there, waiting for the others to arrive. There's roleplaying opportunities either way, so take your pick. If you can't decide, I'll pick for you. If you're approaching the house, you'll pretty much see the same thing I described in my last post. If you're already in, I'll send you a PM about your arrival, and what's happened. Even the people who have already arrived have been there less than a day or so.
Anyway, welcome to the new people!