OOC Chat

[Keehnelf]

Anything that doesn't fit elsewhere-rules discussions, feedback, random chatter, thoughts about system or future directions, anything meta or outside the scope of the game proper.

[sulldawga]

Is it possible to successfully adventure with a smaller group?

For example, if two PCs went out with a few henchmen and torchbearers, would they get slaughtered or could it work in the low-level hexes?

[Keehnelf]

There are no henchmen available to start with, but two smart adventurers could probably do so safely (as safely as you can do anything in LL basic) in the lower level areas, yes. My personal advice would be to start with a group of four or more just to test the waters and then see what you encounter, and build from there.

Or adventure with a smaller group and be prepared to run and/or take some losses in the name of learning.

[thirdkingdom]

I admit to being confused. Is the expectation that not all players will have characters in an expedition? Could there be multiple expeditions running at once?

[Keehnelf]

Yes and yes! Let me get a link to the West Marches description up there, if I haven't yet.

[Keehnelf]

OK, first post of How It Works thread is updated with links.

[thirdkingdom]

Yes and yes! Let me get a link to the West Marches description up there, if I haven't yet.

I mean, I get how the structure was supposed to work with a bunch of busy adults face to face, but a pbp format pretty much works around that. As far as I can see, the only reason we don't want to throw everyone at an expedition is to maximize XP (but not necessarily success).

[Keehnelf]

Or because characters and players have different ideas about what they'd like to do.

Or because you don't need every musterable character for every expedition.

Or because some players want to post once a week instead of daily or multiple times daily.

Or because you've got multiple PCs you want to play and they can't adventure together, so there's another party out there.

There's absolutely nothing preventing everyone from going everywhere together (apart from the multiple-PCs-per-player thing)--I'm just creating a structure that can accommodate basically any approach you'd like.

[Keehnelf]

Let me get real for a second and just clarify for the record why I, as a GM, am approaching the game in this style:

When I was in college I had a regular roleplaying group and we played all kinds of fun games, mainly with me as the GM, but Werewolf: the Apocalypse was the game that really took off. The first year I ran it we had a party of seven players. The second year, it had grown to nine, which was barely manageable (I had to pull in one player to help with GMing in the social elements). The third year, I had interest from thirteen players which just was never going to work in the once-a-week face-to-face format we had going, even with help from another player.

So I took a leap and did something like what we're doing here.

I broke the player group into two roughly evenly-divided parties, using the same setting as we had been using and all the action taking place in the same campaign world. I had two games per week, one for each group, and it was spectacular. Everyone got more face time during the game, lots more stuff happened, and it was fun to see the ways in which the parties interacted with one another directly and indirectly in the pursuit of their own goals.

These were all expected upsides to making this switch--but what was a surprise, even to me, was the way in which the depth of the campaign world multiplied overnight. The direct knowledge on the part of all the players that there were other stories that they might not know anything about built extra beef into everything. Traditional rpg or adventure-game format basically follows the party around with a spotlight, building in details only when they're relevant to the party's activities, or involve overbuilding on the part of the GM so that suddenly everything feels full and boring, like an exposition from some of Tolkien's more dry passages. Clearly lots of detail, but not a lot that's exciting. What I found when I had multiple parties out doing stuff at the same time was that the detail built out organically, that the players encouraged it and engaged with it more, and that it made for a richer and more dynamic experience across the board.

I like the West Marches inspired format because it provides a framework for this sort of thing to happen, but doesn't demand it. Like I said, the players can decide to do everything as a group all the time--but especially given the pace of PbP, there is a lot of stuff out there that nobody will ever encounter at that rate. That's totally OK, and not something to lament--it happens in every campaign, really--but I like providing the option for exploring lots of content, both for the players and for any lurkers that happen to be nearby.

So that's where I'm coming from!

