Forgot your password?
Event 7: The Kopru Ruins
Up to Chapter 3: Flood Season
It seems like the moron who wanted to join has decided spamming is the better option. Whenever Marc does get this going again, I don't think he'll allow such an idiot into his game, 18 pages of pushing Viagra and Ciallis ... wow, utter stupidity ... how many people actually fall for that lunacy?
I must have missed that! Still here and waiting for Marc's child to grow up, go to college, meet someone, settle down and get married and finally give Marc enough time to come back to the game ;-)
Wow - nearly a month gone by already since I last checked in... and still no other posts... I suggest we campaign to Marc to get the game moved to RPOL - checking will be easier then since all my other games are on RPOL :)
Out of curiosity - do any of the other players here use RPOL?
I used to, but it doesn't compare to Mythweavers. Mythweavers has great posting applications that allow you to roll dice in the thread in several ways, and they have comprehensive character sheets. Once I started there, I never went back to RPOL.
Previously Matthew Fenn wrote:
Out of curiosity - do any of the other players here use RPOL?
Chris, thanks for notifying me about the spammer. One discussion forum was open to the public, which I made to member-only.
As to continuing: I very sorry for not having restarted this game yet as I really would like to continue with you and your group of characters. What I have underestimated slightly is the work needed to run a proper D&D 3.5 game on an internet board. For tactical battles in D&D 3.5 it is crucial to have good maps. But these, for example, take quite some time to draw and to upload. Furthermore, a lot of bookkeeping concerning magical treasure, etc. is involved, so it is more that just writing one post per day, which I could, of course, easily make.
At the moment, I may have the time to restart the game again (or, say, in a couple of weeks), although I would have to run it more slowly. However, such a restart may not last for very long as the good news it (at least for us) that we are expecting another baby in May 2010. So I am a bit undecided what to do here.
One possible solution - if you simply would like to continue to play as a group - could be to put this game on a more permanent halt and that I start a new, less time consuming game possibly with the same characters. This game would probably be an AD&D game as I have come to the conclusion that the simpler rules of AD&D make running a play-by-post game for the DM much more pleasant. (Running a game like this one here is a lot of fun, but also a lot of boring work as D&D 3.5 is a game system best suited to table-top play.) What do you think?
Its funny, I started playing D&D in 1983 with the Basic system and moved quickly to AD&D, but the rules of 3.5 are more familiar now since I haven't played the old rules in so long. I currently play in an AD&D game, but it is almost lacking in mechanics entirely and is entirely role-play. I can play an AD&D game game, and would since I enjoy your DM style Marc, I still have the books available, but I would prefer a different character if we were to continue that way ... Kollin is just too embedded in 3.5 to me.
And congratulations on the up and coming new arrival! I now see why you have so little time! :P
Look at that! Marc is still alive! Wonders never cease!
With regards to 2nd ed versus 3.5 ed - I have to confess to having a preference to 3.5 - though I do know what you mean about it being more labour intensive - creating battle maps - even simple ones, can be quite laborious - and they are usually needed due to the strategic importance of all those feats that allow you to do stuff that depends on where you are in relation to allies and enemies... I'm not sure I agree that there is any particular added book keeping on magic items compared to 2nd ed though.
I do still play in a couple of 2nd edition games - one (Dragonlance) is very old and very slow - it, like my own Northern Journey campaign, has been running since the year 2000 - through four changes of DM, and is more free-form role-play than roll-play. The current DM (one of the other players who took over from me (remember Leathynos in Steve's WWC game?) has no real clue about the rules, and asks me to help step in whenever there is a battle. In the current scene I just made the battle up, fudging dice rolls all over the place to make it more dramatic. Although I still play/half-run it - it is not my favourite game.
The second AD&D game I play in was started only a month or so ago, and is still very new - I had to re-learn the character generation all over again to create a character for it. It is a high level game (14th) and seems like it could be quite fun - but I find myself missing the strategic element of 3rd edition. The plot is quite interesting though, and that is what attracted me.
With regards to THIS game however, I WOULD ideally like to continue this game with the same characters. I'd be less interested in starting a brand new game with new characters, be it 2nd edition or 3.5 edition. Ideally, I'd also like to persuade Marc to switch to RPOL since I'd prefer to have all my games in one place... (I've never used Mythweavers and I might give it a look but I doubt I'll get involved in a game there for the same reason).a
To help persuade you to a) keep the game going, and b) switch it to RPOL, I'll offer to help co-DM it... :-) I could help you run battles, roll dice, update maps/character sheets etc... I have a fairly good system for my own game (and have recently seen some even better techniques in a different game I play in that I'm going to be incorporating, so I think it could go quite smoothly...
