Ready here. I'll be driving a long way tomorrow and will be away from the computer from noon til late.
I think he's trying to figure out how to NOT kill us with our current opposition. The odds re NOT in our favor.
As a head's up:
I moved 1,000 miles 7 months ago. Thursday night my wife finally arrives.
The movers MIGHT arrive on Friday.
My internet connection changes from one apartment to another on Saturday.
So, the odds are REALLY good that the last meaningful connection with me for this weekend will be on Wednesday.
Congrats on finally getting the wife out there!
So, she finally tracked you down? :P
I am in a training class this week and can only post very early and late.
Wife and household goods both showed up. The bathroom, bedroom, part of the living room and some of the kitchen are in order. Enough that we can live day-to-day while she goes through the rest of what she brought and gets it all put away. I hope she can make it all fit. I'm really not certain she can. Still have boxes scattered in the dining room, living room and kitchen, and the second bedroom is about 50% full of boxes, too.
She's spent the last seven months getting rid of stuff, too.
Been there, but not in quite a few years. I understand Terry. Good luck with the effort.
Hahahaha I do not envy you the circumstance. Is everyone ready to move on from this spot?
I'm all ready to go!
If we have searched the undead and the building then we should be ready to go. Have we really figured out why the building was here?
Honestly, I don't remember if we searched the room. I think I rolled for it and started to, but I think that search was interrupted by the undead. So, I'm not sure that we have, effectively searched the building.
I searched the room as I was talking, and rolled for it.
I am not even sure how many rooms there were. I am almost sure no one searched the undead. But easy to do before we depart.
Yep, the room/cavern is searched and I'll make a post for the treasure from the undead.
Just a suggestion, as a PbP GM, it can expedite to have the GM roll Init for both the PC's and the enemies. That way, instead of waiting for everyone to post their initiative rolls, then their actions afterwards. The order is known as soon as you call for the init roll. Then again, this assumes everyone is okay with the GM rolling init for them.
I tend to do it PC's first, alphabetically, and then the enemies. I also make a 'template' of sorts in the campaign tab so I can just copy paste it, also for expediance.
I don't mind the GM rolling.
Yep, it really does Lirrathan, and the majority of the time I will.
I just felt like having you all roll this time :)
Just noticed that Mythic Adventures is now on the PRD! Yay!
|
Hey guys. This is Emil's player. I am getting back to the forums and just wanted to apologize for leaving the game like that. I had a personal crises when the health of a member of my family deteriorated and it was hard for me to deal with the situation. Good to see the game is going fine and wish you guys good luck.
I am camping this weekend, leaving early afternoon, and will be away from all computers and internet. I'll be back and able to post Sunday evening.
Have fun!
Sorry all, in training at work so posting may be sporadic this week.
-Posted with Wayfinder
It's really nice at times. It doesn't currently support screen rotate though...which is maddening.
Sorry, but a couple things/actions/reactions are feeling a little too meta-knowledge to me here.
First, only Arc and I made checks to know anything about Mongrelmen, and only Arc succeeded. As far as I understand no one other than him knows what they are or look like (except the NPC's). No one that knows has shared it either.
Secondly, all you have is my description of what I saw, IC, based on my perceptions. Nothing duplicitous, just hideously deformed as he called them.
Thirdly, I don't remember anyone doing a Detect Evil on the dwarf, how are we certain he was evil? We also have no proof or admission that he himself summoned demons. Just that he was going to use their eggs against them, and an implication of using non-volunteers. Just because he used their blod in no way means they died. Maybe he just needed a pint, or a syringe's worth. He was just assumed to be evil because he did something the crusaders didn't approve of. Sometimes certain organizations can be REALLY close-minded. Now I know the truth of it, just by being an AP subscriber and in another WotR campaign, and my Paladin in that one will be ready to get rid of him without pause. In this one however, I can only act on what Lirrathan knows. From what he saw, you guys didn't like the technique he said he used, and decided he was evil.
