Scope and purpose

Arcturus2 wrote:

whit10 wrote:Are you still in for SW Dan?

Man, I'd really like to be.. but as Chris just pointed out, it's not fair for everyone to be waiting on one guy, so I guess it depends on how the next week goes, whether I can or not.

At work, I'm currently the only chemist and we've been really busy so it depends on if it calms down, and if the boy continues to settle (he's been kinda colicky for a month) and if I can learn the system and build a character in time to play.

I really hope to play, but if I can't get my shit together I won't make the group wait on me.

Hey Dan,

Playing SW is not an "all or nothing" deal either. If you are not ready to start next week, don't worry. You are welcome to join anytime. I see it as more of a small scale story. People can come and go as needed.

Just a thought about your son, since my 2nd was perpetually colicky, have you considered a food intolerance?
I don't know if he is on formula or breast fed, but most regular formula is dairy based or it can come directly from food his mother is eating.

It might be worth trying to eliminate 1 food type at a time and just see if that gets rid of the colickiness. Dairy and wheat are the 2 most common ones for infants. Both can also be just temporary and outgrown by age 3-5.

Thanks Chris, appreciate the support. I'll get into the swing of SW, based on what I saw of your last run there I definitely don't wanna miss it.

As far as the boy, we've tried him on I think 4, maybe 5 different formulas so far, the enfamil gentlease seems to be the best so far. We've been to 3 different doctors and they all pretty much said the same as you just said.

He's improving and the Drs seem to agree the worst should be over any time now, he just turned 3 months today.

It's just tough cuz I've been 6 days for 60 hrs a week for a month or better and I'm just getting worn down, ya know?

But I can't tell my infant son I'm too tired or too busy, so gotta just keep on keepin on!

Anyway, I did re watch the SW movies, and found an old SR 4e book on the cheap on ebay, I'll figure this thing out! I know that if I screw up building my PC too bad, you guys will let me know anyway lol

I hope work eases off for you here soon.

It was a rough run with my boy too, but looking back.... that was a lot of walking him and holding him time that I will cherish forever. He will remember too, on a subconscious level, that when he was upset, his needs were cared for and he was given attention and love.

gaming is just a distraction

sorry to hear about the colic Dan. I had it at his age too... my mother always said it was awful but it stopped after a few months.

...totally understand the priorities. Just so you know, you can find all the SR 4th edition books online as free PDFs now too.

I will give you some alignment impressions of mine that may help you. We seldom play them as they are tricky.

NE pretends to be good but does selfish/evil stuff when no-one is looking. Will turn on the party if he thinks it is in his best interest.

N does his own thing for his own reasons without shame.

CN is wildly out of control ADHD. Has severe difficulty sticking to a plan. Often destructive but doesn't intend any harm.

CE Buck wild raping pillaging sick and unredeeming animal that any decent person would HAVE TO put down.

LE Pursues law in a selfishly interpretation to the exclusion of any altruism or mercy. "Crucify him!"

but CE is the most fun of them all...

Rob is winning the simplicity award. Surprizingly Josh is a close second, (after some preliminary stubbornness). None-the-less, the rest of you addicts did quite well. See, isn't this fun?

Once all of the tweaking is finished, I will give out the gold and silver medals.

....this is a contest? (facepalm)

navyik wrote:Rob is winning the simplicity award.  Surprizingly Josh is a close second, (after some preliminary stubbornness).  None-the-less, the rest of you addicts did quite well.  See, isn't this fun?

Once all of the tweaking is finished, I will give out the gold and silver medals.

 I am shamed

"Know thyself"....  I am a #cruncher at heart

there is no redemption.  perhaps I get the un-simplicity award?   looking at Kayatuq, his character page is 2-3x longer than the rest

I'll have mine done by the end of the week, latest, but probably closer to Wednesday.


Opinion poll:

Fire. Would you classify its behavior as CN aligned or LN aligned?

Depends on which fire science experts you listen to...

navyik wrote:Depends on which fire science experts you listen to...  

I dont believe that was a response option.

MAS wrote:I'll have mine done by the end of the week, latest, but probably closer to Wednesday.
Opinion poll:
Fire. Would you classify its behavior as CN aligned or LN aligned?

good question!

I think the casual observation is CN, ie "spreads like wildfire"

but from the couple arson classes I have taken through the State of CO, I would lean towards LN. Fire is a chemical reaction and it does obey a set of rules and laws, even though it appears to act chaotically. There is a science to arson investigation and most "arson investigation" pre the 1980s amounts to hogwash-witchcraft without any scientific basis.

in Chinese martial arts and TCM in general, Fire Chi is Chi that goes from low to high, or "rising" chi. it does have an effect on reasoning and rational thought when the Chi rises into the brain - anger rises, hotheaded people, etc. their behavior often seems wild and erratic. again, I think this goes more to the observation of the "quality" of fire, not to the science of fire.

