OOC IV

[Finglas]

Hey guys, I'm toying with the idea of starting an Actual Play thread over in the General RPG discussion to kind of go over and break down what has happened so far. Is that something y'all would want to see? Or contribute to, so we could have kind of a behind the screen/in front of the screen perspective?

Wow, that sounds great! Would it be distilling everything done so far into a story -- minus spoilers, OOC discussion, and all the game mechanic stuff? If so, I would love to read it!

I was toying with the idea of creating a player's journal, too. In other words, recounting a story from a particular player's perspective. It would be cool to see how each of us perceive and explain our shared experiences!

[frobozz]

Hey guys, I'm toying with the idea of starting an Actual Play thread over in the General RPG discussion to kind of go over and break down what has happened so far. Is that something y'all would want to see? Or contribute to, so we could have kind of a behind the screen/in front of the screen perspective?

Sounds interesting, TK. What all would it entail, as far as contributions from players and DM? Would this be sort of like a narrative form of the Table of Contents?

[Luis]

I don't know what that is but if it's anything like Finglas and Frobozz suggest I'd be interested.

[thirdkingdom]

I was actually thinking less of a story, although I would talk about the plot, but more a discussion about what choices were made, why I (or players) did a certain thing here, etc. A bit of a synopsis of the whole thing, as opposed to just the plot/storyline. You know, I was going to talk a little bit about the changes I made to Aleena's dungeon and why I made those changes, etc.

[Alethan]

I was actually thinking less of a story, although I would talk about the plot, but more a discussion about what choices were made, why I (or players) did a certain thing here, etc. A bit of a synopsis of the whole thing, as opposed to just the plot/storyline. You know, I was going to talk a little bit about the changes I made to Aleena's dungeon and why I made those changes, etc.

But in the general forum area and not as a thread under the game? The thread would be available to anyone (forum users who are not directly involved in the game). if you're thinking about the lurker comments idea, ToniXX said he'd make an appropriate sub-topic thread under the General RPG section for lurker discussion. If you want to do that, then just send him a PM so he builds the thread in the appropriate area and not just in the general section.

Personally, it probably isn't something I'll have time to participate in regularly, but I would contribute if I had the time every now and again.

[Luis]

If that's the case I'd love to participate.

[frobozz]

@All: Check out the Standards thread for your mount's normal and charging speeds. Normal speed is good if you want to attack (or reserve the right to attack) in the same round. Charging speed is good if you just want to close the distance between you and the enemy, or if you are planning to surround and/or pursue the enemy.

@TK: Not to get overly technical, but is mounting/dismounting considered part of the move action? If I could suggest a ruling it would be this:

You get one free mount or dismount (either at the beginning of your move or at the end of your move, but not both). This single mount or dismount can be used regardless of whether you use the normal move speed or the charging move speed (although one cannot attack when using the charging move speed).

Again, not trying to make this sound too much like 3.5 edition D&D (with free actions, move actions, standard actions, blah blah blah), but I do think it is helpful to know what all we can and cannot do in a single round, which in turn would make our IC posts easier to compose and easier to interpret.

[thirdkingdom]

I've been pretty fast and loose with move v. attack actions and I would rather not spend too much time on it. To my mind, the horse's movement is the character's Move action. If the PC has the Ride skill then we'll talk about it.

[sulldawga]

Weren't there only six gnolls, and four of them were put to sleep? Or were they awoken by their two waking comrades?

[thirdkingdom]

Weren't there only six gnolls, and four of them were put to sleep? Or were they awoken by their two waking comrades?

The four were nudged awake by their companions. That's one of the big drawbacks of the Sleep spell, especially amongst intelligentish targets. If you're at a distance, and you don't get all of them . . .

[frobozz]

@TK: Are the five fleeing gnolls running together in a more-or-less close circle, or have they scattered to the winds?

[thirdkingdom]

@TK: Are the five fleeing gnolls running together in a more-or-less close circle, or have they scattered to the winds?

Uh, 1-3 running in a pack, 4-6 fleeing like the dogs they are: (1d6=3). They seem to be fleeing in pretty tight formation.

[sulldawga]

Round Two
The two gnolls still standing begin kicking their companions awake, who respond groggily.

I don't know if I wasn't clear enough in my previous post. The two awake gnolls woke up their sleeping buddies as their action during Round Two.

Reading comprehension fail on my part.

[thirdkingdom]

Round Two
The two gnolls still standing begin kicking their companions awake, who respond groggily.

I don't know if I wasn't clear enough in my previous post. The two awake gnolls woke up their sleeping buddies as their action during Round Two.

Reading comprehension fail on my part.

And here I was thinking Marodin had a big ol' set of balls, charging six gnolls like that.