Lastly, and this is just a personal pet peeve, referring to me as my class. Now it didn't happen in speech, but my character is not defined by the class on his sheet just as much as he isn't defined by the alignment there as well. Nor does he have a nametag that says "Hello, my name is CN Elf Ranger." All you know of me is what I have done and how I look. All the same, giving Terry the potion of Invis because of his class. Just because it says Rogue doesn't mean it's obvious to anyone what his professional skills are. I understand a little meta being necessary, like the cloak offering a bonus to things that PC's aren't really aware of existing, namely saves. So the decision is made using meta. In character the only explanation is something like "It makes you better able to resist things that strike at your health, body or mind." I mean, how would you describe the meta term of Saves IC? So some allowances are understood.
But when describing me, the only issue I really have with class based systems arises. As soon as someone sees Rogue or Ranger on my sheet, they automatically assign capabilities and expectations to me that they shouldn't have because I have not displayed them. I have had players not trust me and assume I was stealing from the party because my sheet said Thief (2nd ed Rogue). Despite the fact I had never stolen before.
All that's known about Lirrathan so far: he likes to have fun and finds combat fun. He's a non-devout follower of Desna. He has no problem helping out as long as it doesn't put him a too great a risk (excepting combat, because to him that isn't risk, just fun). He likes to drink and gamble. He's proven to be decent with his weapons and a notable scout. Anything more than what he's said or shown is purely assumptive, and on a few occasions been meta knowledge. Lastly, he playfully picks on the other men (he hasn't done it to the women), which can point to a testosterone-driven competitive side.
1) Unless the party has some sort of inner conflict it's normally assumed you share knowledge.
2) Same thing.
3) We weren't sure, we heard the facts and made a decision. Personally, my character wanted to apprehend him and bring him to official justice, but the rest of the party convinced her he was already guilty, so she IS a little upset about it. Besides, I doubt he would have even showed up on a detect evil since he was an arcane caster and I imagine a fairly low level. But the DM telling us he had an evil heart kind of solidified our guess.
4) Why can't you refer to somebody as their class? If I found a wand of fireballs my first thought, in character and out, would be "Give it to the wizard." It goes with the inner party trust, unless there's some sort of conflict between party members you assume that everybody knows what everybody knows, including skills. Normally this isn't a problem unless you're in a subterfuge or evil campaign. There is enough to keep track of with resources, spells, gear, and other expendables without worrying about being perfectly accurate on meta knowledge within the party that is really a trivial problem as is.
1) Unless the party has some sort of inner conflict it's normally assumed you share knowledge.
I had this discussion with another player just the other night. In a game where your every action is determined by the declaration of said action, a cooperative choose your own adventure if you will, then it is not safe to assume that any action is taken unless specifically introduced by the player/character. Until the player says "I share what I know of them" then one should not assume he does so. Until a player says "I consistently cast detect magic, and always have it active unless otherwise stated." then it is not safe to assume they do so. In the Army I learn the phrase, "When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME."
2) Same thing.
If it was my intention to simply restate what the GM wrote, I would say "He tells you what he saw." Instead I chose to not deliver it as a regurgitation of what the GM said, but as an interpretation based on my character's personalities and biases. I am Role-playing what Lirrathan saw, and then what he said. Which are not exactly what the GM posted, because as a person he will respond based on how he sees the world.
3) We weren't sure, we heard the facts and made a decision. Personally, my character wanted to apprehend him and bring him to official justice, but the rest of the party convinced her he was already guilty, so she IS a little upset about it. Besides, I doubt he would have even showed up on a detect evil since he was an arcane caster and I imagine a fairly low level. But the DM telling us he had an evil heart kind of solidified our guess.
