| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
New Paizo Blog article that mentions this scenario HERE
|
I'm happy to be here with the scenario author as GM! I'll be bringing my level 9 mesmerist.
This particular character has never done play-by-post before; usually Lens gives everyone at the table a free fortune reading voucher (which may or may not be implanted with a trick); he also inhabits a creepy fortune telling machine from time to time. We'll see how well this translates to the text medium. Lens happens to look exactly like the person (William Blake), pictured on the fortune telling vouchers.
Please let me know if you have any questions about my character or the archetype.
|
So there is a druid, brawler, and fighter/brawler/inquisitor. I assume at least 2 out of those 3 are front liners. Also we have a cleric whom I believe is likely buff focused, but am quite unsure. With those, It seems it'd be best for me to bring an archer (as it were). I also have a frontline focused switch hitter and 3 healers (though one is more buff focused). Preferences?
|
|
Archer might be cool.
@GM BrOp: Turns out I'll be GMing this scenario on March 20th (I will start prepping about a week beforehand). I signed up to play this before I realized that. Is this okay with you? While I can separate player knowledge from character knowledge, I wanted to check with you and be upfront about this in advance.
@GM BrOp: Turns out I'll be GMing this scenario on March 20th (I will start prepping about a week beforehand). I signed up to play this before I realized that. Is this okay with you? While I can separate player knowledge from character knowledge, I wanted to check with you and be upfront about this in advance.
I have no problem with that.
FYI, I live in the GMT+10 Time Zone, so this game might be starting a bit earlier than your others on March 11th.
Please provide the following information:
Player Name (as you would like it to appear on your chronicle)
Character Name
Character Number
Faction
Day Job
Also let us know if there's anything about your PC we should know.
For those of you who haven't posted your info, please do so ASAP and then head over to the Gameplay thread. Outpost II has begun!
|
Player Name: Joe Bouchard
Character Name: Ruby Azuranti
Character Number: 151608-4
Faction: Silver Crusade
Day Job:
Things GM Should Know
Ruby has two rituals she performs with the party before we get underway (technically, they last 24 hours so she would do these each day if we are traveling):
Caravan Bond: At 1st level, by leading a group prayer for 1 minute, a Varisian pilgrim can select a number of traveling companions equal to her cleric level + her Wisdom bonus. She may use her domain-granted powers on any of these traveling companions as if they were her. She can use these abilities on her traveling companions at a range of up to 30 feet, even if the ability normally requires her touch.
Blessing of the Harrow: Once per day, a harrower may perform a harrowing for herself and all allies within 20 feet of her. This harrowing takes 10 minutes, and allies to be affected by it must remain within 20 feet of the harrower for the entire time. At the conclusion of the harrowing, count up the number of cards from each suit that were used in the reading. This harrowing provides a bonus based upon the suit with the most cards showing. In case of a tie, choose one suit. The bonus lasts for 24 hours. The suits grant insight bonuses as follows. Strength: +1 on attack rolls; Dexterity: +1 to AC; Constitution: +1 on weapon damage rolls; Intelligence: +1 on all skill checks; Wisdom: +1 on all saving throws; Charisma: +1 on caster level and concentration checks.
I'll RP both rituals in gameplay when they come up. Caravan Bond doesn't require rolls, but Blessing of the Harrow does. Since Blessing of the Harrow only looks at suits (and not Harrow card alignment), I can just roll 9d6 at the appropriate time and figure out which suit to apply the bonus (1=STR, 2=DEX, 3=CON, 4=INT, 5=WIS, 6=CHA). Just let me know when I should roll this out (I don't want to waste time by rolling on travel days with no encounters).
|
Things GM Should Know
Quick Shot: Whenever the rogue rolls initiative, she can also make a single attack with a ranged weapon as a swift action. She can use this ability only if she has a weapon in hand and it is loaded (if applicable). If more than one rogue has this talent, their initiative check results determine the order in which they make their attacks. After these attacks are resolved, the round proceeds as normal.
Quiet Death: Benefit: When you ambush an enemy or enemies that are unaware of your presence, you can roll a Stealth check with a –5 penalty. The result indicates the Perception DC to hear your attacks (rather than the normal DC of –10 to hear pitched combat) until an opponent’s first action, when the DC returns to –10. Other enemies present can still see the attack; Quiet Death only prevents the sounds of battle from alerting further enemies.
GM - I didn't put anything in my 'stuff the GM should know' section. Are you familiar with Broken Wing Gambit and the other teamwork feats, or should I go over them?