[frobozz]

A couple of things:

@All: Unless these are super-gnolls, they will have a base speed of 30'/round. Which means that their all-out running speed should be 90'/round (30' x 3). Anyone with a base foot speed greater than 30'/round should be able to catch up to the gnolls on foot (running up to 120'/round), and all of the riding horses can also charge up to 120'/round (or more for the lightweight riders). So, the gnolls will not likely get away, if we pursue them.

@TK: How far away is the castle from the party's or the gnolls' present position? I'm visualizing it to be far enough away so as to be irrelevant for purposes of this combat.

@All: I'm having some trouble visualizing who all is on horseback and who is on foot. TK, is it just Lanny and Saul on foot as of the end of Round 3? I think it would be really helpful for everyone's imagination if we re-state in our posts whether we are moving on foot or on mount, as well as whether we are moving at normal speed (with the intention to attack in the same round) or moving at running/charging speed (with the intention to catch up / cut off / surround / etc.)

[Bouv]

Tratiln is on foot, chasing the gnolls. He knows he cannot fight on horseback so won't even try.

[thirdkingdom]

A couple of things:

@All: Unless these are super-gnolls, they will have a base speed of 30'/round. Which means that their all-out running speed should be 90'/round (30' x 3). Anyone with a base foot speed greater than 30'/round should be able to catch up to the gnolls on foot (running up to 120'/round), and all of the riding horses can also charge up to 120'/round (or more for the lightweight riders). So, the gnolls will not likely get away, if we pursue them.

This is true.

@TK: How far away is the castle from the party's or the gnolls' present position? I'm visualizing it to be far enough away so as to be irrelevant for purposes of this combat.

"Cresting the top of the hill the companions see the ruined walls of the castle off in the distance, perhaps a mile or two away . . ."

@All: I'm having some trouble visualizing who all is on horseback and who is on foot. TK, is it just Lanny and Saul on foot as of the end of Round 3? I think it would be really helpful for everyone's imagination if we re-state in our posts whether we are moving on foot or on mount, as well as whether we are moving at normal speed (with the intention to attack in the same round) or moving at running/charging speed (with the intention to catch up / cut off / surround / etc.)

This would be hugely helpful for me, and while I thought I asked for clarity in posts I was perhaps being a little bit subtle. I don't care if it is in your IC flavor post:

Bill spurs his horse into a gallop and advances with haste towards the fleeing gnolls

or in a spoiler

Bill will advance towards the gnoll.

Dismounted, walking at a normal pace

, but please please please provide as much information as possible. In all fairness, this is the first time we've had an encounter while mounted and over any considerable distance, so everyone's got some stuff to get used to.

As far as I can tell, the following characters are on foot: Drudsa, Lanny, Semele and Saul. Everyone else is mounted. Or at least, they might have posted they were dismounting but I held off on that given the failed morale check.

EDIT: and Tratiln, based on his recent post.

[frobozz]

Nah, let's switch out, I don't think Tratiln has ever won any initiative. He'll chase them on foot in an attemp to attack them.

@TK: If Bouv did choose to cast "Rainbow Attack" but then lost initiative to the gnolls in the following round, would he still be required to cast "Rainbow Attack"? Or could he reassess the situation at the time of his action in the initiative order (realizing the gnolls are out of range), and either cast a different spell with a longer range, or get back on his horse and continue pursuit? I'm not really sure how that works, to be completely honest.

@Bouv: If you chase them on foot, of course, you will not catch up to them (unless something stops their forward progress!), since the gnolls have a base move of 30'/round and Tratiln has a base move of only 20'/round.

[thirdkingdom]

Dark Dungeons does not address this issue directly. Other editions of the OSR period make it explicit that once a character declares an action that is what they do in the round, regardless of outside events. Dark Dungeons does touch on this tangentially with the initiative modifiers. Essentially, I have been adding +1 to everyone's initiative roll since you guys are declaring you actions before the monsters do (or at least, I don't declare monster actions until I roll out combat). If a PC wants to wait and potentially alter his actions she can accept a -1 penalty to initiative and react accordingly.

I have been pretty liberal with this, allowing (or simply not applying) actions if they have become moot. So, I guess what I am saying is that if Tratiln wants to accept a -1 penalty to his initiative he can do so and change his mind. Keep in mind, Bouv, that you don't have to win initiative out of everyone; just against the gnolls.

[frobozz]

So, I guess what I am saying is that if Tratiln wants to accept a -1 penalty to his initiative he can do so and change his mind. Keep in mind, Bouv, that you don't have to win initiative out of everyone; just against the gnolls.

Bouv, from that reading it sounds like you would really have nothing to lose by taking the -1 penalty on the initiative roll and sticking with Rainbow Attack. If you win initiative over the gnolls, you would be able to use Rainbow Attack next round. If you lose initiative to the gnolls, you would at least not waste the spell and would still be able to give chase (whether on foot or on horseback) after the gnolls move. Your call, of course.