We did not hear the facts, we heard the dwarf's version of the facts. Also entirely corruptable when bias is attached. Again, I am not saying he was good or what he did was right. What I'm saying is that there wasn't solid proof one way or the other, so it may have been a little presumptuous to have acted the way we did. Again, Lirrathan doesn't care. He would have rather you not spoken to him first so he could have gotten the jump on him. He is only bothered by approaching all friendly, making him think we were going to be friendly then switching to violence without real provocation on the part of the dwarf. He was ready to let us continue on unmolested.
4) Why can't you refer to somebody as their class? If I found a wand of fireballs my first thought, in character and out, would be "Give it to the wizard." It goes with the inner party trust, unless there's some sort of conflict between party members you assume that everybody knows what everybody knows, including skills. Normally this isn't a problem unless you're in a subterfuge or evil campaign. There is enough to keep track of with resources, spells, gear, and other expendables without worrying about being perfectly accurate on meta knowledge within the party that is really a trivial problem as is.
The problem I personally have, and like I said this is just my pet peeve and I know not shared by all, is that people aren't defined by class. If you see a doctor, you only know he is a doctor when he either expresses as much or you see him working or dressed as one. All the same if someone is in a white coat, at a hospital, and says they are a doctor, doesn't always mean it's true. You don't call a farmer a commoner (what his class is), you call him a farmer, because that's what he does. Technically, anyone who enters combat is a fighter, not the class fighter, but in the role of a fighter. Class is just a simple way of classifying abilities and capabilites of what a player is playing. The character himself rarely uses the title. There are exceptions as Paladin or Cleric is often a character title as well as a class. But, my fighter who is heavily devoted to Iomedae, can also bear the title of Paladin, without being the class paladin. Class is a term of convenience for the PLAYER, the title or term for what a CHARACTER calls another CHARACTER doesn't necessarily line up unless they have both the class and the title.
If I am playing a member of a group called "Rangers of the North" I can be a rogue, or a fighter, or just about anything that achieves membership, but my title will still be "Ranger". All the same I can be a gambler, beggar, drunk, thug, political activist as the class ranger, and none of those titles based off what I do indicate I am a ranger by class. I try and build characters that often step out of the box, and when another character determines what they are or what they can do because their player sees what I have written on my sheet, then it breaks verisimiltude. It also has a tendency to bias people toward expectations or one way of thinking about my character and their role instead of taking exactly what their character sees at face value and judging off what they do know instead of what the player knows. It's as simple as maintaining the seperation of Player/Character knowledge.
Just to be clear, because sometimes people can think I come off this way in text, I am neither irritated nor upset. I enjoy lively debate and discussion, and am merely pointing out things that I noticed, or that felt like they stood out to me. If my bringing this up bothers you, I apologize, it was just something I wanted to discuss and in no way am I trying to attack anyone or cause hard feelings.
Don't worry mate, I'm the same way. Friendly debate. I think you shouldn't have to put an "lol" at the end of every sentence if you're not mad.
I think a big point here as well is that it's a PBP pathfinder game. If we took the time to go over every little detail to make sure there was no error in anything we did and zero metagaming and never assuming anything and making sure we checked out every fact...well we just wouldn't get anything done. Yes Freya wanted to bring the dwarf to justice, but is it really worth dragging every person we don't like into a city and going through a trial? So yes, we assume a lot to keep the pace going, which is a huge problem with PBP's and ends up ending a lot of them.
I'd like to point out that even in some of the novels the characters are defined by their class, even if that character never said what their class was. And they are referred to being of that class by other characters. Besides, knowing what we know of your character, Mirel would assume you were either a Ranger or a Rogue. For elves, rangers are referred to as rangers...
I posted and then deleted a response, because I realized that I had fallen into the same trap I was trying to help the rest of you avoid.
When someone says "I have a problem with" or "I don't like" or "I would rather", then they have chosen to phrase their statements to indicate that the SPEAKER has a problem they want help solving.
When someone says "You shouldn't" or "You aren't supposed to" or simply "That's wrong" then they have chosen to phrase their statements to indicate that the RECEIVER has a problem they want solved.
