Adam?

I don't think Adam is checking the forum anymore.  I'll text him.  If Adam isn't interested Would Allan and Joe like to continue with just Allan and Joe?  If it's just Allan and Joe is the group then small enough to interest Orme?
This message was last edited by the GM at 15:23, Mon 10 Sept 2018.

OK, Adam said he's still in.  I assume Orme is out.  I'll play Morgim as an NPC for now unless there are strong objections.  I will try to gin up a game post some time today and see if that gets things rolling.

Sometimes it seems like thinking about DnD is more fun than playing DnD.  To that end, what if we had a forum where we just posted character builds with a short story to go along with the build?

Another though I had is what if all the dice rolling and book keeping were kept from the players.  So they just have the narrative to go off of.  Would that be more or less fun?  Probably depends on the player and the DM.  Would anyone want to try that?

In reply to The World (msg # 115):

Yes, still out. The pace of this game has stressed me out and I'm not even playing.

While I am in favor of bringing things together, I think for now lets keep up the private posts.  Unless you guys vote not to.

Depressingly true sometimes. I still think in person playing is far and away the most enjoyable.

I don't think posting builds would be fun enough. I do think that making characters then playing one-off encounters would be fun though. There are pretty quick ways to make characters (I use an app), it takes a long time to share it, though. Maybe if we used dnd beyond it would be easier.

I would like making various characters at various levels and pitting them against deadly challenges.

But I would rather just continue to play StoKiTh.



I think that would put an enormous burden on the dm unless he used averages, macros, etc. Or just eyeballed the likelihood, squinted, then gave a off-the-cuff result.

Lots of people play what they call "free-form" and what we used to call "no book, no dice". I honestly think that one of the things that makes the forum not-so-great is that you don't roll physical dice. Seeing a 20, or a 1, come up is magival.

Character concepts are entertaining but only with the prospect of playing them. No DnD daydream can ever hold a candle to those moments where the Players and DM are surprised. There are moments where it seems the game takes it's own direction and nobody saw it coming. So I probably would contribute very little to the making of characters just for fun.



With complete trust for the DM this would go over fine. But others are often skeptical of things not going their way. You might even say that we lack the trust necessary to make this possible. On the forum I am cool with whatever because I generally have a disconnect with my character that I cannot seem to bridge. So I can trust to be treated fairly even if it wasn't the way I thought it should be done. Even if I didn't trust the results I just would not care enough to complain.

so i was talking to seth today about what to do with morgrim now that dixon is out. apparently they recommend playing the campaign with a minimum of 4 but ideally like 6. one option is to npc him, another is to have one of us take him over and then maybe the other two of us make additional characters and have a party of 6. another idea is to scrap morgrim and make 3 new characters. what are your thoughts? what do you want to do?

waaaaaAAAAAHHHH!!!!!

just kidding, not that kind of feedback!

How am I doing, what should I do differently, and what would you like to see change?

I thought Seth's post was a reply to Adam's question and was very confused because I did not see the "Feedback" subject line. I think you can do a better job at answering Adam's question about other characters.

The way I judge games on rpol is how I feel when there is a new post. Do I feel excited? Do I stop what I am doing to read it real quick? Do I make a mental note to read it later because I want to be able to really focus on it? Do I feel like I just got another task to fit into the other things I have to do?

I feel excited when there is a new post and I will generally save it for when I have a minute to give it my attention. I don't think there is anything that must be changed. I am torn whether I like private posts or group posts. I think that we should do it only in the context of battles where there are distinct rounds, or when there is something a character wants to keep secret. Otherwise that we agree to share information whenever we meetup.

And I am always up for making another character.

looking back at the book it says 4-6 players.  So we could play with 2 characters each.  I could give the baddies 3/5 of their HP and we could just play with 3 characters (1 each).  I kinda don't want to NPC Morgrim for too long though.  Really I'm fine with whatever.  But unless someone speaks for Morgrim he will probably be killed or otherwise split off from the group at some point.

In reply to The World (msg # 123):

Old content is still good content: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0u4M6vppCI

Moral of the story, cut Morgrim's head off with an axe. Does he have an axe I can grab and chop his head off with?

i say we each play 2 characters for a party of 6. does someone want to play morgrim or do we just get rid of him?