:-)
With regards to 2nd ed versus 3.5 ed - I have to confess to having a preference to 3.5 - though I do know what you mean about it being more labour intensive - creating battle maps - even simple ones, can be quite laborious - and they are usually needed due to the strategic importance of all those feats that allow you to do stuff that depends on where you are in relation to allies and enemies... I'm not sure I agree that there is any particular added book keeping on magic items compared to 2nd ed though.
l do like that tactical parts of D&D 3.5 a lot - it combines classical roleplaying with elements of tactical table-top miniature games quite well.
However, it is this part which makes it less suitable for play-by-post gaming when compared to previous editions. And the different focus of the newer rules is surely a reason why older editions lead more often to a gaming style where role-play is more important and where numbers do not matter that much (don't get me wrong, rules are needed to make the world work coherently).
The question is, which games are more fun for you. Do you play-by-post because you mainly want to develop a character storywise and where the specific rules system is not that important? Or do want to play because you also would like to try out the D&D 3.5 rules and see how your character works best with all the feats and gimmicks you have chosen from the books?
(To those who were in Steve's WWC2 game: I think his game belonged more the first class (with some exceptions and ignoring the reasons why the game finally died) while TSC has been run as a highly tactical game where the grand story is more in the background and gives you opportunities to explore dungeons.)
Independently on what you think about these points, I will think how Matthews offer (thanks!!!) could help me to spend less work on the TSC while still running the campaign smoothly.
I have been running Kollin as more of a "build" than a character, wanting to see where it all went in the long run. I began 3.5 playing in WWC2 learning the rules and have since just branched out, first on RPOL and then onto Mythweavers, and have played most classes offered in 3.5. But since Kollin is a "build", I don't feel him as a character much, this is why I mentioned starting as a new character for AD&D (2nd Ed has been mentioned, which edition is it then? 1st or 2nd AD&D?) because the older editions are more "role-" than "roll-" play to me and Kollin is mere numbers to me.
As far as the RPOL thing goes, I'd prefer not to play there, I stopped using it because, and no offense intended Matthew, RPOL stinks. Mythweavers is far more comprehensive and easier to use and offers so much more, to me going back to RPOL would be taking a step backwards.
I have been running Kollin as more of a "build" than a character, wanting to see where it all went in the long run. I began 3.5 playing in WWC2 learning the rules and have since just branched out, first on RPOL and then onto Mythweavers, and have played most classes offered in 3.5. But since Kollin is a "build", I don't feel him as a character much, this is why I mentioned starting as a new character for AD&D (2nd Ed has been mentioned, which edition is it then? 1st or 2nd AD&D?) because the older editions are more "role-" than "roll-" play to me and Kollin is mere numbers to me.
"Build" versus "character" is the wording that describes exactly what I had in mind. When I mentioned AD&D, I meant AD&D 2nd edition, which is the system I know and own besides D&D 3.X.
As to the software to use: This, I think, is not the most important decision, although I would like to use a system that has some tools that help the DM to run the game.
Either site has aids for the DM and players, RPoL has a separate dice roller and Mythweavers gives you the ability to roll in the thread itself where you're posting. RPoL has a Scratch Pad where the DM or players can keep notes, Mythweavers has a GM Screen that has the same ability as well as it has the "short list" of character sheets; by short list I mean their AC, Saves, HP's, Stats, weapons ... things like that and with it is the link directly to the sheet should you want to look deeper. RPoL doesn't have character sheets(well, they do, but they are in text format and not dynamic), but Mythweavers does and they are "smart", meaning they calculate the encumbrance, stats, saves, BAB, etc for you as well as cross references your Class to the Skills, marking off automatically Cross Class skills so you don't even have to think about them. Plus, in your posts, you can make a Sheet Roll such as a Skill, Save, or Stat check by simply typing [sr=Listen][/sr] and it will automatically take the Listen check from your sheet and roll it for you so you don't even have to look it up. And this is just the tip of the iceberg so to speak, there are many more in-depth things you can do with dice "tags" like the Sheet Roll. They do have 2nd Ed AD&D sheets too, they have a different sheet for just about any other kind of game like Star Wars, GURPS, Mutants and Masterminds, etc.
Wow - definitely sounds like Mythweavers has gone a level beyond RPOL! I guess my enthusiasm for RPOL is mainly due to the fact that it is above and beyond the original and basic Yahoogroups that I used to use! That and the fact that my own game and several others I play in are based there - so I can't move from there unless I persuaded all my fellow players to move simultaneously... which I can't see happening...
