Chapter 1: Q&A / Discussion

[Darren]

I think that's great. It'll help to be able to visualize these things, and help prevent mistakes from missed details in the text.

[Josh]

When there's no lightning rail active near the stretch of track one is near, can you cross the track safely? Or is there a sort of "third rail" effect across the whole thing?

[Jeff]

Good question.

If you run as fast as possible between two conductor stones, you might be able to avoid some minor electricity damage. When a lightning rail is close to them, they're far more deadly.

That said, numerous places along a line of conductor stones would have means of passing it. Bridges, or underpasses, etc. But there aren't any in sight right now.

[Jeff]

From Darren:

Also, Jeff, thanks for switching my action to using the longsword in the last round. I assume you did that automatically because Kalarian was engaged before his initiative came up?

Casting a spell directly in front of an enemy gives you two options: cast the spell anyway and let him have a free hit on you (called an attack of opportunity) or you cast defensively, meaning he doesn't get a free hit but you do have to succeed on a Concentration check to pull off your spell. Since Kal already had his sword in hand, I figured he'd go the more straightforward route.

Still...I don't want to "take control" very often. It's all a learning experience!

[Darren]

I guess I'm also not understanding from the maps what the distances are. I didn't think that soldier was that close to me. I also didn't know, when I posted, that he would move forward first. Should our posts include more conditional statements, such as, "Kalarian will cast Magic Missle, unless he is engaged by the soldier in which case he will attack with his sword"? Also, can distances be put on the map?

[Jeff]

I'll be sure to include on future maps the distance. But basically, the grid denotes 5 ft. by 5 ft. squares. That's generally the default distance.

It's very important that you always refresh the page to make sure the map changes. If you don't, it probably won't.

Because we now have the map visual, I'm letting that provide the actual movement details. So that lead soldier drew his sword and actually advanced into the square immediately adjacent Kal.

Hence, when you went to cast a Magic Missile, he was right there in your face. Which forces a decision to be made.

One thing we could do, perhaps, it list somewhere what types of contingencies you guys set for yourself.

For example, Ed could state somewhere for my reference: "Anytime Oss casts a spell, he will do so defensively, unless otherwise stated." Or "Anytime Oss casts a ranged spell, he'll take a 5-ft. step back away from the enemy first if the enemy has moved too close to him."

Something like that. Suggestions?

[Josh]

The maps are working great for me, and I'm also fine with just playing it out and seeing what happens. I haven't felt a real need for contingencies yet, but I think that PCs can decide that as they go.

Personally, I'm more interested in trying to write an interesting and descriptive segment than being technically accurate- I trust Jeff to tell me when something's wrong, or interpret things as need be.

[Darren]

Yeah, I agree with Josh on that one. I just wasn't sure exactly how to handle situations like the one that occured. I assume that in a normal table-based game, everyone doesn't have to declare their actions before the round starts, right? So, in an instance like what happened, my actions would have been more based on what the guys before me did. Or am I wrong about that?

[Jeff]

That's correct. In tabletop, it wouldn't be like this. We can certainly try it more like that, but I think that would equate 2 or 3 days per battle round.

Ed, can you weigh in? You're in a few different play-by-post games.

[Josh]

I like how it is now.

[Darren]

Yeah, I still agree with Josh. I think it's okay now, I just think that we may need to occasionally offer some contigent plans, the way we discussed above, for certain situations. I think in most instances, what we are doing now works great. I definitely don't want to slow anything down.

[Ed]

I think trying to go in some sort of posting order is a disaster waiting to happen.

I think people just post when they want based on the information at hand at that moment. If your plan could change with reasonably expected possible happenings by the other players, post a contingent. Otherwise, I think it should be assumed that your character will continue down the already-established route.

Example: I say that Oss will attack zombie 16. Josh kills zombie 16 before Oss gets there. It's utterly reasonable for Jeff to assume that Oss will turn his attention to the next nearest zombie. I shouldn't even need to post a contingent on that.

In fact, to make it even easier, I think it's best to declare that DM will make what he considers in reasonable judgment to be contingent decisions in those situation AND, in fact, if you don't want a contingent decision made in a particular circumstance, SAY SO. I think it's easier for us as players to say when we DON'T want DM to act on reasonable contingencies than when we want to offer up contingency plans.

