I enabled Character Sheets for you all and you should be able to edit it now. If I didn't mess up..

I'd also would like to hear your opinions about handling Initiative in a manner that we don't have to wait response from one player. I'm pondering between these options:

1) Normal. Characters and monsters go by their initiative order. When it's a players turn, I'll wait up to 2 day for them to post. After that I puppet the PC and make most logical move (to me) for them. Likely Basic attack and 'safe move' and such.

2) Group Initiative. All PCs roll Initiative normally and I use the middle score of the all (5) results for the PC group. The PCs can then post in any order they are able when it's their turn.

3) Something better?

In reply to Game Master (msg # 37):

Number 2.

In reply to Game Master (msg # 37):

I vote for Group Initiative

3) Number 1, but if someone isn't responsive they delay to the end of the initiative. If they still don't show, they do something "off-screen" (to no effect) and the encounter continues.

I agree with Player 2.  Option 1 sounds fine to me, with the proviso that missing players' characters do nothing but parry.

2 days is a long time to way if there is 5 player and we each have that two day window.  We would never get the goal of 3 post per week Post minimum 3 times a week.

Hmmm fair point I guess. But on the other hand if someone has a high initiative bonus, option 2 slows them down. How about making it 24 hours?

We can pick an approach for our intro adventure and switch/refine afterward if we need to.

In reply to Logresia Skrieven (msg # 43):

There is still risk of subsequent delays which will add up total waiting time for somebody, like Lady Magister pointed out. I'm my optimism I was thinking maybe one such delay might happen...

So, we go with option 2 - Group initiative with middle score. For further balancing I'll use middle score of 5 rolls for the enemies as well. I'll change this later if it doesn't seem to work. Thanks for your input.

From the Game Info, I'm gonna assume that we all know each other?

If that is so, should we post some knowledge of each other somewhere?

Good Morning Adventures.

In reply to Lady Magister (msg # 46):

We can assume you know each other. How well, I leave that to you. At minimum you were travelling together as you arrived to Thistleby.

Bonjour mes braves, isn't it a lovely bracing day!

Some of you have your PC ready, so we should move towards actually playing :)

What's your preference regarding Icon Rolls; a) everybody rolls publicly and whole group knows who got what or b) all roll secretly and the results are known between the player and me only? I'm thinking we'll roll them now for starters so I can get my brains processing possible implications.

Always happy to make these things visible.  Do we take random icon relationships or do we choose?

In reply to Game Master (msg # 50):

Ether way is fine.

Just a reminder, is it a 5 or 6 for the icon, or just a 6?
This message was last edited by the player at 17:43, Sat 04 Dec 2021.

I'd have a preference for Icon rolls to be private, but wouldn't complain if not.

The question I have is how frequently we'd roll? By the book, it'd be at the start of every session, but PbP doesn't have that delineation. Are we talking once a week or fortnight or another real-time point (as it would be for a tabletop group meeting up every week or what-have-you), or would we prefer to roll at dramatically or narratively appropriate junctures?

I'm gonna vote for Privately, don't want to make people upset by my Icons  LOL

In reply to Lady Magister (msg # 54):

If you're not ruining the game for others, as requested, we'd have not reason to be upset.

---

We don't know each other as players, so any trust we have for each other is based purely on politeness. We will benefit from being as open as possible, and building real trust, at least for a while.

Fair enough, we'll do it publicly. I'll create an own topic for that. When you see it, feel free to make the rolls on the Die Roller and post them to the thread.

As a reminder you have 3 points and you can allocate 1-3 points towards Positive, Conflicted or Negative relationship with an Icon. You roll d6 per point for each Icon and look for scores of 5 or 6 per die, other results can be ignored. So only results of 5 and 6 matter and should be noted.

In reply to Player2 (msg # 55):

You did notice the "LOL" in my post.  Meaning I was joking.

I guess our relationship isn't at that point yet. But we'll start building trust soon.

There's a difference between wanting to keep character information private (e.g. having a patron, secret or what-have-you that might be considered antagonistic to other players'...for example, having a positive relationship with the Lich King when there's a known Cleric of The Priestess in the group) and actively being antagonistic or hostile as a player or character.

Keeping a character trait or relationship hidden can be an effective tool in building character dynamics between players while avoiding preconceptions, especially in a group of strangers who might jump to false conclusions. Yes there is benefit to being open about such things when stereotypes are being adhered to and/or there is an understanding that Player X can already be trusted not to abuse the trust of other Players when playing to less-than-Heroic ideals, but there's a marked difference between "hiding the truth" and "lying" in this context. The former does not preclude building trust. The latter does.

As a long time Rogue player, I've often had to toe the line of moral ambiguity and frequently faced prejudice and preconception about who or what my characters are. Very often I've had to correct other players (particularly on PbP) about such things as being a thief or criminal when the truth couldn't be further away. If my character is a Lawful Good noble duellist that just happens to be of the Rogue Class, I feel like I'm justified in not telling other players that I'm playing a Rogue, because all too often I've faced false accusations of theft, larceny or of being untrustworthy just because some stranger has decided that Rogue = Chaotic Neutral, despite all relevant evidence to the contrary. I've literally had a Paladin player attack my LG "Private Eye Ex-Cop Investigator" Rogue based solely on my being a Rogue and the GM telling the group that some of their gear went missing. Yes, that player was super toxic, but had they not known my Class they'd have had no reason to jump to the conclusion they did. Regardless of the circumstances/reasons, my open honesty in that case actually caused friction in the group and failed to build trust.

As I said before, I'm happy to be open about Icon rolls if that's the group/GM preference, but I thought I'd explain why I would prefer at least certain aspects to remain private, including our Icon relationships and Backgrounds. At least until they come into play and/or our characters have the opportunity to learn that information about one another organically in the narrative. If, at that time, it causes friction then at least it's in-character friction between the characters that can be amicably resolved out-of-character by the (hopefully mature and trust-earned) players.

In reply to Jobol Harguld (msg # 59):

I'd love to discuss that further, as I find interactions and outcomes like that fascinating, but this isn't the place for me to do that.

I will treat both truthfulness and untruthfulness as one trying to make the game more fun in the way one thinks best. I'll take all the support I can get in treating things that way.

I'll put 1 point in Positive for the Emperor, Elf Queen and Crusader.

I'm still working on my backgrounds, but I am taking Tracker (which I will rename) as a talent.