In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 5):

Option #4.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 5):

Option 4 for me, as well.

In reply to Cole Trayne (msg # 8):

I'd like to see it through in the Flat as well.

I enjoy writing Jake as a character, and would prefer to continue so in some guise (as opposed to breaking in a new character).

I would probably prefer some variation of Option Number 6(a.). I find that I don't really relish playing out some of (what I consider to be) the ultra-mundane occurrences of day-to-day town life. The current plots also seem to primarily have Jake playing a tag-along roll role, doing little else other than following the other characters around as they deal with their own issues.

That said, I'll go with the majority opinion, which seems to be trending towards Option Number 4.

OOC: Edited as marked.
This message was last edited by the player at 00:26, Sun 02 Feb 2014.

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 10):

I would welcome a 6a option after we tie things up.

After reading a bit more of the book, I now am firmly of the opinion that you are correct, and that the above-referenced faux pas was a mistake on the part of both the author and his editor. I have now found not one but several references to Robert E. Lee's Army of the Potomac. Sheesh -- very sloppy writing and editing.

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 12):

Sloppy editing, seems to me. Stuff like that happens when writing. Editing is supposed to catch it.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 11):

Thanks to all for the input (Randy your thoughts are still wanted). Everyone, please feel free to elaborate further as you desire.

Part of the reason I asked was captured succinctly by Travis, who said maybe we could tie up loose ends in the Flat in a day or two game-time, which would be years in real-time. I think that is a fair assessment and I didn't want to drag on for a year or more to reach resolutions in The Flat if players weren't enjoying the RP.

Surely we can go from 4 to 6a, it's just a matter of time. I have no problems minimizing the mundane, but a lot of the time advancement of the plot has required the PCs to act and it wasn't the mundane that slowed us down, in my opinion, but rather the circumstances of events which required almost 24/7 usage of game time. Anytime you all want to accelerate play, that's fine with the Judge.

Another idea I had was to resolve (option 4) and then go back and re-boot from the moment Travis decided it was time to shoot it out with Rasmin at noon on Third Street, continuing with the gun battle as it was as that moment.

Traveling on business this week. I expect daily log in and activity barring any travel issues.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 14):

That's not necessary.  Now that JEB is done with duty and honor if Randy's plan does not materialize soon I'll advance the plot quickly.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 16):

Of course, I know going back to play the encounter with Rasmin isn't necessary. Just saying I would consider that an option, depending on how things end in the current stream.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 17):

If you don't care to read my whole post, here are the quick points: the play has become dull and repetitious, the PCs are backed into a corner, and a resolution needs to be addressed.

Ramblings, in no specific organization or order (please excuse any typographical, grammar, or formatting errors):

I had, to a lesser degree, this feeling some timeo. However, it's continued to grow since then. In general, there has been a lack of action and no real need for the rule book. There is always a potential for that to change, but it isn't likely.

Right now, the player-characters' behavior are akin to those of children playing the backseat "don't touch me" game. They are using their out-stretched fingers to move as close to the nose of the opposition without actually touching them. ("Goddammit, so help me, I'll turn this car around and go back home if you two don't stop it!")

As much dramatic tension as that builds, it isn't enough to maintain my interest. Character A walks over here while Character B talks to NPC at another location. Blah, Blah, Blah. SSDD.

In fact, I've said before, the prospects for the future of the characters are slim to nil, which makes it painful, not only for Randy, but for me as well. I find no joy in that.

I know this is really the doing--well, 60%--of the players. I have a some ideas.

I have truly thought about the game while I've not been involved. I stayed back from the Shadowrun game as well, because I didn't want to be obvious and offend the judge.

For Cole, someone could ask Rojas to contact the Governor's and/or Mayor's office in SF to dismiss the case based on the net result.

For Travis, have Rojas and the prosecutor enter into plea bargain negotiations to lessen the charges to dueling and perhaps incarceration to one month.

I rarely like the reset, fade-to-black, god-mode, or fuhgeddaboudit options if they can be avoided. Sometimes, however, the adventure or scenario needs editing and one or more of those options should be used.

Now that I've probably offended most or everyone, where to go from here? Well, there's got to be a resolution to everything, otherwise there's a gaping hole in many characters' story. Jake and ENS would come out alright, but probably not the Buffaloes. Travis and Cole just can't kill men and walk away. JEB, as a lawman, can't travel with men who do that. So, the two killers need to have their cases settled. The solutions don't have to make a whole helluva lotta sense because it still was a wide interpretation of the law back then, but some form of justice has to be served. Randy would never let Travis be put in prison for doing "the right thing," so that's a complication for Mr. Big'un. Randy would bust-up half of Frisco for Cole on account of his doing "the right thing" as well. I've read the posts from others that express similar sentiments.

It ain't a clean break.

Travis needs to own-up to his mistake as a first step. Cole should throw himself on the mercy of the court, perhaps in Sacramento instead of San Francisco. From there, some plausible resolutions to the cases can be made.