I think you could make a case for either and it just depends on how you want to play it - as Fire-observed or as Fire-actual

yeah, Fire Science has grown considerably in the past few decades.

and since there is a 'purification' aspect to fire, mythologically speaking, I would suggest that LN is probably appropriate.

my 2 pfennigs

Purification for sure! That and new life from ashes. Real Old Testement minor prophets stuff, like Jonah.

I was actually referring to much older references than that one... but it's the same principle

good riff!

I tend towards seeing "fire" as more LN. It can certainly be chaotic seeming, but in reality it is a complex reaction process that has some rather strict formulae involved.

I'll be playing the LN aspect.

Good riff?? I didn't hear any electric guitar anywhere...

Fire is unaligned. I could even see True Neutral maybe, like most elementals. At the very least, something needs consciousness (and freedom of choice) to have an alignment. I don't think a mundane fire has any capacity for higher thinking. Animals are self-aware, but their abstract consciousness is quite limited compared to us haughty humanoid types. Most animals would be unaligned... except for those goblin-riding wargs and stuff.

I dig where you are coming from with that Rob. I guess I am talking more about its methods than its motives, if that makes sense.

MAS wrote:I dig where you are coming from with that Rob. I guess I am talking more about its methods than its motives, if that makes sense.

Certainly. In that case, I'd agree with CN, LN, or N.

I'd say LN, or 'fire actual', as you put it. Chris' argument was right on the money for me.

Fire has a very specific set of rules it follows, conscious or not, after all.

only in Alan's game do you see the following party form up:

a butcher-knife wielding Chef
a 1/2 orc wanna-be MMA fighter
a dog-riding tribal midget
a singing burglar
a crazy-eyed homeless guy

they call themselves The Guardians of Stafell

What a bunch of a-holes.

lol... I have to agree entirely. Not my first choice of ideas here but, since 'complex' characters are being frowned upon....

Chris wrote:only in Alan's game do you see the following party form up:

a butcher-knife wielding Chef
a 1/2 orc wanna-be MMA fighter
a dog-riding tribal midget
a singing burglar
a crazy-eyed homeless guy

they call themselves The Guardians of Stafell

What a bunch of a-holes.  

HELLZ YES!!!

It's gonna be quite the party.

Can I ask what might be a dumb question? Why are character concepts and ideas that aren't overly simplistic - standard Rogue, Fighter, Mage, Cleric, etc. - being more or less frowned upon or looked down on?

Frankly, my guy is about as interesting as watching paint dry. That's not a knock against Alan, I'm just not really getting why number crunching is bad. I would like an explanation.

...and no, I'm not pissy about it. I just want to know why there is negativity towards that style of gaming.

Its a surprize Josh. Trying some stuff out that would bog down in the countless debates over obscure feats and abilities. Plus, we DO numbercrunch more than we PLAY most of the time. Nothing says you cant' develop something original... probably more original if you do it 1 level at a time actually.

the number crunching is just part of the process.  It's the difference between being a decent horse warrior, for example, vs. being a great one.  I think that's why PF (and other games) have come up with a more intricate process.  

I have always looked at it this way... the concept comes first, then the actual numbers.  Why wouldn't you take advantage of ever bonus or benefit that you can?  That's how real life is.  Do soldiers NOT learn something that could help them in a combat zone just because they don't want to?  Do Doctors? Professors? etc?  If they do, then they won't be at the top of their profession or career/path, whatever.  I've never understood the criticism of number crunching unless it's just number crunching for the sake of it (and not bothering to have a reasonable character concept)


But, as I've already said, it's your game. I'll try and trust you and just go with it....  that being said, the orc is too simple and too boring.  I'll be making something else most likely.

navyik wrote:Its a surprize Josh.  Trying some stuff out that would bog down in the countless debates over obscure feats and abilities.  Plus, we DO numbercrunch more than we PLAY most of the time.  Nothing says you cant' develop something original... probably more original if you do it 1 level at a time actually.

not to be "that guy" but..... there are always going to be rules debates anytime you play by a set of written rules.  That is unavoidable.  Using PF, you are using a complex ruleset, as Josh pointed out.  Josh and I had 2-3 emails back and forth today about how certain aspects of mounted combat even worked.  PF (like SR too) is simply not that well written sometimes and it takes several passes to understand both the intent and the letter of the rule.