Just letting me know that you have it is enough, thanks. I can look it up if I need to remind myself about the details. That's one of the nice things about PbP games: you can take 10 minutes to look something up and nobody ever knows (as opposed to taking 10 minutes to find something at the table during a F2F game).
|
Player Name: Anthony Balsamo
Character Name: Barnette Bright
Character Number: 128404-3
Faction: Dark Archives
Day Job:
Things the GM should know
My character is a chained Assimar summoner, so yeah ones of the banned for a good reason classes, so I apologise in advance :P
My eidolon is large, has 4 arms with reach and also is immunes to Fire and Sonic damage and has evasion. In diplomatic situations, he stays away but within 600ft so I can use makers call to summon him to my side.
Barnette speaks a lot of languages and is a diplomat, he can re-roll 1 diplomacy check per day for free from his gregarious trait and he is wearing lupine robes so he can add 1d6 to the check 4 times per day.
I'm happy to leave straight away, also I'm GMT+10 as well, Im on the GC where are you based GM BrOp - PFS?
Western Pacific, specifically the island of Yap in the Federated States of Micronesia.
Nice! I was thinking you would be in Aus, I know most the local PFS players around here.
I wish. There aren't any gamers here.
|
|
Regarding rerolls:
I've got 3 Organized Play Accessory Perk rerolls (with a +5 modifier). One I can use myself and two of which I can grant to another player not using their own Organized Play Accessory Perk reroll. I assume most of the players will have their own, but if not (or if you don't have 5 stars), just ask!
I've also got the correct faction pin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Show-off! ;)
Oh, I forgot to mention, we're playing in the 10-11 subtier. Obvs.
Auke, can you add the standard stat block stuff to your avatar, please?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
dank je wel!
Sorry I've been a bit slow the last 24-48. Internet problems here and really busy RL on top of that!
|
|
Finally, if we wish to have further discussions around this topic, I would request we do so in the Discussion tab and not here.]
Agreed.
If Zwei values never interacting with teammates or NPCs, I would also appreciate it if they refrain from giving out-of-character advice on social scenes. If you value playing your character how you want, then don't tell others how to play their characters.
And in general if you're sensitive to feedback, don't dole it out to others, please!
|
|
Sadly purely textual mediums leave things to be desired in the aspect of being at a table. Though I may seem unreasonable, I assure you that I am not. The aforementioned knowledge check was DC 12 (which I assumed someone else would get) and also decided the information was generally unimportant, not really necessitating sharing. I understand that gripe and I assure you that if I do come across a situation where I get vital or useful information, I will definitely share it. Everything thus far has been varying degrees of social situations. My character is not social and doesn't desire to be. I understand how this interacts with your characters and accept the repercussions in order to stay true to the personality of this character. Zwei has many skills (combat and non-combat) and will definitely contribute when he has the ability, until those points, as is his character, he will attempt to remain hidden. I have many characters with many personalities, some contribute and interact as much as you all have, and some are Zwei. Again, as this is a purely textual medium I can do nothing but give you these assurances. You choose whether you will believe me or not.
As for how your character reacts to Zwei's actions, I completely understand the frustration and think that it is completely reasonable. I consider player's personalities and character's personalities to be completely separate.
I am willing to admit that I could have been more explicit about my 'ooc advice'. A comment triggered a frustration that I experience all too often while gaming. To put it more clearly as to my intention:
Just because someone has a higher modifier doesn't mean that they should always be the one to lead the check. I say this in respect to situations where multiple players have built their characters to accomplish the same task and one has a higher modifier than another. It seems unfair to the player with the lower modifier to never get to make the check just because their modifier is lower. My intent was to ensure that everyone gets to contribute as much as they possibly can with respect to their desire. And I speak up because some are too timid to speak up for themselves. I will not cease making such comments as I see this issue far too often and believe it to be a serious problem.
I am particularly sensitive to feedback, because I welcome it. Communication is important and I will continue to communicate.
|
|
And I speak up because some are too timid to speak up for themselves. I will not cease making such comments as I see this issue far too often and believe it to be a serious problem.
Ahh, I see. No one gets to critique the way you play, but you get to critique how others play.
Here's the thing: everyone in this PbP has been communicative and playing a cooperative game except you. And I'm pretty sure no one here needs or wants you to stand up for them. The only individual acting like a bully is you — and as a player, you are still responsible for your PC's actions.
In that context, please understand that neither you as a player, nor your advice, come off particularly well.