First, I  am not offended and have no reason to be. Neither should anyone else as far as I can tell.

In my opinion, there are many avenues to resolve the current situations. I disagree with Randy's statement:


The PCs futures can go in many different directions. I have several scenarios in mind; some of which are similar to things Randy suggests; others that are completely different. All of them stem from PC dialogue and actions--in my view they would be plausible ways to move forward, either by playing them out or fast-forwarding. Saying that the PCs are backed into a corner, with the implication that they don't have options about what to do, is in my opinion a statement lacking in imagination. Pretty much every western film has a piece of the plot where the heroes are in a fix. Sometimes a desperate fix. One of their pards is in jail, forced to go on the lam, beholding to someone in power, being cheated or set-up by an NCP, what-have-you. In my opinion, this is a classic western scenario that has numerous plausible resolutions.

I could certainly understand if players wanted to change things up, or push forward resolutions that they desire, or fade-to-black, or whatever. In fact, I encourage it. All of that said, I would be happy to see the PCs drive the plot to whatever conclusions they desire.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 19):

For the record: not offended either!

I'd say the play can be a little mundane, but that's more due to the medium (rpol). We could do bout after bout of combat, but we've all seen how that goes! I find the RP has been good and a lot of character development has occurred.

That being said, I think perhaps a few "fast-forwards" between action points could be in order.

No offense taken.  Travis has owned up to his mistake.  He's willing to do weeks/months but not years.

Travis's mistake was mine though.  I thought I read in Sidewinder or a supplement about a gunfight, in Texas, near identical situation, later in history, and there was no angst or mention about dueling and the "fair fight" doctrine prevailed.

Travis' plan was to skip court, turn outlaw, flee the Pythonesque local constabulary kill Rasmin and rescue Cole.

Regardless, I think the game would be served by a more structured adventure where Jake and the professor were equally involved.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 21):

I want to comment on a couple of things.

In my opinion, the professor has been heavily involved. His role in the investigation of Sun Mei Ling's murder was prominent, if not crucial. In many ways, the murder hook was perfect for the Professor.

I think it is fair to say that Jake has been less involved in some ways. But I will also say that the Judge gave him a couple of opportunities to grab an adventure hook but he essentially declined. That isn't a knock on the player, but rather the player playing the PC in a certain way, making it harder for him to bite the hook.

Here's another malapropism that I ran across today that both warmed the cockles of my heart and made me think of Randy, all at the same time. :)

So . . . to set the stage, today is National Signing Day, when the various high school seniors who wish to major in football in college send in their Letters of Intent to their school of choice. It is a day of high drama and suspense for those who care about such things.

A disgruntled poster on a recruiting site who was upset with one of these kids (undoubtedly for not choosing "his" team) referred to him as a "pre Madonna".

Amazing!

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 23):

That's hilarious.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 24):

Really? I could care less.

Therein is one of the oft mis-spoken expressions. Both, the judge and I, are annoyed by its fouled usage.

I couldn't care less about the people who speak so poorly.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 25):

There's no stigmata against those who speak poorly.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 26):

Another good one.

The PCs should be picking up hints in the recent RP (public and PM) about things that could be used to advance the plot in one way or another.

The judge and I have commented to each other over the use of a particular phrase. We each have a different interpretation of the syntax of "say your piece/peace."

JM contends it is proper to, or at least his encounters with the phrase, use "piece." I have only read the usage of "peace." I image there is no need for any arguments for either syntax--all of you are clever enough to figure each meaning from the bifurcated uses.

On a side note, I never thought of using "shoot on site," but that's an amazing turn of phrase.


BTW - Does anyone know what a waterslide moment is?
Is anyone else concerned about our society with all of these turnkey kids?

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 29):

I would clarify, Randy's statement, slightly. I think both uses of "say your piece" and "say your peace" are valid. I believe they had different valid meanings. In general, I find the former is superior--which is why Randy remembers our differing opinion--as it is a more general statement. In other words, to "give a piece of your mind" or "give your input" or "say your part" or "say what you have to say." Meanwhile, "say your peace" is more specific--and is probably an off-shoot of "hold your peace"--meaning "you need to say something to have peace of mind."

In my opinion, if you equate "say your piece" to "give a piece of your mind" then it's becomes more clear.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 30):

But, to counterpoint on "piece of his mind," one may have "peace of mind" in precisely the same manner as speaking one's peace.

At play is an unspoken indirect object. I am happy to speak my piece of this conversation. I am, additionally, happy to speak my peace as a counterpoint. I've read it is fine to use these phrases interchangeably, but I am so opined that it isn't. In fact, I feel it is better to "get it off one's chest" by speaking one's peace is a more cathartic process--release the emotion and cleanse the mind at the same time.

Whatever the outcome, there is little doubt this debate could rage on ad infinitum. Actually, I feel I would win quickly as the judge has given a piece of his mind so generously of late, he is likely scarce of the matter and ill-suited to continue.