I tried to add a “6” to the year in Greyneth’s war record. Apparently the devil took over and messed everything up.

Ok, it’d be great to get some dorking in on this long weekend. I have Friday and Monday off so that helps. I think Monday is out for me as Kim’s mom is coming to visit. I’m planning on heading to Kev’s mom’s house for the 3:30 Utah game. So, I could probably be available Thursday night, Friday afternoon or night, Saturday night, sunday afternoon or night. Let’s play an elimination game and see what time slot is the last man standing. My preference is Sunday afternoon, but I’m open…

Okay, next session is 5:30 on Saturday. I will go pick up Bernie from the airport and we’ll get playing when we get home. On the way back I can stop and pick up some fast food for us. I’ll leave it to Kev and Dave to get ice, drinks, snacks if you want em. Sound good?

Agreed, I had a great time playing last night. Thanks to everyone for making it happen, especially Andy for all the effort he put into it.

To start some more gameplay discussion, I had a thought about how we as players might be able to make things run a little quicker and add some fun. How would everyone feel about each of us taking turns acting as the group’s “commander”? Basically, the party commander for the session would hold the final say in the group’s decisions. We’d still talk things out as a group, but then the commander would decide what he feels is the best course of action.

For example, if it had been Cal’s turn to command yesterday, we would have assaulted the camp via moving through the trees. If it had been Connor’s night to lead, he would have decided to make a frontal assault. Either plan was equally viable, so it pretty much just came down to personal preference.

I’m thinking that having a single person responsible for those kinds of decisions would allow the game to run smoother, quicker, and make it more fun. I just like the idea of saying what I think we should do in a situation, and then letting the commander decide what he feels is best. Otherwise, we just kind of debate until we don’t feel like debating anymore, at which point we often still don’t have one clear cut path. It would mainly be for those situations; instead of talking in circles, leave it up to the commander.

Does this sound fun to anyone else?

Well, assuming Rowena was safe, Connor would want to try and learn about the war. It sounds like open conflict has broken out, so he’d want to know which Houses have joined forces, the perceived strength of each side, etc… Whomever turns out to be responsible for Rowena’s abduction will probably decide Connor’s recommendation on House Markal’s allegience. He’d also be willing to meet with Sauger and hear him out at some point, though Connor has doubts whether anything Sauger has to say could be important enough to draw his attention away from the throne conflict.

So, no, I doubt there’s any huge curveballs coming from me in the near future.

cont…

Again, specifically, if the Ossharp officers had decided to force the issue, and a fight had arose, that wouldn’t have made it any less fun for me.

3)I’d say that if we have more information to work with, it definitely will make it easier for us to make decisions. Mysterious clues, that we have to work for and roleplay to uncover, might work if we had an unlimited amount of time to play. But I’d say, especially in the weekday sessions, we don’t have the real life time to do that level of investigating. I definitely don’t want it canned altogether, but simply stepping it down a notch from the current level of difficulty might work wonders.

To respond to a few of Bernie’s points:

1. I think I’m gonna eliminate skill challenges as written and just use skills like we always have.

2. Be aware that in most campaigns 75% or more of your experience is coming from combat; in this one it’ll be more like 50-50. I am always judging things for experience. Don’t forget that immediately after the Sauger encounter you guys got 125 XP and leveled. A standard encounter for you three should be 125XP each so that just about fits. Anyway, just figure that any time you are completing your characters’ objectives successfully I’ll be rewarding it. I liken it to “quest” experience (like collecting heads or magic flowers in WoW).

3. As far as the openness of the world and your choice vs. my railroading, here’s my feeling. We have very different role players. Anything I do is going to excite one of you and disappoint another. Dave has said he’d lose interest if I reduced your options while it seeems like Kev and Bernie are a little more satisfied with some degree of railroading. Here’s my solution for now. I think I have been too stingy with information. Somehow I felt that after planning all this cool stuff in my world, to just “give it up” easily cheapens the experience somehow. For example, in an earlier adventure I made it obvious that a disguise worn by the badguys was indeed a disguise. I remember thinking to myself, “Damn, I gave that up too easily. Now they’ll just expect me to reveal all the mysteries….” In speaking to Dave yesterday, he commented that he really liked how the PCs “figured out” the disguise and learning they were right was rewarding. So I guess I’m figuring that roleplaying these mysteries may not be that fun, like it might be in a novel or movie. I easily could’ve given more info with the Sauger interrogation quicker and moved us along, but I somehow felt it was “cheap” and bush league to do so and would create a feeling that every time you need info it will be “full disclosure”. Now I see I just should have given up that info, it would’ve made you feel more rewarded AND moved us forward. In closing this point, I think that by giving more info it solves the coralling issue. With more data you will have more clear objectives and may have less indecision. This way, you still HAVE all the options and freedoms and aren’t forced at all, but also aren’t wasting time treading water. What do you guys think?