I will think of playing Morgrim, it's a pretty good character.

Seth, would you prefer that we roll uncalled-for rolls that we think might be useful? I was about to post with a history roll for cultists, but what's your preference?

One reason I ask is because if you have a large group, a lot of history checks become kind of easy to make because it is like quadruple advantage. But on the other hand, if you are sneaking with a lot of people then it's like quadruple disadvantage, so maybe that's ok.

One option that I have thought about implementing is to just allow one roll with advantage (because of Help), which is probably rolled by the character with the highest modifier. The logic being that the person who is the most knowledgeable would have the best chance and everyone else adds about the same level of help. Like if someone had a question about acoustics Seth would have the best chance knowing, and although the rest of us might know some stuff, the knowledge the rest of us have would plateau at about the same level and would would include a lot of the same stuff, but the little that we have picked up might jog something loose for Seth or corroborate his answer from the perspective of another field of expertise.

But I guess that gets to similar questions about whether multiple people can try to pick locks if the most skilled person already failed. Or try to break down a door if the strongest person failed. I think in these cases I favor the idea of two tries, either by doing it with advantage by one person who is being helped (even if the help is done consecutively), or by letting two people roll, and that's it.

But that doesn't really follow for the stealth example in reverse, but I think that's ok.

I prefer a case by case basis.

should allan and i start thinking of another character to play

I don't think I want to take over Morgrim. I am leaning either toward a Warforged (Juggernaut), either Fighter or barbarian; or a wizard of some type. I am have also thought about a human cleric with the ritual caster feat to cover all our spell bases.

So one thing I was thinking was that with some things multiple tries might make sense, and then it just takes longer to do it.  For example maybe it takes more tries to pick a difficult lock and if you’ve got the time or want to sacrifice the turns (depending on the situation) they you can just take multiple tries.

The way the math works out (I think), is for no proficiency, and no ability modifier, it would take an average number of turns listed below to complete a task with DC listed below.


This doesn’t seem like it quite works to me.  Basically almost anybody can pick a hard lock in average of 2 minutes.
This message had punctuation tweaked by the GM at 00:01, Fri 28 Sept 2018.

In reply to The World (msg # 132):

On the premise it is fun to tinker with the game I will play along here.

First lets acknowledge the rule from the phb:



This makes since to me for all situations where the group is collectively discussing their knowledge or working as one.

I would consider different approaches for circumstances such as below.

- The player is acting individually and may not be sharing with the group
- It is pass fail per player and not per group

I see a temptation for reducing the number of rolls but having been chastised in the past for only the appearance of limiting it to a single roll I cringe for the time it does not go the players way.

In short I think it is appropriate to use the default rules in all group scenarios and individual rolls where the DM sees necessary.

I also think that most skill rolls should be behind the screen for most skill checks. Over the table I try to have players roll as much as possible because it is fun. On the forum it is not fun. It is even a chore. I would happily push everything to the DM to roll. As a DM I would keep a set of dice where I posted from just to whip out rolls without dealing with the dice roller. It makes it more fun and less of a chore.

Whatever anomaly exist, such as the weakest person forcing opening the door instead of the strongest, can be easily narrated to make since. (The strongest guy weakened the door and not realizing it was about to give stopped only to have the gnome knock it over with a well placed shoulder).

I think this makes sense for some things, but not others. Let's say there is a thief with 20 Int, expertise in History, high level, etc. He'd be rolling 20+ consistently. But if he was trying to remember something with a group of dummies, they would tank the check.

Obviously, the 'case by case' rule would apply. I kind of like the 3e method of adding +2 to the check of the person being helped if the helper rolls a 10 or above. Like the DC to make the task 10% easier is a DC 10. That makes sense to me. It is not as elegant as advantage, but I think it is pretty good.

i say leave it up to the dm to decide what to do in the situation.

So
Zip is a rouge
Morgrim is a cleric
Rose is a paladin
Ratt is a warlock

Morgrim might be out. I guess my preference would also be to not play morgrim.

Joe wants to make a fighter or caster maybe cleric.

If we get rid of Morgrim another cleric would be good for the healing.

I want to play something i haven't played before. maybe a cleric or a monk, open to sugestions for something that might be fun.

What are you thinking Allan