Randy, the floor is yours.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 1):

I always liked "Beating a dead horse to within an inch of its life"

Re: the subject of malapropisms, I ran across and interesting turn of phrase in my reading just today. The book is historical fiction, set in the New Mexico/Arizona territories during the time period of the Civil War/War Between the States.

The speaker is a Union officer, discussing orders to be given to his troops regarding what is to be done with Navajos who violate an agreement to stay westerly of a certain fort. ". . . order them to take no errant Navajo men prisoner. They are to shoot them on site. And then send their families back to Cubero."

The phraseology I have always seen is to shoot someone on "sight," so my first inclination is that this was a malapropism that was missed by the proofreader. But, after thinking about it, I started wondering if the spelling was correct (in which case it would be an interesting auditory twist on the customary phraseology), and that the character meant that the Navajo should be shot where they are captured, or in essence, "where they stand," as opposed to being moved to a different site and dealt with there.

Mayhaps this approaches the fabled "how many angels could dance on the head of a pin" discussion, but I mention it in view of Randy's recent comments, on the theory this is the sort of nuance that might interest erudite gentlemen such as yourselves. :)

By the way, I'm pretty sure that "consorting with known erudites" would get you tarred and feathered, or worse, back in the day (or even now, in certain localities). :)
This message was last edited by the player at 21:34, Mon 27 Jan 2014.

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 3):

That's a good one.

In my opinion, "They are to shoot them on site" isn't what the character meant. The character meant "on sight," meaning whenever the soldiers saw them.

Now whether the author had a reason for the character's speech to use the word I don't think the character meant, I can't say. It could have been what the author wanted type the character's speech for a particular purpose. But to me, it is simply a mistake.

Also, the fact that you know what erudite means would be enough to warrant a beating in some neighborhoods. Today, or 150 years ago.

So, Ch13 is coming to a close and I've been thinking:

1. I have thoroughly enjoyed Ch 9-13. That's almost 5,000 posts of fascinating RP in a pseudo-historical town that I crafted. At least, it has been fascinating to me.
2. I sense that there is some desire--or at least consideration--for PCs to move on, i.e. to leave The Flat. I'm fine with that.
3. We have in-game threads that make it easy to move on, if PCs want to do so, but we also have in-game threads that would be unresolved if we moved on, or that would interrupt interesting character development that is directly connected to the town. Some that has occurred by PC choice; some that has occurred as a result of PC choice; some that the Judge has introduced for potential adventure hooks.

Those things considered, I wonder what the players are thinking. This game is our collective effort, so as we close this chapter, I would like to have a good idea of where PCs might like to go next. I realize these aren't exclusive questions, but to generate conversation:

4. Are you still enjoying play in The Flat and would prefer to continue toward some resolutions to existing plot lines?
5. Are you enjoying play in The Flat but don't care whether we resolve existing plot lines or start new ones?
6. Would you prefer to move on The Flat, with a "fade to black" and Judge narrative to fill gaps and resolve plot lines, in order to:
   a. Embark on a more "Judge-scripted" adventure, with less of the town RP feel and more of an action adventure?
   b. Continue with the current open-ended style, but in a different locale?
   c. Instruct the Judge as to a particular kind of adventure, or RP situation, resulting from a PC consensus?
7. Are you tired of the game, regardless of the style of play, locale, etc.?
8. (I think I know the answer to this, but . . . ) If you do want to continue play in some fashion, would you prefer to continue the same characters in a near-future or otherwise-future state? As opposed to new characters, I mean.

All thoughts are not only welcome, but encouraged.

I would like to resolve the plot lines and continue play with this character.  This may take us away from the Flat in a couple of days (2 or 3 years of gameplay) which I'm fine with.