[thirdkingdom]

That's cool, I just wasn't sure if you were trying to encourage us to split up or what. I will say, though, that as someone who has run multiple parties at the same time, in the same setting, time is extremely difficult to manage. Like, you could have one group that keeps running into random encounters in the wilderness, each one ending in combat -- or heck, even intensive role-playing -- that takes anywhere from a couple of days to a week of real time to resolve, while another group sails through, eating up days with each IC update. The one time I did it, I think the two parties ended up being a month of more apart, game time, after six months of play.

[Keehnelf]

Absolutely--that's why:

-I have several provisions about multiple characters and time-skips.

-The map is strictly bounded.

and

-The wilderness will be dangerous enough that we won't have months of in-game time between returns to town.

[merias]

I think some time differences are to be expected, as Keehnelf says in the overview, small gaps can be hand-waived away during respites in town. It's interesting that very few people play sandboxes in this fashion anymore, although the original game was played that way for sure - "At least one referee and from 4 to 50 characters can be handled in any single campaign..." is from the 1974 Men & Magic. Google the 'Rhythlondar Chronicles' for a great read about just such an undertaking. I wasn't aware of West Marches until now, Rythlondar has a similar feel, albeit at a larger scale.

[Keehnelf]

Also--anyone who's made a character, please PM me with a link to the sheet and then go ahead and introduce yourself in the Rogues' Gallery thread!

[Scott308]

I have a couple of questions.

1. It says everybody has a movement rate of 120'/ 40' in combat. Really? Dwarves and Halflings move at the same speed as elves and fighters? And there is no bonus/ penalty for strength? So a Halfling with 5 STR moves the same as an 18 STR Fighter, each of whom are carrying (just for the sake of argument) 150 pounds of rocks and nothing else?

2. In trying to figure my character's starting equipment, I don't see listed anywhere starting money. OK, that wasn't actually a question, so I'll try again: How do we determine our starting equipment/ money?

[sulldawga]

2. In trying to figure my character's starting equipment, I don't see listed anywhere starting money. OK, that wasn't actually a question, so I'll try again: How do we determine our starting equipment/ money?

Page 6.

"All characters start with 3d8x10 gold pieces (gp)."

[Scott308]

I somehow managed to miss that paragraph. Thank you. I knew it had to be somewhere, but damned if I could figure out where.

[Keehnelf]

I have a couple of questions.

1. It says everybody has a movement rate of 120'/ 40' in combat. Really? Dwarves and Halflings move at the same speed as elves and fighters? And there is no bonus/ penalty for strength? So a Halfling with 5 STR moves the same as an 18 STR Fighter, each of whom are carrying (just for the sake of argument) 150 pounds of rocks and nothing else?

Hi Scott:

Yes, this is correct. It seems a little bit silly sometimes, but it reduces bookkeeping significantly which is nice for a comparatively rules-lite system like Original LL.

[thirdkingdom]

Actually, guys, I think I'm going to bow out. I've started to create a character, and realized that a)I really don't like the US character sheets and b)I really dislike rolling as a player and c)I really dislike using the US dice roller*. Good luck, though!


*No offense, ToniXX, but it's just not what I'm used to.

[Scott308]

I have a couple of questions.

1. It says everybody has a movement rate of 120'/ 40' in combat. Really? Dwarves and Halflings move at the same speed as elves and fighters? And there is no bonus/ penalty for strength? So a Halfling with 5 STR moves the same as an 18 STR Fighter, each of whom are carrying (just for the sake of argument) 150 pounds of rocks and nothing else?

Hi Scott:

Yes, this is correct. It seems a little bit silly sometimes, but it reduces bookkeeping significantly which is nice for a comparatively rules-lite system like Original LL.

Alright. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. On a related note, I can't remember if you had already mentioned this, but are we using the optional encumbrance rules?

[sulldawga]

Going to be hard for smaller parties to have a go with no opportunity to hire henchmen or even torchbearers/camp guards. What happens when you have 1-3 PCs who want to adventure but no one else is around?