OOC Discussion (Session 1 & 2)
Re: OOC Discussion
The critter does not speak common. Sorry.
"Mi pensas, ke mia simio metis sian piedon en vian trinkaĵon."
Neniam dividu la adventurgrupon.
"Ĉu vi volas koboldojn? Ĉar tiel estas kiel oni akiras koboldojn!"
Neniam dividu la adventurgrupon.
"Ĉu vi volas koboldojn? Ĉar tiel estas kiel oni akiras koboldojn!"
Re: OOC Discussion
Dang it, Frank!
I don't know what to do. I could maybe try making an account for you?
I don't know what to do. I could maybe try making an account for you?
"Mi pensas, ke mia simio metis sian piedon en vian trinkaĵon."
Neniam dividu la adventurgrupon.
"Ĉu vi volas koboldojn? Ĉar tiel estas kiel oni akiras koboldojn!"
Neniam dividu la adventurgrupon.
"Ĉu vi volas koboldojn? Ĉar tiel estas kiel oni akiras koboldojn!"
Re: OOC Discussion
Ok, gave it ONE more try...Ludanto wrote:Dang it, Frank!
I don't know what to do. I could maybe try making an account for you?
[1d6] = 3,[1d6] = 4,[1d6] = 4,[1d6] = 5,[1d6] = 6
Re: OOC Discussion
I feel like "Grim Visaged" should have involved more being a grim loner, practically ignoring his companions as they try to help.
Just a note. For next time.
Just a note. For next time.
- BillTheGalacticHero
- Ranger
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:40 am
Re: OOC Discussion
I interpreted it as has a scowl and being very terse, so cheerfully laughing about the spider is counter to that. Or am I using a Trait against incorrectly?
-
- Rider of Rohan
- Posts: 6178
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:07 am
- Location: Ithaca, NY
Re: OOC Discussion
I don't have my book right now, but each trait lists a broad interpretation of how they work for AND against a character. You can then for your character's strong into that. I'm not versed in Grim Visaged, so I can't help more than that. Is it geared towards pessimism? If so, maybe he is such a pessimist (and heard horror stories about spiders in the past) that he just doesn't think winning is possible, so he doesn't fully commit to his attack?
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
Re: OOC Discussion
I hate to even bring it up. I don't want to nitpick, and as long as everyone's having fun, and nobody's breaking the rules, who cares, right? It just seemed confusing to me.
Typically, a trait is a trait and it plays the same. Grim, focused, loner.
It's just that sometimes that's good and sometimes that's bad.
When you need to focus, and you can't rely on anybody else, when you need to be stern and unafraid and menacing, it's good.
When you need to cooperate, to be friendly, to relax, to not stand out, then it's bad.
So, it's not that your personality changes, it's whether it's helpful or it gets in the way.
No big deal. Just talking about stuff. Don't worry about it.
Typically, a trait is a trait and it plays the same. Grim, focused, loner.
It's just that sometimes that's good and sometimes that's bad.
When you need to focus, and you can't rely on anybody else, when you need to be stern and unafraid and menacing, it's good.
When you need to cooperate, to be friendly, to relax, to not stand out, then it's bad.
So, it's not that your personality changes, it's whether it's helpful or it gets in the way.
No big deal. Just talking about stuff. Don't worry about it.
- BillTheGalacticHero
- Ranger
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:40 am
Re: OOC Discussion
Can we explore this lower level during camp? Maybe find some useful gear? Or can that only be done in Adventure Phase?
Re: OOC Discussion
No exploring in camp. Correct.
Re: OOC Discussion
Sorry. Thought it was clear. The spider is driven out of this map area, but remains a "wandering monster", or may be encountered if you go to wherever it decided to hide.
-
- Rider of Rohan
- Posts: 6178
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:07 am
- Location: Ithaca, NY
Re: OOC Discussion
That wasn't entirely clear. I recall you saying it might come back as a twist, but had interpreted that as "in the next session." I agree that a kill conflict would have been a better choice for a measure of safety.
