In reply to Jason Sinclair (msg # 23):

You didn't drag the scene on at all. As a GM, I set it up knowing there would be an ethical situation that could result in IC discussion and I wasn't disappointed. There were no major meltdowns and the Posse is now back on track.

I have found that "play[ing] the character" is a slippery concept and one I take with a grain of salt. (That is not to say I don't think you are being sincere.) We're all probably smart and creative enough to justify any action as being "in character" as the situation demands, no matter how heinous or principled. Actions that are consistent with prior RP or stated background are (of course) "in character", on the other hand those that are a departure are (naturally) "character growth" or a "breakdown" (or whatever). That's not to say this musing on the nature of roleplaying means we can't or shouldn't try to be consistent and play in character, or that anyone claiming to do so isn't sincere or being truthful.

Tony

In reply to The Marshall (msg # 24):

Let's just say never put a uber-paladin played by me in that situation. It happened just once. The paladin died when faced by his erstwhile confederates. He managed to just barely take out the entire party and the kid escaped. Kid wound up becoming a paladin himself and killing an elder evil. I try to stay consistent when I post in character saves a headache. Jason feels no remorse for killing the frogs. The kid was innocent and will be better off with either him or Joan.

In reply to Jason Sinclair (msg # 25):

A tough situation. I made sure you had something of an out here, and I am grateful for those players that both engaged or at least RP'd some opinion.

Going forward, I will insist on a marching order! It's only natural.

Tony

In reply to The Marshall (msg # 26):

Marching order???

Yeah I'm not sure where everybody else was but I know that Jane was bringing up the rear and that Peter had posted he had hung back to be by her side.  Something sweet about if he died he wanted to be by her.  That's my guy!  :)

Then I'm probably just in front of the pair of you.

In reply to Jane Guin (msg # 27):

Wait Jane has her SAW doesn't she? Spray and pray through the party is a bad idea. Just saying. Dropping your gun down here also bad idea. Just saying.

Yeah quiet and hides so that I forget him. Damn it Smoker be more outgoing. ;P Sorry my bad and the middle would be where I was gonna put you anyway so that works.

In reply to Jason Sinclair (msg # 29):

I can change where I"m at.  I'm just saying that as the last movements as we were entering that was how it was posted.  Besides I figured if I posted that some of you speak up more to get better marching orders.  :)

In reply to Jane Guin (msg # 30):

I just normally don't run all over people like that. I try to give people time to figure out what they want to do and let them do it. I hadn't seen your post here otherwise I would have said something in character about it. SAWs are great at their job supporting fire. They aren't meant to hit very much unless it is a big target. Firing from the rear you are gonna hit at least one of us and likely more than that.

I know Jane's standard weapon is her SAW so I put her where she can get the best angles in theory. Unless the shit is dead behind us we shoukd be okay. Of course at that point both Trask and Jane are shooting through the party so we are all dead anyway.

In reply to Jason Sinclair (msg # 31):

That's fine with me.  It isn't a secret that Jane knows far more about tactics and guns then Bonni does.  :)

In reply to Jane Guin (msg # 32):

I learned tactics two ways. SWAT Team leaders that I have known over the years. And hours playing a game called Counter-Strike against the Koreans. That was interesting to say the least.

In reply to Jason Sinclair (msg # 33):

Ha ha! I played a lot of CS as well. But no real-world experience, of which I make no bones.

As a point in fact, having Jane with a SAW pulling drag (or "tail end Charlie") is not the worst idea in the world. With Trask in the lead with a SAW, both front and back would be covered. You need to consider that not all threats might conveniently come at you from the front. You could get hit from the sides or the rear. If Jane is in the front of the column she would have the same problem of shooting through the posse to get to a threat coming from another sector.

That said I am not advocating you follow my advice, I think Jason's marching order is fine.

Tony

In reply to The Marshall (msg # 34):

I made it based on what Jason knows of the enemy force. If I was basing it on my paranoia at this point it would be different.

I am going to be out of RPOL for a couple of days.  Will catch back up on Sunday or Monday.  I'm ok.  Just mentally, physically, and financially draining week...need to recoup.

In reply to Jane Guin (msg # 36):

Take your time. I will NPC Jane and try not to get her killed!

Tony

 Please spend chips guys. If memory serves everybody but me is broken. Meaning the monster is gonna eat your butt alive unless Jason can stop it by himself. Not entirely a good plan, but not horrid. Terror is bad business in Deadlands very bad business.

Marshall is Vundra about to get hit? Or is he already been hit?

Also is the corridoor still 20 feet wide with small path down the side?

In reply to Vundra (msg # 39):

Vundra will be hit if he doesn't dodge or draw a weapon and parry. If you check the turn order I posted you'll see that he goes before the scrawler.

I post all bad guy actions first before the players, even though all actions are resolved in card order. This gives the players a small advantage as you see what the bad guys are doing before you post. Sometimes, if you are faster (drew a higher card, like Vundra) then know what the bad guys is doing before you post.

The corridor is still 20' wide. There is a 6' (2yd/m) wide wood path of planks and old rotten pallets running down the middle. The water is only just above your ankles.

Chip use is summarised in Cheat Sheets:

link to a message in this game




Tony
This message was last edited by the GM at 04:28, Mon 25 Jan 2016.

Smoked octopus. OMG Lol!

In reply to Jason Sinclair (msg # 41):

hehehe.  Glad you got a chuckle out of it.  :)

In reply to Jane Guin (msg # 42):

I made a mistake, Jane did actually make her Cognition check to act.

Tony

In reply to The Marshall (msg # 43):

Tony let her fail it.

In reply to Jason Sinclair (msg # 44):

What are you babbling about, man? I'm not just being a nice guy, it's actually in the die roller records. Check it yourself:

14:31, Sat 23 Jan: The Marshall, on behalf of Jane Guin, rolled 8 using 3d6, rerolling max with rolls of 3,1,4.  Cognition.

I think someone did fail but as I didn't keep track of who I was rolling for it's my mistake.

Tony

 In the die roller oh well then. If it wasn't I'd say what I said. If you don't see the big bad nasty horror then you can't be afraid of it.

In reply to Jason Sinclair (msg # 46):

Dude, why the 'tude?

Ah wait, now I see what happened. I didn't set the dice roller to keep only the highest, so it added all the numbers together. She in fact didn't make her roll.

1) Jane sees the monster.

2) She failed her Cognition check and so sits out the first turn as she is surprised.

3) It's still important to pass the Fear check as the effects can last the entire combat, and even become permanent (if she blows the roll on the Scairt table).

Sorry for the confusion.

Tony

In reply to The Marshall (msg # 47):

Yep.

Jane failed her cognition check and lost her turn which is why I posted what I did about smoked octopus.  What can I say, I was hungry when I posted it.

I did spend a red chip so that I passed my Guts check at least.  :)