Without wanting to seem pushy, I just wanted to Bump these:

In reply to Beta-SG The Aerie (msg # 65):

Re: the Survival checks for travel.

For the most part folks on the ground are going to be traveling on trade routes and trade routes through the desert are those routes for a reason, because there is water along it so Area Lore tests seem more appropriate in those common instances. I also think it's odd that traveling with a caravan or guide still requires individual rolls. I don't see a benefit to situational modifiers based on where the character is from.


This is way too harsh. If someone botches a roll they die, I don't see another way to read that considering most things where you take more fatigue than you have the fatigue translates to wounds.

I agree they are a bit harsh.

But I'd hardly assume that to be the standard. But it's just like combat if you are doing it as one bulked roll. Botch=Death. If you are trying to walk across the desert and you break your ankle 5 miles from water then you die that's really about it.

I don't really see me using this for the Travellers. Unless the PC's really want them in play. For those guys the journey is too much of the story to be glossed over. Also they are MF'ing wizards... A spell to cool something you are carrying is a 1st mag spell. There are cantrip level spells to aide survival in most specialties. Travelling is something magi need to worry about their support staff doing. Not something they really need to feel threatened by.

Summoned water with moon duration can be done as a level 5 spell. More than long enough for you to drink it, get to your destination, drink sufficient real water to get it all out of your system, so you don't desiccate when it wears off. Don't rely on it for every trip but also don't take a fatigue from lack of water. NBD. (Granted a hilarious way to kill someone with a dispel)

Please allow me to direct the negative responses to:

I am TRYING to create a respectful discussion with my fellow Beta/Covenant GMs, regarding what I see as a valuable element of this setting, that I'd prefer DIDN'T get hand waved away and ignored by players who just don't want their character inconvenienced by this fact.

Now, if we Covenant GMs just want to say that travel is 'no problems' in this setting ... that everyone arrives at their destination refreshed and without anything other than a passing narrative note about sore feet and tired muscles ... then so be it.
So I guess my question now is:
Do we want to have a guiding mechanic for GMs to use, to judge how weary and worn out a character is after days/weeks of travel in this environment?

We are pointing out where we think the "guide" falls short and trying to improve it. Since a guide that we all just make our own on the spot changes to isn't a useful guide.


Strictly speaking I don't think this is what survival is. Travelling with a caravan or a supplied wagon is not "Finding food, water, shelter, a direct route, and relative safety in the wilderness." It's sitting in a wagon as my teamster and guide truck my ass across the desert. If I'm just walking some place (or flying) over more than a day then it's survival. But if I made all the prep ahead of time I don't see why it should be a check.


Then you need to rethink it being one bulk roll. Botches happen and when life or death hinges on one roll botches kill. What is your proposal for what happens when someone gets a botch on an EF 9 roll? They take 9 long-term fatigue? They are passed out laying in the sand long before then.

Making one roll per day and taking a L-T Fatigue on failure is more reasonable. It doesn't take that long. It allows for a magus who fails a few rolls in a row to decide that maybe spending the back half of his fatigue on conjuring a shelter of stone or sending for help is a better option than dying in the desert.

If someone is taking the season long journey from Tunis to Alexandria on foot then SOMETHING notable should happen along the way.

If we didn't respect you we would let the suggestion sit and do what we want as SG's.

We understand you think there should be a standard in place. You seem to be saying "Well if you won't take EF9 then you just want to handwave it all!" I'm the only one who has said anything like hand waving it and that was really only for Magi because, simply put, we won't allow ourselves to die over days/weeks of travel from exhaustion.

What's with the emphasis? Just because 8 isn't declared as an SG doesn't mean they don't get a voice.

Personally, I'm not very interested in quantifing how tired or comfortable individual characters are after uneventful travel. When are individual magi going to be trekking across the desest in such a way that those details should matter? Especially in the absence of a story.

It would be far more useful and applicable to get a handle on travel times and ranges for various types of groups, costs for supplies. I don't usually find purely punitive mechanics to be worth writing out. Make it a trade off: "A merchant caravan can stick to known routes and arrive in a month. If they bring extra rupplies they can drive at a faster pace, or can risk some losses" that kind of thing. Magic can replace supplies, hedge against failure from "pushing it", or replace group size, as appropriate for the exact effect.