I'm sure that isn't your intention, and that you're an awesome and friendly player otherwise, but right now it sure dosn't seem to be the case.
|
|
To say someone's opinion on how checks should be made is bullying seems a bit extreme.
I don't necessarily disagree with the point Zwei was trying to make, in that there shouldn't be a "default" character to make certain checks I'm all for a character who's personality is to jump into social encounter without having the "best" skills doing so as long as it's RP'd properly.
I can see the irony in Zwei statement about not telling him how to play his character, again which I also agree with Zwei.
I think the concerns are valid that being worried about the perception of having a party member that is hiding from authority figures on the plane of law, but I think that the concern was raised now it's up to the GM to decide how to handle that.
This is PFS and it's inclusive to all play styles and personalities. If someone wants to hide from the group that's fine by me as long as they aren't actively working against the party.
So far it's been mainly social encounters which we have enough characters to handle, I'm sure Zwei will have a chance to shine soon enough.
|
|
All fair enough. I'm totally willing to accommodate this playstyle, while expressing concerns both in and out of character.
As to the rest, giving unwanted advice really isn't cool in my book; it's often nothing more than a veiled way to badger players at the table and/or make them conform to a given playstyle. No one here needs that.
This, coupled with incessant rolling against fellow party members, not sharing info, the general rudeness of the PC, and the responses to in-character criticism/concerns has not fostered a cooperative atmosphere… to say the least. As the Roleplaying guide says, "Players are responsible for their characters’ actions. “That’s just what my character would do” is not a defense for behaving like a jerk."
Anyway, I've said my piece… and then some :) As you rightly point out, the ball is in the GM's court.
My personal feeling about this is as follows:
Everyone should be allowed to play their character as they choose. If I feel that one player's play style is hindering the enjoyment of others, I will bring it up privately with that player. Players who feel that other's play style is interfering with their enjoyment of the game, should state so respectively in the OOC Discussion Thread, and hopefully start a respectful discussion on the subject to see if the problem can be resolved.
If a PC is critical of another PC, it is the responsibility of the player being critical to make sure that all other players know that it is the PC who is speaking, and not the player. That way there is no confusion and no assumption that the criticizing player is hiding her own personal criticism behind "that's just how my PC acts".
Here's my suggestion on how we move forward on this:
Zwei, it is clear that your play style has thrown other people off and they, the players, are reacting to it negatively. Would it be possible for Zwei to make a comment that makes it clear that he is trying his best to be useful to the group in the best way he can (by being sneaky), and that he is not hiding because he wants to ostracize the other PCs?
Everyone: can we forgive each other for past statements and actions (both IC and OOC) and try to work together to all have fun in this cooperative game? I'm not saying that if something is bothering you, you can't bring it up, but please let's do this in a respectful way in the OOC Discussion thread and let our PCs be themselves.
Please feel free to make comments on my suggestions. I am the GM (and the author), but this is your game just as much as it is mine.
|
|
IMHO interactions between the different PCs are a big part of a PbP (probably the major advantage it has compared to f2f games). Zwei seems to actively avoid any contact with the rest of the group. He hasn't even introduced himself to the rest of the PCs, which makes things more awkward.
I don't know if you played this (kind of) character a lot in PbPs, but I really don't feel like it is working in this purely textual medium.
|
|
I personally did find Zwei's remark very insulting.
I wasn't saying Barnette should do all the interaction, I was merely pointing out that if we did and said exactly the same we did in character, but added the ooc remark we were assisting Barnette we'd have a +40 modifier. I even added a wink, as I was only half serious.
|
|
I apologize GM for initiating this conversation. I had forgotten that this was the PbP in which I got the opportunity to play with the author as the GM. I will endeavor to make this a more enjoyable experience for you.
To the other players, I have hear your concerns and issues and will take them into consideration.
|
|
I would like to point out that I only brought up the situation in character as something the character would do. I only gave my personal opinion in OOC because it was being projected that I may have been taking a personal problem into my character (and I say this because of the amount of OOC discussion that triggered off of my in-character actions). I'm playing my character to her personality, which I hope I gave a thorough enough explanation in the GP thread. Any of the other Azuranti sisters would have a different reaction to Zwei (examples: the bear shaman would probably turn it into a game of hide-and-seek, sending her bear to try to find Zwei while they hide around everywhere; the bard would probably counter with Diplomacy rolls to try to convince Zwei to at least say a few words every now and then; the Arcane Trickster would just think of Zwei as an amateur and not bother bringing it up, etc.).