I'll have a look at Mythweavers, and if the web-site is "work compatible" - then I'll definitely consider going there for this game... if it were to move there... :-)
As for the role-vs-roll debate - when playing high level characters, I tend towards the build first, and the character comes second. At low levels, the character comes first, and the build second. So looking at Bolder for example, he is not what I would call an optimised character. In fact, I don't think he'll ever be an optimsed character. Ideally, I like my characters to have one "thing" at which they excel far better than others - at the moment, I don't feel Bolder does that - he is a fighter trying to be a rogue, and, IMO, doesn't really pull either off that well!
Certainly I appreciate the tactical element - and in fact, I actually think that it suits pbem. When in combat, the player has plenty of time to check out all their skills and capabilities, make sure they put forward the most suitable tactical action at the time. Certainly in face2face games, I've found that the players tend to forget what magic items and feats they have, and thus don't make the best tactical decisions. Having said that - I've encountered plenty of players in pbem games who've done the same!
Another consequence of the more tactical game of course is that there is an expectation from a DM point of view that the players will post in both the descriptive role-play narrative manner, but also in the tactical/grid-reference/special feat manner as well - eg "OOC: move to G7, shoot two arrows (manyshot feat) at the giant in G12".
I hate it when players only give general instructions for their character's actions. I don't want to have to decide which squares they move through (and thus whether they will/won't have an AoO against them). I don't want to have to decide exactly which of the enemies they target with their missile fire. I don't want to have to choose what feats they do/don't use during any particular attack. I don't want to have to choose the exact grid reference for where their spell detonates (and thus whether or not it includes/excludes some allies). I want them to do all these things, and live/die by the results of their actions. Sadly, not all the players (certainly in my game!) do this - and it frustrates me!
Hmm... methinks I may have stumbled off-topic into my own DM rant! LOL
Anyway, from my vote perspective, I'd like to stick to the current game system and the current campaign. If Marc would allow it though - I'd be tempted to suggest, for those of us who aren't emotionally invested into their characters, that we are allowed to consider re-building our characters to make them more real to us.
RPoL was the same for me for a while, it was quite a step up from PBeM. Then someone used a link to a character sheet one time in RPoL that linked a Mythweaver's character sheet and I was smitten :) Here's a link to the sheet of a Knight of mine that got killed: http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=146280 He got killed partially because of really horrible HP rolls, 64 HP's is very low for a level 7 Knight who uses d12 for HP's and has 14 Con. The main reason is he was a character for me and not a build and I did what any Knight would do, he took the Fireball to save the rest of the group ... he died with honor! :)
As far as the game goes, I am with Matthew in that I prefer 3.5, but will go to 2nd Ed if the vote goes that way.
If I may be so rude - I'd like to plug another game here for a moment...
Essentially it is an Epic (21st level) game run by a great DM (on RPOL - sorry Chris!). Small party (Rogue, Elementalist/sorcerer, Fighter and Celestial/cleric...) We are currently looking for a new player to step up to the challenge and take on the Celestial/cleric character...
The game has been beset by some difficulties in the past, specifically in terms of additional PCs coming in and then dropping out - and the DM doesn't want to go yet again through the painful process of recruiting a new player, helping them develop their new character sheet and then writing the new character into the plot. The existing PCs have also been mucked around too many times already in terms of people joining them only to leave them shortly after to accept yet another new party member - so hence the reason we'd like the new player to take over the existing character.
I'm sure however that the DM would be flexible enough to allow some tweaking of the character - eg changing of skill points/feats etc to allow a certain amount of customisation...
Here is a link to the game, http://www.rpol.net/game.cgi?gi=30101
Here is also a link to my own web-site where I've been tracking the history of the game and the intricacies of the plot/clues etc that we've gathered so far. http://www.matthew.fenn.dsl.pipex.com/CurrentGames/EpicHunt/EpicHunt.htm
Finally, I also have a copy of the character sheet as it stands at the moment. If anyone is interested, rmail me from within rpol and I'll send you a copy.
Anyone interested? :-)
I might have been interested if it were a new character, the idea of Epic draws me since I've never done it. But I just don't like taking over existing characters, they don't feel right :)
Hi all - BTW - that Epic game I mentioned up above eventually died :-( But I am polling to see if I can find a new DM to run an Epic game - and to that end, I'm going to be looking for players I know are good posters and would be around for the long run...
Chris - you possibly interested still? This time you would be able to generate your own character... :-)