I can whip out a basic table draft with standard travel paces/ranges some time tonight. Groups should be able to trade pace for range (and vicea versa), expend resources for either, roll applicable skills for bonus, and "push it" for botch chance.

Beyond that, I wouldn't bother to keep track of each individual character's experience at all: let them go ahead and narrate how they feel. Without extraordinary magic, individuals cannot travel significant distances. With extraordinary magic, why nickel and dime them on fatigue?

I think he is more concerned with their condition when they arrive to an adventure. The Fatigue is irrelevant if their condition at the end is irrelevant, missing 3 days of lab time or something. It is very relevant if they have to fight a dragon and they are down 3 fatigue.

What are you calling extraordinary magic? Complete immunity to the heat of the sun is a level 15 spell or less, done a few different ways, and that is if you want it on your and your camel.

Ok, please, I have logged us as as:

Beta SG - Apicem Domus (Hedge Relations Covenant)
Beta SG - Dessert Runners (Redcap Chapterhouse)
Beta SG - Lux Arcanum (Library)
Beta SG - Porta Amun (Border Covenant)
Beta SG - The Aerie (Menangerie)
Beta SG - Traveling Covenant


Now, If you all will, please ...
head over into your 'OOC: {Covenant}' thread, and do a roll-call.
  Lets find out which PC's are still on board, and which Covenants are still viable.
This message was last edited by the GM at 18:48, Fri 09 July 2021.

Ok, so as time passes:

The Covenants seems to be:
       (I am only working with Hermetic characters, at the moment)
Those highlighted have responded that they are still 'in'.


APICEM DOMUS / Hedge Relations … (group H)  … in Annaba
~ Longinus ex Merinita
~ Salma ex Miscellanea
~ Corvus ex Bjornaer
~ Appolonius of Flambeau

LUX ARCANUS / Library … (group L) …  in Alexandria
~ Malik ex Verditius
~ Vespera of Tremere
~ Benedict ex Mercere

THE AERIE / Menagerie … (group M)  …  in Gamara
~ Arnaldo ex Criamon
~ Macrinus ex Tytalus
~ Jaegar of Merinita

PORTA AMUN /  Border Fortress … (group B)  ... in Pelusium
~ Brontion ex Guernicus
~ Zahrah min bayt Miscellanea
~ Baqir Al-Andalus

DESERT RUNNERS / Redcap Chapterhouse  … (groups D and R)  …  Tunis
~ Malleus ex Verditius
~ Iapetus of Rennes, of Tytalus
~ Klaudios Bonisagi

~ Quis el-Sarwar (Companion)
~ Giovanni of Mercere (Companion)
~ Tallak Thorstennson (Companion)
~ Benedict of Mercere (Companion)
~ Tello of Mercere (Companion)

THE TRAVELLING MAGI … (group T) ... wandering
~ Leander ex Flambeau
~ Andre ex Miscellanea     



Several of the Redcaps have been posting in various Covenant threads (which is fine) ... but for now, I have lumped them all together into the Dessert Runners group.
This message was last edited by the GM at 03:11, Wed 14 July 2021.

So we have about 50% who remain interested in the game. I think that we can continue, with the inactives declared "in Twilight" until and if they return to play.

The Alpha suggested that we go through our 1st two seasons, so that labs could be set up. Let's pick up with Autumn with people stating their goals.  As SG for "Desert Runners," I'll contact the player there and figure out what they want to do.

A bit of organisation.

We seem to have 12 players* still with us ... and none more over this last week (I wanted to give others time)
              * maybe 13 with your return,   SG Porta.


My life is shifting, and I think I'll be stepping back from the Beta SG duties soon.

So I suggest that we reorganised into a few smaller Covenants.
Iapetus of Rennes is already making the move to LUX ARCANUS.