Next week I have Monday, Wednesday and Thursday available through the week for sure. Also Friday Saturday and Sunday are open. I think Kim is going out of town with the kids so we can do a true marathon/sleep-over type if you want Friday or Saturday. I’d like to do one during the week and once on the weekend. hehe.

Group roleplay XP sounds like the winner solution. As has been implied, everyone’s always trying to come up with clever ideas/roleplay well, so individual incentives don’t seem advantageous. I still like the idea of giving RP experience out on the spot though, as it reinforces the kinds of things you’re looking for in RP.

If it’s all the same to you, Andy, I would agree with Kevin on sharing the roleplaying XP. I don’t want an environment where people are competing for RP xp. You could share it all, and then, if someone is just not holding up their end of the bargain, you could penalize them at the end. This prevents us from all trying to out-roleplay each other when the opportunity arises.

Also, to reiterate the email I sent, how much XP do we have right now, before or after last week’s award?

Responding to some of Bourne’s points:

1)I don’t know why you think that we don’t know that nobles can be bad. Like I said, I expect the main villains in this campaign to be noblemen.

2)Yes, in most settings there are other powerful organizations as well as nobility. I can see how Cal not being nobility could work to the group’s advantage at times.

3&4)I don’t even care too much about the background. As long as it’s understood that all the characters deeply respect and care about each other’s well being, I think it’ll make roleplaying easier for me. If Cal gets thrown in jail at some point, I need Connor to care enough to do something about it, as opposed to simply hiring a new guy to fill Cal’s spot in the group.

5)Random larceny fits into the one other point I wanted to bring up. In general, splitting the group up isn’t particularly good from an outside the game perspective. Even if it makes sense in game, it’s not often the best use of our time. One character does something, while the other characters wait around a half hour, at which point the original character has to wait around himself. I think that’s one of the main points they tried to address in the new addition, as the differences between everyone’s skill sets aren’t nearly as gaping as in the past. Everyone can sneak a bit, diplomacy a bit, tumble a bit, etc…the intention being that the weakest link is much stronger these days. I guess I’m trying to say, if we make the larceny just a little less random, (and, in hindsight, Cal’s first larceny wasn’t random at all, but a plan to try and infiltrate the enemy) there’s no reason all three of us can’t participate to some extent. It should be extremely rare that we actually need to split the group for more than a few minutes of real time.

I can’t seem to figure out how to update that picture part (ok, I haven’t put too much time into it). As far as the intrigue goes, I really think several things are being overlooked. 1) Nobles are bad too, often worse than most, since they think their money gives them the right to act with impunity. 2) Cities are often NOT run by nobles, but the nobles serve as puppets for controlling powers. My NOT being a noble could often be beneficial. Further, I can pose as a servant, etc., when need be, and I can also get into places that even you guys can’t go. 3) Along the lines of 2, most established theives guilds act with the permission (usually at a price) of the local constabulary/nobility. Accordingly, if I get tied in with an expansive thieve’s guild, I can engage in political intrigue from the shadows. (but if this gets too complicated, running two storylines at once, then we can 86 this plan). 4) Since everyone seems to want to tie us together more tightly, I propose the following. Connor or Grynneth (?) often goes slumming when out drinking. I met one of them at a bar about a year back, and we have become good friends. Accordingly, when I heard what had happened to his sister/friend’s sister, and since I had no immediate plans, I offered my services, knowing that I had skills that could be useful in dealing with the sort of people who would kidnap a young girl. (Incidentally, that is EXACTLY why you’d have me along on the most important mission of your life, even if you barely knew me, because I have underworld connections and I can get to and talk to criminals who would never talk to you. Desparate times make for strange bedfellows). 5) Finally, I’d like to occasionally commit random larceny. I AM a thief after all. I’m not picking pockets during the day, because there is too much risk, but at night, while you sleep, I can go rob and likely escape if nothing else. Plus, if I can steal enough, I can BECOME a noble and thereby engage in all your hoity toity intrigue. 6) You ARE moldy.