A GM can always just make house rules too, but as we have seen with the forums, nobody remembers that stuff from week to week, anymore than they remember the actual storyline.  Having 1 set of rules, that everyone has access to and is constant is a great advantage.  I can't tell you how many times people forgot or didn't read the house rules adaptations I had to make to SW just from 3.5 to PF.  And those were all written out, before we started playing and posted on the forum.

I know you want to play with some new ideas and have a "Zen Diceless" kind of adventure, but I do hope you realize that the more you change the rules, the more you run the risk of having to allow players to retcon their characters to adapt to Alanism 1.2, then 1.4, then 1.6.   No offense, but without play-testing to back up rules changes, the debates will just be about logic and application instead of about interpretation of text.  

It makes me chuckle, but the thought of a constantly changing ruleset, reminds of how Anthony and Evan play.  They each try to change the rules left and right to their advantage.  Inevitably they get mad and get in a fight with each other  

I guess I took your "simple" approach more from your comments about not being adventures, to make the guys "simple" - a cook, a mailman (pony express), a homeless guy, etc.  That is why we were 1st level and using only 15 pts to build stats.

I do trust you, that is why I made up a character and want to play.  I just hope that your creativity expresses itself in the story and not in rewriting rulebook.

It won't be a zen game. It will use the rules. I'm just trying to get you to DEVELOP characters over the course of an unplanned story line. Instead of planning out your next 10 levels in advance, you will have the opportunity to participate in a changing world.
None of us does what we studied in college for a living. Not really. Don't expect your character to specialize in something now that may lose its relevance. Real soldiers also don't stop in a war complaining, "its not fair, I took all of these cavalry feats and someone invented tanks!" Simplicity gives you a flexible platform grom which to grow fluidly with the story.
Jeez!

Color me intrigued! Chef isn't proficient in microwave ovens, but that doesn't stop him from using one, if ever has the opportunity.

uh, just to say it, 99.9% of soldiers haven't been on a battlefield as cavalry and all of a sudden seen tanks either or anything similar to that.

I've always seen it in chess terms; you're thinking three levels ahead instead of three moves

I'll just have to see what happens...

WWII dude.

whit10 wrote:uh, just to say it, 99.9% of soldiers haven't been on a battlefield as cavalry and all of a sudden seen tanks either or anything similar to that.

Didn't the polish cavalry ride out on horses only to meet German tanks?

that being said, if there is some kind of Planes hopping or dimensional boogie-woogie, I think that will be great fun. maybe a mounted hunter, like Tuq, ends up taking a level in some kind of pilot class down the road. that would be cool!

I think Josh is just expressing a problem with the Feat system in 3.x\PF\Rad in general. To really DO what you want to do, you often need a chain of 3-4 feats, which takes 3-6 levels to complete. Many low level feats are not very impressive on their own, until you get to the end of the chain. ie Dodge is ok (but not worth a feat), mobility is junk but Spring Attack is great!

while true, are we really going to use one of the more sad and pathetic historical examples of horrible intelligence to support an argument?

While I agree with your characterization Chris, Dodge is always worth a feat in PF. It's a source of AC bonus that can't normally (except for some classes) be gained... and mobility isn't useless. It's not as good as the capstone feat Spring Attack, but it's still quite useful (especially for squishy characters like Rogues)

The polish charging of tanks was likely Russian propeganda, but widely reported.

I get the feats chains and struggle with that often myself. That is why I don't want y'all starting out married to a future numbercrunch based goal.

The fact that I can't even start a campaign without all of this turmoil show how rigidly entrenched we have become in the set way we approach gaming. Josh are being french again with his maginot line instead of being fluid like air cav.

navyik wrote:
The fact that I can't even start a campaign without all of this turmoil show how rigidly entrenched we have become in the set way we approach gaming.  

oh don't be so dramatic

1) we are just asking questions, because you have been both vague and contradictory in your comments so far as a GM.  I know you want it to be a surprise, but that leads to.....

2) since you haven't started the game yet, we have nothing to do but ask questions and pester the GM  

I think all this static will cease once we actually start playing and we see what you have in mind.  We are sitting in a dark room and told to wait for 2 weeks.  Be encouraged that there is such interest in a game that hasn't started and we have no idea about the world at all, beyond 1 small town map\area.

oh please, just keep heaping crap upon me here.. even though you seem to missing my point entirely.  That's a terrible analogy BTW

If you want to start with medieval peasants that end up with "phased plasma rifles with a 40 Watt range", be my guest

... as I have already said, I'll see what you decide to do.

... and I agree with Carb

Ok, I THINK I understand what Alan is going for here..

We're going on a journey with character creation, letting our guys get built organically as the story progresses, rather than saying something like

"well, I know I want my wizard to specialize in X, and have feats A, B, Y, and Z at level 20"

We're kinda just supposed to go with the flow, and let our guys evolve based on what they experience instead of a set in stone concept of what we want to play?