I suggest melding  APICEM DOMUS  and  LUX ARCANUS  as such:
~ Malik ex Verditius
~ Vespera of Tremere
~ Benedict ex Mercere
~ Corvus ex Bjornaer
~ Appolonius of Flambeau
~ Iapetus of Rennes, of Tytalus

    and meld THE AERIE  with   PORTA AMUN
~ Arnaldo ex Criamon
~ Macrinus ex Tytalus
~ Jaeger of Merinita
~ Brontion ex Guernicus
~ Zahrah min bayt Miscellanea
~ Baqir Al-Andalus
~ Andre ex Miscellanea
                          or some such.

But, I still cannot get any PM loving from the Alpha, nor do I see his involvement here?
This message was last edited by the GM at 22:01, Tue 27 July 2021.

I think that's a great idea - makes sure there are enough players per covenant to keep things alive, and with just two covenants being run makes things easier on the Beta-SGs that remain.

In reply to Beta SG - Apicem Domus (Hedge Relations Covenant) (msg # 88):

Sounds good to me.

In theory having essentially two larger games is fine but we all built our covenants as a troupe.

The group at Porta were specifically there to be in Egypt or near the boarder. The group at the Aerie are specifically there to be in the middle of nowhere as I understand it. Unless I'm mistaken and the birds are fine moving closer to proper civilization?

Also the Traveling Magi don't want to be in a covenant. He's here and I'm here. So I don't see why we can't run that as is.

Sorry. I really hate how RPoL alerts for PMs. It didn't know anyone was PMing me. I'll go take a look over there.

Yes, some consolidation might make things easier.

Looks like if we need another kingjawa, who was lurking, is still around.

I am still here.

In reply to Lurker (msg # 93):

I don't mind merging covenants, but I'd likely change my concept, since my Criamon Idea wouldn't feel like it fits.
It's not a big deal, since we haven't started.

We were enticed by having an important site, as this has ruins from the Roman era. Speaking for myself, I'm fine with relocating, I saw it as a Tytalus testing himself against the desert. The key player is the Criamon character, whose goal it was to create a menagerie, and he's willing to revisit the concept.  So I don't think we have any problems with the Aerie merging.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:52, Fri 23 July 2021.

Well, the more the merrier I suppose. I don't like forcing someone to change, but I also don't see what would stop him from founding his menagerie at Porta Amun, so it is his choice.

But unless my player speaks up I'm going to keep the Travelers separate.

In reply to Beta SG - Traveling Covenant (msg # 90):

I'm fine with moving to Porta Amun. Whatever it takes to get it off the ground. We may still be able to utilize the site of the Aerie, as a set of vis sources to exploit, and eventual colonization. But being closer to civilization definitely has it's perks.

I am happy to go back to being a one-man wandering show … or join up with the Aerie, if that will facilitate matters.

Hokay! We're running straight back into the bystander effect, I think. SO I'm going to go ahead and get things moving as best I can.

My understanding of the running plan for the game overall is to pare down the scope, chiefly by combining the covenants that no longer have active members into active covenants, and carry on with or without the active participation of the "Alpha GM". Then, as things get going, other covenants can always rejoin in combination with the combined covenants splitting back out.

I have a partial table of all of the extant players and their activity, I'll post it organized by covenant in the next 4 hours or so, if that would be helpful to anyone. I'll post the table on the wiki where it can be easily updated with which player runs which cluster of characters.

As the appointed "Porta Amun Beta SG" I'm then going to hold a "session zero" for 72 hours in that thread, just make sure that everyone in that covenant is on the same page in terms of desired themes and pacing - and make sure that my own style of game running is something those players want.

Provided that period goes well, we're just going to... start. It is my suggestion that the other groups follow the same pattern. We can figure out how it all hangs together later.

Orphaned Magi can either wait for things to get going and then add on as new covenants in-game, participate as non-magi characters, or move into one of those groups in some capacity - either as integrated members who might later branch off, or as rogues participating in connected stories with the same SG cluster.

If the various groups get out of sync, we can spend some time down the road where the ahead groups play intermission stories, filling out gaps in the calendar where their companions and side characters weren't participating in main stories, while the behind groups do some abbreviated seasons to catch up.

In reply to Beta SG - Porta Amun (Border Covenant) (msg # 99):

If the Porta Amun thread is active, is there a way to add me to it? I am currently orphaned at the Menagerie.

Done