I mostly agree with Lens and Aquila regarding the situation with Zwei's comments about Diplomacy checks. I wouldn't go so far to call it "bullying", but I find it rather hypocritical that Zwei (the player) would chime in about how we handle Diplomacy checks when Zwei (the character) has been mostly uninvolved in the scenario thus far, yet Zwei (the player) would feel a need to defend their play style when Ruby (the character) calls out Zwei (the character) for their emotions. There's a lot of blurred lines going on here between Zwei and the person behind Zwei, and you have to understand that everybody else at the "table" has no information (in or out of character) about Zwei at all. It probably would be less of a shock to us, the players, had there been some OOC post about "Hey, let me explain how my character operates". It may not have changed my in-character response, but it probably would have prevented most of the discussion we're having about gameplay style. HOWEVER, I do understand why you brought up the criticism of the Diplomacy checks, as it's a similar criticism I bring up at my store in hopes of not overshadowing players who are new or feel shy/intimidated during face-to-face sessions.
I would like to make the following criticism (hopefully coming across in a constructive manner):
While I understand the idea that sneaking around is suspicious, we are not dealing with humanoid npcs. We are dealing with just barely not-constructs who are the epitome of law (i.e. logic to the extreme). Suspicious is more of an emotional classification. Sneaking around is not illegal, as far as I'm aware. Because it is not illegal, and Zwei has done nothing else illegal, I do not see how Zwei's sneaking could hurt social encounters with supremely logical beings.
This very much feels like player knowledge being instilled onto Zwei. Zwei has no ranks in Kn:Planes, so there's no way they would know this. While Ruby does have ranks (now that I'm getting re-acquainted with my character), she hasn't made any checks yet to get a sense of what we're dealing with (thus her concern; she generally doesn't make checks about beings that aren't a threat). Now, if you want to say that Zwei doesn't care if city guard would find him suspicious, then that's a more appropriate interpretation of your character. As a GM, however, I would point out that justification and call it an abuse of player knowledge. This is just my two-cent interpretation on the matter; I realize you are also a 4-star GM, so I'm not trying to preclude any sense of authority or "I know better than you" mentality.
---------------------------------------------------------
All of this being said, I'm not trying to dictate in any way, shape, or form how anybody here should play their characters, and I'd like to put this whole discussion behind us. I think we're all on the same page that our characters are acting as they would, and we shouldn't interpret them as a representation of how the players feel. My comments are meant more along the lines of personal opinion and observation, and not meant to bully or force people to play a certain way; rather I hope my comments are taken as constructive criticism of how things are being perceived. Now that we're more aware in an OOC format of Zwei's personality and how they operate, I don't suspect there will be a need for anything else like this unless their actions become a hindrance during any encounter, social or otherwise.
|
I have no problem with Zwei playing the way he is - It would be frustrating if there were 5 players who wanted to hide and not interact, and one who did. But in this party, everyone except for Zwei seems happy to interact with each other, so there are ample opportunities for RP interaction. In my mind, if he wants to play that way and that is fun for him, more power to him. He's not hurting me or my enjoyment of the game at this point.
I didn't take his previous comments as anything other than being supportive if someone wanted to make their own roll instead of just assisting. That said, there is no reason you can't do your RP, then use your roll to assist if that is the optimal mechanical thing to do. Either way, I suspect that Barnette's modifier will auto-succeed almost any diplo check, with or without assists.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there is no reason you can't do your RP, then use your roll to assist if that is the optimal mechanical thing to do
This is what I'm trying to say.
I've had GMs rule that because one PC started the conversation, that PC was the main roll. I feel this can be very unfair. For instance, due to the way players are located on the globe, Aquila would most likely get in the first comment. However I do know Alex isn't like that.
Fun Fact: In 2010 Alex ran Delirium Triangle as the very first PbP I played. It also was Aquila's very first adventure. :-)
Thank you to everyone who has voiced their opinion on the matter. In situations like this, I find it's best for everyone to lay everything out on the table so that things can be addressed in a straightforward and honest manner.
As for our game going forward, let's try and keep the intra-party strife to a minimum, shall we? I am fine with Zwei playing his continual game of hide-and-go-seek, but Zwei, unless you have hide in plain sight (which I don't think you do), you need to have cover or concealment to make a stealth check. Since you are all currently on an open plain in bright light, there is no such cover or concealment.
Let's continue the game now, shall we?
|
|
With regards to the being watched thing. OOC I think it is a magical sensor created by a Divination(Scrying) spell., but Aquila doesn't have spellcraft, so it doesn't feel right to mention it in character.