In the above example, if Oss only wanted to kill zombie 16 and screw the other 15, then I should say so. But it's reasonable for Jeff to assume I want all of those bastards dead so I would attack the rest.

That's my thought, anyway.

[Josh]

Ed, I completely agree. I figure there will come a time when certain tactics are employed in terms of which enemies are concentrated on and in what order, where it will make sense to state a contingency.

In your example, if I killed zombie 16, the next closest one might not, tactically, be the best one, and if there is a plan, we can leave our contingencies for Jeff in this case.

On the same note, it doesn't make sense to have the DM play the game for us, either, so it's probably more fun, in the long run, to state contingencies when possible.

[Darren]

Right, I agree with you guys. But in the instance of what already happened, I had planned to cast a spell, and when I was then engaged by a soldier, Jeff decided that I should instead attack with a sword. Now, that made sense, and given the option, I would have chosen that, but it's also just as possible that I would choose to try the spell, anyway. Now, if I didn't say otherwise, and Jeff chose to change my actions...what if that's not what I wanted? So I guess, as Ed said, we need to just be clear with what we want to do and what we want to do if a certain forseeable other incident happens. I think that Jeff needs to use his judgement to adjust our actions when the need arises, but also be willing to pause and ask if he's really unsure of what our intentions might be. I don't imagine this will come up often, but it's good to have an idea of how to handle it when it does.

[Jeff]

All solid theory. But I really don't want to have to make too many decisions for you guys. I guess I don't want the reasoning to be: "Here's one action I'll do, but if the circumstances change Jeff will choose the most efficient alternative and it will all work out." Like it's some sort of safety net. Because sometimes it won't work out. If things turn bad, and your character goes down as a result of one of those alternative actions, I'm the one to blame. I'd rather avoid it.

So I think the occassional contingency is a good idea.

If you're casting a spell that shoots a ray, and suddenly the enemy rushes up to you, it's certainly reasonable to assume your character would compensate either by casting the spell defensively (as I had Oss do a short while ago), or have your character take a 5-ft. step backward (which does not provoke an attack of opportunity) and then cast. But it would be good for me to know, as a general rules, which method you'd follow under normal circumstances.

[Jeff]

Just a note:

I have upped everyone's XP total so that it truly equates them with a 2nd-level character. (Previously I was treating them more like 1st-level characters as far as points go, but it's just easier to move it up to match your total character level.) In any case, the good news is that you're still just as close to reaching the next level as before. Hence, I think everyone has made level now. Congrats! I've posted the XP amounts already!

In each of your private character sheet threads, I've already listed the things you'll gain at next level and what you need to decide. I'm not going to let any of the increased numbers take affect until (1) you decide on those pending items and (2) the night, in-game, passes. After a night's rest, you'll start the day benefiting from the new level and all its numbers. So get to it! It's to your benefit to decide those things: skills points, feats, etc.

To those of you who gain a new spell...within the game story, this means this is a spell you've actually been working some time to master. Well, now you have! So when it comes to roleplaying your special abilities, please remember that they didn't just magically appear; your character has been working on these things all along.

[Lara]

Is there any particular reason that we're rolling for hp rather than using high/low averages for even/odd levels? It's been so long since I actually rolled for hp in any game that it just seems an odd thing to do!

[Jeff]

I'm...odd, then.

I'm not actually even familiar with what you're referring to. Every DM has a different method, I guess. This is how I do it. I think it's a pretty good deal. If you have a d8 for hit points, rolling a 5-8 seems nicer than just the average.

[Lara]

admin said:

I'm...odd, then.

I'm not actually even familiar with what you're referring to. Every DM has a different method, I guess. This is how I do it. I think it's a pretty good deal. If you have a d8 for hit points, rolling a 5-8 seems nicer than just the average.

I'm surrounded by math geeks, I suppose, and that's really not me, so I'll explain badly and imprecisely, and then maybe Ed can fix it. There's something about how you're statistically better off using averages than rolling since the average on a d8, for example, is really something like 4.5 or 5. So you level high at 5 and low at 4.