A little note about human nature, if you don't mind? When you define a problem as belonging to the person you are talking to, you invoke the normal human ego limits, and threaten to prevent your message form being delivered. People don't want to hear your opinion of their shortcomings. They really don't. Heck, you're probably a little angry at me right now, because you;re reading this as an accusation about your own shortcomings. And that anger (however little there is) is making it harder for you to read and understand my message.
I think the majority of the recent posts in this thread are phrased to externalize issues instead of internalize them. That means that the majority of these posts are phrased to put the reader on the defensive. Not a good pose to invoke when you want their cooperation. Please, think about HOW things are being said, and consider what it is that you want to have happen.
Nobody (least of all me) is going to get the presentation right all the time. Human interaction gets easier when you try, though.
I want everyone to have a good time and definitely want us to act as an efficient group. I do not mean to metagame but do not ever plan to withhold information. I agree completely with the point that in PBP its hard to have the same conversation that we would around the table. For future reference please assume I share what I learn from a knowledge roll if there is time to do so (might be hard in combat) unless I explicitly say I do not share something. But I doubt stating the explicitly will solve anything if some of us just like to argue and be in conflict with others.
I intend to play the wizard as totally team focused. I do not mind if someone disagrees with a course of action he was planning. Please say something in character. I hope my passing out items for people to hold/use was not an issue. Arc identified them so it made sense for him to hand then out initially. But they do not have to stay where they are.
What I do not enjoy is when a player is critical of the other players, either in character or In thought dialoge, which is not necessary in most cases in the first place. It simply takes all the fun out of the game for me. So if your character wants to get along with my character do not add little critiques at the end of your dialogue that are sharp and critical. If you do so, expect my character to not be friendly towards yours.
I think a big point here as well is that it's a PBP pathfinder game. If we took the time to go over every little detail to make sure there was no error in anything we did and zero metagaming and never assuming anything and making sure we checked out every fact...well we just wouldn't get anything done. Yes Freya wanted to bring the dwarf to justice, but is it really worth dragging every person we don't like into a city and going through a trial? So yes, we assume a lot to keep the pace going, which is a huge problem with PBP's and ends up ending a lot of them.
I can definitely concede to this point, that for sake of PbP speed, sometimes assumptions can be made. In this aspect little things can often be overlooked to prevent a slog of waiting for someone to post.
All the same, however, I think PbP is the most capable technique of adding RP and flavor narrative to characters. The act of playing over text allows for so much more ability to provide copious details about your appearance, actions, and the descriptions of what you do. Personally, when a poster just writes something plain like:
I attack the orc.
"Take that"
I am a little let down. Here we have a medium to make even the most mundane of actions have flair (where it can often be discouraged at a table for the sake of speed). The narrative of PbP allows this to be a vibrant and alive event, regardless of its simplicity.
So, I ask that you'll forgive me when someone makes a check and their response of "It's a hydra" doesn't make me feel as if they are exactly sharing information. Knowledge checks offer information limited by the result. Just saying they are mongrelmen doesn't mean we can look up the creature and say "Oh, he told me everything about them". All the same some of the fun can be had by representing your characters based on the way they interact. I have characters that talk a lot, and others that talk little. Some dumb ones trying to use words they don't understand, or smart ones using too many big words. Most importantly, HOW they share information is insight into the character themselves. A character with flair may embellish to make it sound exciting, and quiet character may say as little as "they hit hard" to describe something.
Yes, party members suggested they be mongrelmen.... before I told them what I saw.
The problem I have is exactly your point number 2.
Why is this assumed?
