In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 191):

What he said because it was better than what I could say. Cheers

If you didn't he would have. I agree. Cheers

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 192):

The Judge calls bullshit on that point. If you care to discuss the matter OOC, the Judge would be happy to debate the point.

In reply to Theodore Winters (msg # 194):

Besides I'm only an outlaw in Texas.  In 1877 Doc Holliday shot someone in Ft Griffin and simply went to Dodge City and was never accosted again.  I think he later dueled someone in Dallas; after killing him he asked his pards if they were "satisfied" and no charges were filed.  So I may be a bail jumper but I'm not leading a desperado's life.

My old west facebook status is "it's complicated."

I'll work with the party and will be happy to take care of the dirty work when it needs being done.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 196):

This is exactly the point. Travis isn't an outlaw because he killed a man. He is an outlaw because he skipped out on his trial after giving Judge Ledbetter his word to show up at the trial in exchange for being released on his own recognizance.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 197):

I'm open to a new PC and would in fact welcome it. We can discuss pm.

In reply to James E. Beauregard (msg # 198):

I'd like to help Cole resolve his situation and think it would be entertaining. Not a big fan of hand-waving but if that's the consensus, then so be it.

In reply to James E. Beauregard (msg # 198):

That's an unexpected about-face, my friend. Only a few days ago you, the player, indicated you would play JEB until he dies or retires. I suppose retirement could come at any time.

I have now heard from a couple of players who are expressing interest in new characters. I meant it when I wrote that switching to new character is welcome. My preference is that new PCs are coordinated with each other in backstory in a way that facilitates game-play. That is not a requirement for introducing a new PC. I just think it would improve the gaming.

My idea for a fade-up that starts the adventure to resolve Cole Trayne's predicament would need re-building, or even scrapping, if a number of new PCs are introduced at that time. Especially if the PCs being replaced are among those with Cole on the way to San Francisco.

And that's fine; it's why I wanted to have this conversation. The game needed change and together we are figuring out how to change it in a way that players and the judge will enjoy. To Cole's point, the Judge can adapt to player preferences so let's find the common ground to move forward. Let's keep talking.

Based on the follow-ups of ENS, Jake and Winters in regard to 3a or 3b, that vote could be interpreted as split. New characters might advance an argument for 3b, although there is no reason that new characters couldn't be woven into a scenario with a 3a fade-up. Or perhaps there is now a third alternative . . . run a 3a adventure with current characters and move to 3b with new characters? Maybe in that scenario, JEB dies and his statement a few days ago (#171) proves prescient.

The Judge continues to consider how a short list of idea hooks might work in these various scenarios.

Having heard more of the preferences of your fellow players, including JEB's announcement to play a new character, what are your (plural, to the group of players) current thoughts?

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 200):

I love Travis but if there is a wave of new characters I would reconsider a compete reboot, if it served the group.

I was thinking about a new gunslinger called Trampus Monday.

Daysun Sivart, a mute, three-fingered, cross-eyed gunslinger with a limp.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 201):

That shit made me laugh. Out loud as it were.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 203):

I was not reversing course, just expressing flexibility with whatever works best for the group. Having said that, a major issue I see with continuing as JEB is the lack of current employment in his chosen class which makes some of the perks useless at this point. The situation would need to be remedied before fade in to fully utilize JEB's potential.

In reply to James E. Beauregard (msg # 204):

Okay, thanks for the flexibility. When you said you would welcome the change, it sounded like a reversal of previous statement. New characters would be interesting to the Judge, but I don't want anyone to do that unless truly interested.

As for JEB, I understand the "lack of employment" concern although it seems to me that sort of applies to everyone. Regular employment is difficult in RPoL game, especially if we are talking about a structured adventure, because of the elongated time it takes in RL to play relative to the short period of game-time that is passing.

However, I disagree that the lack of employment stops JEB from using his Tin Star perks. The ones he has (and ones that can be gained from leveling up) can be used by an unemployed lawman. Using class features, "crunch-wise," is not dependent on employment. From the "fluff" perspective,I can understand why as a player you might want to play the character in a way that would voluntarily limit the use of class features when unemployed. From the Judge's point of view, that would be a voluntary choice. The first two Tin Star features are based in Reputation, which is a strength for JEB.

If that is the only reason JEB wanted to change to a new PC, I might re-think the decision. If the chart of pros and cons leans towards new character anyway, then this is just an academic point, but I thought it was worth sharing the Judge's view about using class features.

At this time, it seems that players are split on 3a or 3b. Cole's preference for 3b is what I'm leaning toward, because his character is most affected by such a decision. Any last thoughts?
This message was last edited by the GM at 12:50, Thu 04 June 2015.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 205):

Final thought:

3b assures Cole cannot elect to play a new character--were that his choice.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 206):

Seems to me to be the opposite. If 3b is the choice, Cole's situation would be resolved in narrative and the player could choose to play a new character, if he were to make such a choice.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 207):

Apologies, I meant 3a (I was in a doctor's office when I replied, reading on my phone).

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 207):

I vote 3a... final answer...

I'm still fine with either, so the Judge still has my proxy.

I like  playing Cole, so I'm not particularly interested in creating a new character. Howvwr, if everyone is interested in creating new characters from scratch, I won't object.

As I wrote earlier I'm not interested in a trial storyline, so virtually any narrative that avoids that outcome is fine by me.

In reply to Cole Trayne (msg # 211):

Do you, the player, still prefer post-resolution fade-up? A trial storyline is not going to happen. Thanks for you confirmation on that point. The judge is trying to finalize whether we fade up to an adventure that involves Trayne's situation or fade up to something that happens after a narrated resolution . . . Neither of which will involve a trial. Earlier you indicated preference for post-resolution. Still true?

----------------------

Thanks to others who confirmed final preferences.

A man of gentle tone and smart attire, Charles Conway could be almost anyone you've ever met and none at the same time. His unassuming demeanor lends to his desire to listen to you and what you have to say.

So, what do you have to say? Does anyone have a character fleshed out, or at least conceptualized, to create a backstory with me? The judge doesn't need best friends, but some link to bring characters together.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 212):

Yes, post-resolution would be my preference. But,I wouldn't strenuously object  to the former.

In reply to Cole Trayne (msg # 214):

The Judge will be developing an adventure over the next few weeks.

In reply to Charles Conway (msg # 213):

Who's playing Charles?  I'm always available for backstory assistance.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 216):

No big mystery here; it's Chance/Randy.