That's the way I'm understanding it anyway. I could be way off base. But I think building like that, instead of starting at high level, or with a 'finished product' character in mind, is fun sometimes.

Also, speaking for myself, doing it that way makes me less likely to look for every loophole, every little bonus to exploit, and generally makes me less inclined to be 'rules rapey'.

In turn, at 15th level, that avoids a lot of the debates that start like "nuh uh! You can't do that!" and go to "The hell I can't! I have this, this, this..."

And in my short time gaming, THAT seems to be where 75% of side tracking rules debates start.

To use a cheese example: Bilbo didn't leave the shire and say to himself "ok, I know in 10 more levels I want an invisibility ring, Mithral armor, and weapons feats with my orc Bane sword that I'm naming Sting" lol

Anyway, that's my .02€ on it.

Arcturus2 wrote:Ok, I THINK I understand what Alan is going for here..

We're going on a journey with character creation, letting our guys get built organically as the story progresses, rather than saying something like

"well, I know I want my wizard to specialize in X, and have feats A, B, Y, and Z at level 20"

We're kinda just supposed to go with the flow, and let our guys evolve based on what they experience instead of a set in stone concept of what we want to play?

That's the way I'm understanding it anyway. I could be way off base. But I think building like that, instead of starting at high level, or with a 'finished product' character in mind, is fun sometimes.

Also, speaking for myself, doing it that way makes me less likely to look for every loophole, every little bonus to exploit,  and generally makes me less inclined to be 'rules rapey'.

In turn, at 15th level, that avoids a lot of the debates that start like "nuh uh! You can't do that!" and go to "The hell I can't! I have this, this, this..."

And in my short time gaming, THAT seems to be where 75% of side tracking rules debates start.

To use a cheese example: Bilbo didn't leave the shire and say to himself "ok, I know in 10 more levels I want an invisibility ring, Mithral armor, and weapons feats with my orc Bane sword that I'm naming Sting" lol

Anyway, that's my .02€ on it.

Winner winner!

good analysis Dan!

That is cool and I can understand the "simplicity" of that idea.  That comes with the territory of being level 1, in my mind.  The reality of forum gaming is that these characters will likely never see lvl 4, unless this campaign runs for more than a year of real time.  Plotting out future levels is kind of pointless.

I think the confusion has arisen from GM comments like "the mechanics of which you cannot anticipate."  does that mean rules changes or creative story ideas?  There was initial confusion by 2 people about whether magic even existed in the world or whether spellcasters were legal options.  That isn't a criticism of Alan's posts, it has happened to Josh and me and Matt and Rob.... everyone who has GM'd has learned that there is just an inherent level of 'confusion' on the forum.

That general confusion + 5 different people reading the rules = questions and debates.

I hope this setting reduces those, because we have fewer Feats to argue about.  In recent memory, the rules debates are more about general interpretation of the rules, than about higher level feats.

I still think we are not using "soft cover", "partial cover" and firing into melee correctly.
Josh and I disagree about the basic wording of the Vital Strike feat. (1st feat in the chain)
Josh and I disagreed (yesterday) about how mounted combat in general works.
Attack of Opportunity is always a sticky-wicket of an issue
5ft step, disengaging, threat zones, reach weapons, etc are always tricky and not always played correctly, imo

I think it is overly optimistic to think that all rules debates are going to vanish, just b\c we are using lvl 1 characters. 4\5 of the above mentioned issues apply equally at lvl 1 and lvl 20

Chris wrote:

I think it is overly optimistic to think that all rules debates are going to vanish, just b\c we are using lvl 1 characters.  4\5 of the above mentioned issues apply equally at lvl 1 and lvl 20

Correct, but instead of debating 15 levels of feats an abilities, we will debate 1.

navyik wrote:

Chris wrote:

I think it is overly optimistic to think that all rules debates are going to vanish, just b\c we are using lvl 1 characters.  4\5 of the above mentioned issues apply equally at lvl 1 and lvl 20

Correct, but instead of debating 15 levels of feats an abilities, we will debate 1.

right-o, looking forward to playing!

After Josh wraps up WOD, and characters are complete, chime into new thread, "The day the earth shook."

On another tangent...

Seventh Son is pretty cool fantasy flick. Thumbs up!

hey guys,

I am helping Alan with the power points for combat maps. I need everyone to post in this forum the image you want to use for your combat token. head shots are better than full body, b\c they get shrunk down so far the detail gets lost

thanks!

ROFL - Rob that is too funny. From the moment you started describing your character, I have had a picture of the muppet chef in my mind.