Our characters have known each other all of a couple hours to almost a whole day at best. Why is it assumed that we act like a well-oiled machine by explaining everything? Is it in everyone's backstory/write-up that they love to share information with all they meet, or is it merely for sake of player convenience? Players do it to make allowances because they know the other person is a player. "You look trustworthy, join us" Sometimes, though, those tense first moments where you don't know if you can trust or even like the person you are with can be some of the best IC conversation in a game. Not every team of PC's just appear as a highly trained elite squad. If we never introduce character interaction amongst one another even with little things like sharing info, instead only to the NPC's/enemies, then we miss out on some opportunities to really flesh out the character.
Also, why do the characters see the world in terms of the 25 character classes (Core, APG, to include the NPC classes). Can no one in the world of Golarion be defined by something other than the mechanics on the sheet of an alternate self? The characters should not speak in terms of mechanics, they should speak and act in terms of people living in a real world. In our world we have millions of titles for someone based on what they do and how they act.
Like I said, there will be some exceptions. A wizard is something someone in the world of Golarion trains to be. The world has wizards and calls them as such, because it is a profession "I'm learning to be a wizard". Just like Cleric and Paladin. Others conveniently can fall into them by name but don't need to do so: Alchemist, Summoner (though you could call a Conjurer Wizard this if you wanted), Druid. There are some where they can be called just about anything based on what they do, not their class. If I say I'm a scout, I could be a barbarian, a fighter, a rogue, a ranger, a monk, or almost any other combination. Since the world is not made up of only 25 choices (the rules are, but not the world as the PC's see it), it would be best to call me by either what I call myself, or what I do. Since I don't ranger or range, nor do I call myself ranger, there should be no reason for anyone to automatically assign the label on my sheet as an IC fact.
I guess the point is we don't want to spend a lot of time on small, unimportant things. We assume the party trusts each other and shares relevant information. We refer to each other by class so we don't have to type an essay to describe ourselves every time we meet somebody. While not all parties are "highly trained elite squads", unless specified or if it's a problem we assume there is some level of organization that keeps the game moving. Since we all share the same goal here (which is a mission we all got) we don't believe there is inner party conflict or confusion.
I want everyone to have a good time and definitely want us to act as an efficient group. I do not mean to metagame but do not ever plan to withhold information. I agree completely with the point that in PBP its hard to have the same conversation that we would around the table. For future reference please assume I share what I learn from a knowledge roll if there is time to do so (might be hard in combat) unless I explicitly say I do not share something. But I doubt stating the explicitly will solve anything if some of us just like to argue and be in conflict with others.
I intend to play the wizard as totally team focused. I do not mind if someone disagrees with a course of action he was planning. Please say something in character. I hope my passing out items for people to hold/use was not an issue. Arc identified them so it made sense for him to hand then out initially. But they do not have to stay where they are.
What I do not enjoy is when a player is critical of the other players, either in character or In thought dialoge, which is not necessary in most cases in the first place. It simply takes all the fun out of the game for me. So if your character wants to get along with my character do not add little critiques at the end of your dialogue that are sharp and critical. If you do so, expect my character to not be friendly towards yours.
See, I acknowledge and appreciate just about everything said here, despite my efforts most likely coming across as otherwise.
I want to be efficient, and I will play Lirrathan to be as efficient as he knows how.
I appreciate the declaration that Arc will share whatever he may know, so now I don't have to assume it was told to me. Arc's player specifically stated that for future reference it will always be the case.
Once Lirrathan grows accustomed to working as part of a team, he will do so more effectively and be more focused on it. Sadly, being chaotic (even CG is chaotic) and only average intelligence, he's still a little prone to acting on whim and without fully thinking first. Despite all my experience with being a part of a team (see Army reference earlier), Lirrathan will need to become more familiar with the people that are a part of his team before he possesses these skills.
He has had no issue speaking up when he disagrees, and he has only had issue with the confusion, as he sees it, over what they were to do with the dwarf. He said as much in character.
I have no issue over where the items went, as my character has had no real desire for any of them, nor do I think they have been unfairly doled out.
You don't have to worry about thought dialogue from Lirrathan, for I as a player almost never use it. I try to stick to only what is either a visible action/reaction or said aloud.