But I've been trailing behind, unable to really chime in in a timely manner...
But I've been trailing behind, unable to really chime in in a timely manner...
Re: OOC Discussion
This is what you said.Ludanto wrote:To clarify, and allow informed choices, this is how I'm interpreting "Drive Off":
The enemy flees the immediate map area and, by default, won't come back. However, if you leave and go to where the enemy is now, you're fair game. If they're the sort to hold a grudge, they might try to follow or ambush you, if they're smart or brave or angry enough. They could also come back as a twist, though doing that immediately would be pretty boring.
The map area is generally defined as "where we are for this adventure." I interpreted that to mean the spider went off into the forest, not that it was clinging to the outside of the tower to jump on us next turn. Like Rusty, I assumed "won't come back" meant at least "not in this session."
A Drive Off challenge is winning a test of wills instead of a test of strength. It is just as final - it knows we're bigger and badder than it is, and it will avoid us even more than we avoid it for the near future. It operates on an identical principle to what I chose as Allric's belief - "The appearance of power is power itself." If we can cow a creature to our will, it is as good as slaying it in the short term.
Interpreting it otherwise eliminates all utility off Drive Off as a means of "beating" a creature, because it isn't actually beaten. It pushes us instead to kill everything we can just to prevent it from popping up again in the next room.
I think we also have a problem from this last conflict in that we didn't deliberately state the Intents of each side. It is now clear that we are unclear, as a result. Our intent was to drive off the spider and thus secure this place for us to rest/use as base camp. For a total win, I expected no less than that, but now we find that it is still Dangerous Camp because the spider is lurking nearby. I see that as a violation of that intent, but understand it because we didn't explicitly state the intent. I also think we were unclear as to the spider's intent - it was a Drive Off conflict, which means that both sides should have had a drive off intent, right? But its actions were to trap us in and prevent our escape, meaning it was acting on either a Capture or Kill conflict instead. I'm not sure what we should have done about that.
I was also thrown about not exposing the Order of Might and the Disposition. I don't see that it says one way or another; I never played that the GM kept these secret from the players. So, I guess its valid, just makes me confused.
Not being combative here - just doing an after action review. I'd rather talk about it so we're on the same page, so I'm putting it out there as we look at the results of our first group conflict.
Re: OOC Discussion
Again, I'm sorry for the miscommunication. Asynchronous text has its disadvantages.
What I meant by "map area", is like what the mapper would be tracking. "By the statues", "The courtyard", "The tower". As opposed to simply "the map". Basically, "the area where you are".
As for semi-permanent Drive-Off conflicts, I humbly understand it differently. The foe is no more banished from the map than would you be had you lost. It is driven away from your immediate area, and won't simply return by GM fiat, but it remains a tool in the bag. It exists in the world as makes sense by roleplay and common sense and the like. It probably wouldn't come back as a Twist here, but you could wander into it as a Twist elsewhere. Or maybe it ran to get friends. Or if it sees that you're hurt and tired now. Basically, if the circumstances change significantly enough to not violate the contract of the dice results (in a "Let it Ride" sort of way).
As for why not just kill everything, there's roleplay reasons, of course, and the different Dispositions and weapons for various Conflict types, and then there's not wanting to risk death. They aren't permanently removed, and neither are you.
Finally, I didn't intentionally hide Disposition. I just forgot to mention it when the Conflict started. The Order of Might thing... I can't remember now. Much like the book says that you don't get to know the enemy Disposition until the Conflict is started (presumably to avoid gaming the numbers), it seemed to me that saving the Order of Might until you'd committed to a course of action was in keeping with that philosophy.
Things are definitely cool. If I was the player, I'd totally be you in this conversation.
What I meant by "map area", is like what the mapper would be tracking. "By the statues", "The courtyard", "The tower". As opposed to simply "the map". Basically, "the area where you are".