I’m not really concerned about the whole “should we kill these rogues or not” phenomenon. If we had discussed it beforehand we could have hashed the plan out, one way or the other. But it didn’t really occur to me until after Connor charged into the room, and like Bernie said, if we’re in the middle of a fight, it’s going to be hard to adhere to instructions screamed in the midst of chaos.

What I am a little more interested in is this: Andy’s created this elaborate world, which is definitely influence by Song of Fire and Ice novels by George Martin. (excellent, btw) A big part of this world is going to consist of political intrigue, plots, schemes, uncovering mysteries, etc. In fact, I would say those are going to be the entire focus of the campaign. Andy’s intention is for us to be right in the center of all this turmoil, interacting with the men who decide the fate of the entire continent. I’m moldy concerned, that you, Bernie, might get bored/not have much fun if your character isn’t a part of that story, and is sort of only peripherally involved. I don’t think tagging along with the other two PCs as they take all the interesting storylines would appeal to me.

As for the nobles being bad guys, hell yeah. Those are going to be our main villains for the duration of this campaign, I expect. Also, I would definitely say that Wednesday was a rousing success. The point is to try and repeat the parts that worked the best, and tweak the rest.

I do disagree with Bernie about PCs developing a grudging respect for each other as the campaign goes on. That should be backstory at this point, and I would like to come up with at least a little bit more than we have. I mean, even if we completely handwaved it and said that Cal, Connor, and Greyneth have traveled enough together in the past that they all respect, trust, and value one another, despite each’s foibles; that would go a long towards helping me roleplay better. Like Andy said, since there wasn’t much time between Cal’s creation, and our first session, and we didn’t have any time to create any mutual backstory, it kind of felt like Cal was a stranger. Somehow that ruins my immersion in the world, as it wouldn’t make a lot of sense to be on the most important mission on my life with an unknown ally.

As a last note, if thieving is something that you need to do to enjoy the campaign, then it’s important to work it in. Everyone needs to be able to experience his fundamental character aspects in order to have a good time. But if it isn’t vital to your fun, I’d say it might be easier to interact with the campaign world without random larceny. But like you said, in the falcon situation, it actually wasn’t random larceny, but part of a larger plan. If you’re simply saying you want to use your thieving skills help accomplish our goals, even if it’s not the most lawful way to go about it; that seems perfect. Connor’s right on the border himself as far as ends justifying the means. But that goes back to what I was saying earlier, Connor needs to believe that Cal has the best interests of the group in mind; hence the need for some sort of mutual backstory.

I can probably learn to be a nice guy, but sometimes nice guys have to work with bad guys in order to get things done. Further, if I can’t break into places and rob places, what is the point of being a rogue? I might as well re-roll a different guy. I have skills and talents designed to allow me to rob. Who ever heard of a “good” rogue? It isn’t like I kill the people inside. Tasselhoff was constantly ripping people off.

As far as the fight, I don’t think Dave or I were serious about killing each other (because I only had 7 hps left, otherwise he was DEAD! :) Honestly though, given the backstory, this is appropriate behavior for our present situation. And, frankly, given what history tells us about most nobles, THEY were actually the badguys.

You need to give this some time, and Cal will probably develop a grudging respect for these particular nobles, which will likely turn into a lasting friendship. They will likely come to respect Cal’s less savory ways of getting things done as well.

I don’t think it is fair to peg this as a failure after one night. First of all, they were able to beat the bushes along their social lines, and I was able to use my skills along mine. We’re not best friends yet, so you can expect some early friction.

On one level, it seems like you have OUR story written as well, which is the one thing that is supposed to be left up to chance. You get to create the whole world, but not control our actions within it. Otherwise, what are WE doing? I agree that sometimes you need to force our hand, but unless the whole thing starts to fall apart, then the methods we use to get to a point in a story should be up to us. Things probably won’t always go as you envisioned them.

As far as whether or not these two would stay with me, I’m pretty sure that they would at this point. Even if they’re not happy with my thieving, they don’t have to know about it. I can just as easily not tell them about the wonderful things that I “find.” Further, they won’t get thrown in jail for my actions. I’m not killing commoners, or even guardsmen, just rogues so far. You’re gonna tell me that if I am whacking you with a halberd, and almost killing you, and someone from across the room yells “don’t kill Bernie, just knock him out” you’re really going to listen? That’s pretty unrealistic. Connor can certainly try not to kill someone, and I didn’t kill the guys he subdued, but I wasn’t going to “almost kill” the guy trying to kill ME. Certainly when he wasn’t even the leader of the group.