I also don't expect Lirrathan to be fast friends with everyone in the party, and it is entirely expected that he and Arc would not get along. The two of them have diametrically opposed worldviews (read: alignment) and measures of what is important to them (read: studious wizard vs. thrill-seeking ranger). It is odd to find a random group of strangers with totally different upbringings and life experiences get along perfectly without a squabble. Lirrathan has tried to be playful, very few have reciprocated, he is competitive (as a little brother is often wont to be), and he is free-spirited. That can rankle people, and is often the impetus for him deciding to pack up and leave a town. He is also friendly, cheerful, and useful to have around at times and has done his fair share of work as part of this group thus far. Sometimes the good outweighs the bad when dealing with other's personalities, even when we don't get along with someone.
Scanning the walls of text that were submitted, I saw one comment that jumped out at me:
"I want to be efficient, and I will play Lirrathan to be as efficient as he knows how."
I don't want efficient. Efficient is what I get solo-playing an electronic game that pretends to be a role-play game. I want sloppy. I want misunderstandings. I want FAILURES. Efficient is a great way to solve problems and to thrive, but it makes for a really lousy story.
Efficient is the antithesis of why I play role-playing games in the first place.
I play to experience a new story, filed with characters I may not like, but who have very real shortcomings that they manage to overcome in order to do something which simply must be done. Yep, I have quite a heroic expectation of how the stories should play out. This AP in particular seems EXTREMELY well suited to that assumption. The player's guide pretty clearly indicates this story is designed to be about heroic behavior and goals. I expect all kinds of failures, but based on what this AP promised to be, I expect positive heroics. Heroics are inherently messy, and pretty much NEVER efficient.
I agree, which is why despite the term efficient, it can only be as efficient as my character and not myself. As a human being, I take pleasure in succeeding at my endeavors, but am still fallible. Just like my characters are. So, despite my want to succeed the best way I know how, I still have to play Lirrathan like him, and not like me.
I can only be as efficient and effective as he is capable of being, as far as within the context of this AP. In any other AP, it is measured by my character within that one. People have failings, and Lirrathan is displaying his handily. So despite how well I may want everything to work out, I expect and enjoy when it doesn't go as smoothly as possible.
I can want to be efficient, but expect not to, because that makes for a much better tale.
The word efficient was a borrowed term to show solidarity in expectations, but it doesn't mean infallible.
I saw that it wasn't a term you used first.
I disagree about what the message delivered through the use of that term is, though. I can't tell you what the sender's goal is behind using that term, I can only tell you what it means to me.
Efficient play is mechanical play.
Efficient play requires unending use of meta-game knowledge (as opposed to the occasional slips that every player makes sooner or later) about every aspect of the system, preventing loss and risk (and the character opportunities to learn, grow and come to false conclusions which can actually make things harder later instead of being efficient).
Efficient play requires one dominant player and everyone else simply accepting their assigned roles and responsibilities.
I don't care what the reason is for using the phrase. The phrase itself carries a great deal of negative baggage, because it far too accurately describes a play style I strongly dislike. I'm hoping that play style is NOT the play style that was attempting to be described.
Efficient play is mechanical play.
Efficient play requires unending use of meta-game knowledge (as opposed to the occasional slips that every player makes sooner or later) about every aspect of the system, preventing loss and risk (and the character opportunities to learn, grow and come to false conclusions which can actually make things harder later instead of being efficient).
Efficient play requires one dominant player and everyone else simply accepting their assigned roles and responsibilities.
I don't care what the reason is for using the phrase. The phrase itself carries a great deal of negative baggage, because it far too accurately describes a play style I strongly dislike. I'm hoping that play style is NOT the play style that was attempting to be described.
I think I see where you're coming from, and in the direction of your preferences, I think we agree.