As for semi-permanent Drive-Off conflicts, I humbly understand it differently. The foe is no more banished from the map than would you be had you lost. It is driven away from your immediate area, and won't simply return by GM fiat, but it remains a tool in the bag. It exists in the world as makes sense by roleplay and common sense and the like. It probably wouldn't come back as a Twist here, but you could wander into it as a Twist elsewhere. Or maybe it ran to get friends. Or if it sees that you're hurt and tired now. Basically, if the circumstances change significantly enough to not violate the contract of the dice results (in a "Let it Ride" sort of way).
As for why not just kill everything, there's roleplay reasons, of course, and the different Dispositions and weapons for various Conflict types, and then there's not wanting to risk death. They aren't permanently removed, and neither are you.
Finally, I didn't intentionally hide Disposition. I just forgot to mention it when the Conflict started. The Order of Might thing... I can't remember now. Much like the book says that you don't get to know the enemy Disposition until the Conflict is started (presumably to avoid gaming the numbers), it seemed to me that saving the Order of Might until you'd committed to a course of action was in keeping with that philosophy.
Things are definitely cool. If I was the player, I'd totally be you in this conversation.
- BillTheGalacticHero
- Ranger
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:40 am
Re: OOC Discussion
You did mention that one of its legs was dangling, so I'm assuming it's been Injured, which will help us if we have to fight it again.
And <inserting real-world knowledge here>, almost all spiders are solitary, so it may not have friends.
And <inserting real-world knowledge here>, almost all spiders are solitary, so it may not have friends.
- BillTheGalacticHero
- Ranger
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:40 am
Re: OOC Discussion
If I did the Survivalist test to get a bonus would that be a test before camp, and thus advance the Grind?
- BillTheGalacticHero
- Ranger
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:40 am
Re: OOC Discussion
Is the camp roll a GM roll, or do one of us do it. If it's us, and there's no objection, I'd like to do it.
Re: OOC Discussion
Sorry. Cross posted. Already rolled for camp events. Nothing to worry about. As for searching for water, it's your Instinct, so it doesn't take a turn or advance the Grind.
"Mi pensas, ke mia simio metis sian piedon en vian trinkaĵon."
Neniam dividu la adventurgrupon.
"Ĉu vi volas koboldojn? Ĉar tiel estas kiel oni akiras koboldojn!"
Neniam dividu la adventurgrupon.
"Ĉu vi volas koboldojn? Ĉar tiel estas kiel oni akiras koboldojn!"
- shroomofinsanity
- Pathfinder
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 1:58 am
Re: OOC Discussion
As for us having the same intents, in the book it does state that 2 groups can have different conflict types. For example, a dragon can be trying to kill while we can't so we may try to convince it to not kill us. We offer words and reasons while it is snapping at us. I agree we should as the party have stated out intent though.
Re: OOC Discussion
Oh yeah, I forgot to address that.
Monsters don't have "intent" per se, or at least it doesn't matter what their intent is. The player's actions dictate their intent, and their intent dictates the conflict type. Regardless of the conflict type, if the party loses, the monster gets the results it wanted (or at least as close as its Might will allow), with Kill being the exception. Page 73 even offers an example in the chart of a failed Drive Off ending in party capture. The enemy still uses the Drive Off rules, though.
Oh, here we go. Page 74. The results of a conflict are binding, barring another conflict or a twist. So the spider can't just come back, but a twist could bring it back. Or maybe it could start another conflict, but that feels like a cheat.
Monsters don't have "intent" per se, or at least it doesn't matter what their intent is. The player's actions dictate their intent, and their intent dictates the conflict type. Regardless of the conflict type, if the party loses, the monster gets the results it wanted (or at least as close as its Might will allow), with Kill being the exception. Page 73 even offers an example in the chart of a failed Drive Off ending in party capture. The enemy still uses the Drive Off rules, though.
Oh, here we go. Page 74. The results of a conflict are binding, barring another conflict or a twist. So the spider can't just come back, but a twist could bring it back. Or maybe it could start another conflict, but that feels like a cheat.
Re: OOC Discussion
I think the "Let it Ride" rule adequately expressed what I was trying to say. If conditions change and there's a twist, that's cool.