My class choices were fighter, ranger or rogue, and I didn’t really want to play a noble or a fighter, since we basically have two already. Which leaves me with ranger or rogue. And if a lot of what we’re going to do is going to be done in cities, having a ranger seems a bit ridiculous. So I’m a rogue. And I’m going to be a bit roguish. It won’t upset your campaign, and I can’t honestly say that I think I did anything that detracted or distracted from the story line at all, except for robbing that house. Which, as you saw by my actions the following day, actually also had a point to it (sell the thing, find the rogues, pay a cut, get in their good graces, etc.)

Anyhow, my 2 cents.

Kev, the whole point of the GM discretion thing was this: When Andy says roll a stealth and perception, for effectively what is one action of mine (sneaking while watching) I can apply the split roll. I can’t just say “well, I think this situation calls for stealth too.” It’s only when he directs the combination. That’s exactly why I gave the example of riding through the woods. Further, you’re making a 2 for 1 trade, and you have no ideas what the difficulties are yet, so there’s a fair chance that you undermine your stronger roll in an attempt to augment your second one. Subtracting 6 from one roll to add 3 to another does not seem like that much of an imbalance. I can imagine it happening all of 2-3 times in a given night, if that. Finally, it wouldn’t apply to skill challenges, as those represent independent rolls (i.e. sneak here, jump here, sneak there, climb that, etc). You guys obviously don’t like it, but the unwillingness to even try it makes me think that you picture it being a total exploit. The rules have been out for less than two months, and they’ve already admitted that they totally f-ed up a major RP aspect. I wouldn’t put too much faith in “they did it for a reason.” The reason, with all likelihood, is that a group of guys, much like us, sat around and arbitrarily decided that it should be that way. Kind of like making perception a skill to “find traps… detect secret doors… listen for sounds behind closed doors…” and then not giving it to rogues.

I’m glad that Andy will let me have perception, but I don’t think that ends this discussion, as it wasn’t just that situation to which this might apply. Furthermore, to your history point, if you were required to roll a history check to see if you knew the history of a given area, success in that check might make streetwise easier. To this end, you could alternatively say that, for example, if the check is against a 15, then make the check against a 20, and if you succeed, then you get a +2 bonus to your streetwise check. To make a similar argument for sneak-and-watch, if I am SO effective at sneaking (i.e. a higher difficulty check) that the guy thinks he isn’t being followed, he becomes less cautious and therefore easier to perceive. It’s a fact of life that being good at one thing can help you be good at something else, even if you’re not very good at that other thing to begin with.

I think Bernie’s ideas are well-conceived. Still, I’m inclined to lean toward Kevin for a few reasons. One, anything that complicates rules that we still are fuzzy on would be best put on a shelf until we playtest a bit more. Second, I screwed up that skill challenge. I think skill challenges are intended to be a party thing. So someone with a better score in one skill would roll it, and someone else would roll for a skill they’re good in. BTW – check email later for XP rewards for the other day. Also, Bernie – you are welcome to freely retrain any feats you now have since we haven’t played enough to know better: you shouldn’t be punished because you didn’t know how the feats would affect you. Also, unless anyone cares, you can have perception for free because Connor and Greyneth have diplomacy for free.

Ok, now on to the matter of skill checks. I don’t know how skill challenges work, so maybe that covers this, but I propose the following. If ever in a situation where multiple skill checks are required – e.g. sneaking after someone whilst attempting to perceive them as they sneak away from you – before the difficulty numbers are announced, you can opt to 2 for 1 points from one roll to the other. Example: I want to follow someone and stay hidden. Since I can’t perceive a giant blue elephant in an empty room, I would elect to commit 6 points to my perception check. This would detract 6 from my Stealth Check and add 3 to my Perception check. This represents my focusing my efforts more on perceiving and less on stealth. Since I am not as good at perceiving (putting it nicely), I would not receive the whole benefit of the 6 points. Since I don’t know what the difficulties are in advance, this prevents “gaming” of the situation. I could possibly see him but have lowered my stealth so much that he now sees me. I also think this should only be usable in one direction, from a greater ability to a lower. That is, I shouldn’t be able to give up perception points (figuring I’m going to fail anyhow) to ensure my stealth. Finally, this can be done at the GMs discretion. For example, if we’re riding through the woods, trying to perceive something, I can’t suddenly “be stealthy” and then dedicate the points to perception. This would only be when multiple abilities are logically being used in tandem. Thoughts? Oh, and, FYI, I’ll be multiclassing ranger as my next feat, so this won’t matter as much for the perception, but I think there are numerous situations to which this could apply.