Where I disagree, is that being what the word efficient means. That is what it means to you, and I can not dispute what it means to you. However, much like there are whole threads about what the terms min/max, powergame, optimize, Role-play vs Roll-play all mean, we disagree on what efficient means in the context of the game.
To me there are two different sides of efficiency. You can play the mechanical aspects of the game efficiently, meaning adjudicate the rules in a time-saving manner, and you can role-play your character efficiently, meaning play them to represent their personality the best way possible. Since there are no mechanics tied to Role-play (excepting alignment), then role-playing efficiently does not naturally associate with mechanics.
I strongly disagree with the idea that efficiency means a dominant player, with followers. To truly be efficient, all players would agree and work together equally to accomplish the goals. Only when everyone does their part and works together, there is much efficiency. When one person is dominant, and the others just follow, then that can actually be a hindrance. Because they don't act until told to do so, making them reliant on being told what to do and no longer acting on what needs to be done.
In this instance, efficiency carries negative baggage for you, because that is the term you associate with behavior you disagree with. Since I do not assign the same behavior to the word, it means something different to me, and typically the word efficient is used in a positive manner to mean the greatest reward for one's effort.
I think this is the time where I step in.
I can see both sides of this argument. I really can. Playing a character like Lirrathan takes a fair amount...convincingness...to get the facts across about the character's motivations. There's a story to tell and that's OK. With a group of people who know and game with each other this wouldn't be a problem. In a PbP game with strangers...this can cause friction. It can come across a bit heavy on the Chaotic stuff (by the nature of written communication without the idiosyncracies of visual communication to aid it).
I've gotten some personal complaints about interactions. I truly think these can be because of the types of characters being played and the level of convincingness going on.
I'll put a warning here. I don't want to lose ANY players. I chose you all for specific reasons. Lirrathan and Arc, I expected frictions and that IS one reason I chose you two.
The warning are these:
Lirrathan, I do understand what you are trying to do. At times it has come off as a little TOO much. Please try and see if you can reign it in a bit while still getting the character's motivations across.
Everyone else, please try to bear with Lirrathan's character DEVELOPMENT. I have a feeling once you all get through some of the upcoming events you could become a GREAT group.
That said, if it comes down to it, I will do what is best for the STORY. Rocks can and will fall. Everyone can and will die. This is semi joking and semi serious.
Also:
All, quick question I'm posing in my games, if we go 24 hours waiting for a character, I will DMPC those actions. Is that good for everyone?
Good hear.
Agreed, on all accounts DM
I apologize, wholeheartedly, for any offense I may have caused. I say again that this is never my intention. I accept that I can get pretty strongly opinionated, and in my tabletop games of the past we as a group would often hold long discussions about our perceptions of the game/rules. It was an enjoyable activity for us to discuss ad nauseum, vigorously, without hostility.
As per the GM's request I will do what I can to diminish my fervor for such debate.
All the same, Lirrathan may have to look into carrying an adamantium umbrella. If possible he will add perception checks for dangerously loose rocks as well. ;)
On the question of 24 hr wait, I have no issue with DMPC-ing the character, I understand the pros and cons and accept them.
Adamantium umbrella, that's a good one
However, the term "DM bolt" came from lighting. If I were you I wouldn't carry around a metal umbrella ;)
Hey Lirrathan. Apology accepted here. As for me, I will try to not take offense OOC and only react to your character's actions and statements IC with a clean slate starting now. Sound reasonable?
Sounds entirely reasonable. I think we just had our wires crossed, and it took us a bit to uncross them. I play well with others, honestly I do, it said so on my report cards (most of them) ;)
Good...thank you all for being adults about the situation. I know how things get and get perceived at times. Much appreciated on my end!
Lirrathan...they'll be Skymetal rocks then :)
The 24 hour bot thing seems fairly prevalent, especially during combats.
I have seen a couple of GMs who just do it, but the best fit seems to be preceded with a "Joe has another 2 hours and then I'll bot him and move things along" post.