[Jeff]

Huh. Either way, the traditional method of hit point gain at each level is simply rolling the die and going with whatever you roll, even if you roll a 1. The new variations of doing it seem to have developed from video games, taking the randomness out of it.

Statistics may show that method is the "best," but I still like to keep an element of the random in the game. For example, when I did the rolls for the players who seem to prefer I do the rolling for them, I rolled a 3 for Cutter, which was less than his average. So I rolled again and got a 10. Now that boy's got a lot of hit points!

[Lara]

admin said:

Huh. Either way, the traditional method of hit point gain at each level is simply rolling the die and going with whatever you roll, even if you roll a 1. The new variations of doing it seem to have developed from video games, taking the randomness out of it.

Statistics may show that method is the "best," but I still like to keep an element of the random in the game. For example, when I did the rolls for the players who seem to prefer I do the rolling for them, I rolled a 3 for Cutter, which was less than his average. So I rolled again and got a 10. Now that boy's got a lot of hit points!

Someone's got to be the tank...

[Jeff]

I do believe Lara has officially declared Cutter to be the meat shield. Poor Paul. He probably isn't even reading this...

[Lara]

admin said:

I do believe Lara has officially declared Cutter to be the meat shield. Poor Paul. He probably isn't even reading this...

With a third again as many hp as she has, Cutter's going to be Pellorien's new bff.

[Jeff]

Guys, I want to ask you once again about the pace of the game.

Is it moving too fast? Some of you haven't posted much lately, skipping several days at a time. I guess I just need to know: is this because your character just isn't doing anything notable, or you're having a hard time keeping up?

Please be honest. It just gives me the feeling that only half the group is driving the game. If any of you would like to drop out, even just temporarily—I started this game because I'd never have an opportunity to roleplay/game regularly with you guys any other way—I'd be sad about it but I'd understand. I just don't want anyone hanging on out of obligation or something silly like that. I don't work that way.

[Jeff]

I think what would be best is to designate a surrogate leader, until or unless you all decide to have an official one, a surrogate who will decide where the party goes that I will defer to for my purposes. Otherwise, every decision will be a voting process, and then, I suppose, determined by majority.

What say you?

[Paul]

Weekends are always harder for me to keep up, for some reason. I think it's because Bella is home all day and by night I'm pretty much knackered.

[Ed]

Maybe it's just my experience with PBP games, but this lack of directionality is not uncommon at all. I think a group leader IS helpful, but I think there's another solution that works in conjunction with that.

Given that there are 6 of us (correct me if I'm miscounting), I think it's easiest if the DM simply waits until at least 3 people voice agreement on a plan and then the group simply executes that plan. If late-posters (myself often) object to that, then their character will speak up when they finally do get around to posting.

I think it's nearly-absurd to expect all 6 people to chip in their 2-bits inside of a day. It's just not going to happen. So, like nearly everything in life, you go with a majority-rules position and let the slackers (again, I'm often in this category) deal with it when they can. It's a nice idea to think that every single tiny aspect of the game should be shaped by all members but I've yet to find the universe that works in. And...ya know...I'm well-traveled universally speaking.

Sound like a plan? I know it's hard to make these decisions Jeff, but I think if everyone agrees to the 3-person rule, then no one can come back on you later with frustrations. I think we're seeing that it is FAR more frustrating all just standing around until consensus is reached, no?

My 24-bits, anyway.

[Jeff]

Very sound suggestion, Ed. Thanks! Anyone have an issue with this? 'Cause if at least 3 people are okay with it...

So I'll probably move things along later tonight!

[Josh]

I personally can't imagine that I couldn't make time to post once a day during the week, and maybe once on the weekend (unless a mention in the "conflicts" thread is made). It's not like it takes an hour or anything. We're all busy people, but making a post a day rather than waiting several days would really help keep things on track. When someone's out for a few days, there seems to be a lot of confusion, or re-reading that has to be done. I know when I was out during my trip to NYC, it took me a full day to get back into things.

So, if everyone could manage to find only five minutes a day to look at what's going on, it would definitely be a smoother board.

[Darren]

Ed's suggestion works for me. And Josh has a point, too.