Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil campaign starting! ..

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 7:12:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Well, I'm pleased to say that the campaign is now starting. Players,
please check out the OOC campaign thread here:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=206742

as well as the IC campaign thread here:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=206745

You should post your characters in the OOC thread ASAP; I'll link to
them in the first post of the IC thread, so they'll be easy to find.

I currently have Jasin and Werebat as Evil Geniuses (tm); I'll probably
be emailing you guys soonish.

Peanut gallery people: feel free to chat with us about the campaign in
the OOC thread. Please don't post in the IC thread, though.

I'll be making the first in-game post in the IC thread as soon as
everyone's finalized character is up.

Laszlo
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 11:00:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> Well, I'm pleased to say that the campaign is now starting. Players,
> please check out the OOC campaign thread here:
> http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=206742
>
> as well as the IC campaign thread here:
> http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=206745
>
> You should post your characters in the OOC thread ASAP; I'll link to
> them in the first post of the IC thread, so they'll be easy to find.
>
> I currently have Jasin and Werebat as Evil Geniuses (tm); I'll probably
> be emailing you guys soonish.
>
> Peanut gallery people: feel free to chat with us about the campaign in
> the OOC thread. Please don't post in the IC thread, though.
>
> I'll be making the first in-game post in the IC thread as soon as
> everyone's finalized character is up.
>
> Laszlo
>

Sociological analysis:

_Impression_
I found the first IC post by the DM to be very professional, clear, and
concise. If I run one of these in the future I will likely use this
post to emulate.

_Initial question_
Is this post in a kind of standard format for online gaming in forums?

_Deduction_
It seems that the statements are a response to the, as yet, unknown
rules of the forum--examination of the FAQ is likely to reveal
requirements such as: keeping the player list current, insisting on
consistent participation, etc.

_Analysis_
The DM's initial position as well organized and insistent on punctuality
is consistent with authoritative rule. Members of the group are highly
likely to accept this position barring a sharp deviation into an
authoritarian modality.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 5:30:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Shawn Roske wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > Well, I'm pleased to say that the campaign is now starting. Players,
> > please check out the OOC campaign thread here:
> > http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=206742
> >
> > as well as the IC campaign thread here:
> > http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=206745
> >
> > You should post your characters in the OOC thread ASAP; I'll link to
> > them in the first post of the IC thread, so they'll be easy to find.
> >
> > I currently have Jasin and Werebat as Evil Geniuses (tm); I'll probably
> > be emailing you guys soonish.
> >
> > Peanut gallery people: feel free to chat with us about the campaign in
> > the OOC thread. Please don't post in the IC thread, though.
> >
> > I'll be making the first in-game post in the IC thread as soon as
> > everyone's finalized character is up.
> >
> > Laszlo
> >
>
> Sociological analysis:

Huh. Should I be scared?

> _Impression_
> I found the first IC post by the DM to be very professional, clear, and
> concise. If I run one of these in the future I will likely use this
> post to emulate.

Thanks. I've run (and played in) online campaigns before, and I have a
lot of experience with EZBoard stuff in general. You kind of evolve an
efficient format after a while.

> _Initial question_
> Is this post in a kind of standard format for online gaming in forums?
>
> _Deduction_
> It seems that the statements are a response to the, as yet, unknown
> rules of the forum--examination of the FAQ is likely to reveal
> requirements such as: keeping the player list current, insisting on
> consistent participation, etc.

More or less. There is a FAQ, with very sensible suggestions, which I
took. The insistence on regular participation is my own, though; I've
seen far too many online campaigns fail because one person wasn't as
interested as the rest, and the DM allowed him to slow the entire
adventure to a crawl, which then alienated everyone else.

> _Analysis_
> The DM's initial position as well organized and insistent on punctuality
> is consistent with authoritative rule. Members of the group are highly
> likely to accept this position barring a sharp deviation into an
> authoritarian modality.

_Observation_: you're scary.

Anyway, I don't think I'm that kind of person, really. I'm very willing
to compromise on things, and I believe my responsibility as a GM is to
do my best to make sure my players have fun, not indulge in crazed
power fantasies.

The few things I'm authoritative about are all things that I absolutely
cannot compromise on, as bitter experience has shown me in the past.

Laszlo
Related resources
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 5:46:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

tussock wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > Well, I'm pleased to say that the campaign is now starting. Players,
> > please check out the OOC campaign thread here:
> > http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=206742
> >
> > as well as the IC campaign thread here:
> > http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=206745
>
> Mmm, bookmarks. BTW, I'm tussock there too, obviously enough.
>
> > You should post your characters in the OOC thread ASAP; I'll link to
> > them in the first post of the IC thread, so they'll be easy to find.
>
> Done.
  1.  
helps with the spacing in the numbers part, and
> makes it all fit in the space a bit more cleanly. Hope it looks OK,
> followed the example sheet you linked pretty close.
>

Yep, looks great.

> > I currently have Jasin and Werebat as Evil Geniuses (tm); I'll probably
> > be emailing you guys soonish.
>
> Feel free not to be too heavy on the Geniuses part of that guys,
> this is hardly the most optimised PC I've played. </wimper> 8]
>

Heh heh.

> > I'll be making the first in-game post in the IC thread as soon as
> > everyone's finalized character is up.
>
> "So anyway, you all meet in a tavern." 8]
>

Hey! Don't spoil the plot! ;) 

> Tried a couple of tests on the die roller, should have just chucked
> them in name: test I suppose. Oh well. Didn't need to double damage on
> the confirm roll, oops, and I guess I could do
> "1d20+9; 1d10+9; 1d20+9; 1d10+9"
> as a single roll and just ignore the last half when the first isn't
> a crit threat, just like meatspace. Might save some clutter.
>

As you like; I'm not gonna quibble on the details unless someone is
clearly and deliberately "gaming the system" to enhance their rolls.

Laszlo
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 8:55:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> Well, I'm pleased to say that the campaign is now starting. Players,
> please check out the OOC campaign thread here:
> http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=206742
>
> as well as the IC campaign thread here:
> http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=206745

Mmm, bookmarks. BTW, I'm tussock there too, obviously enough.

> You should post your characters in the OOC thread ASAP; I'll link to
> them in the first post of the IC thread, so they'll be easy to find.

Done.
  1.  
helps with the spacing in the numbers part, and
makes it all fit in the space a bit more cleanly. Hope it looks OK,
followed the example sheet you linked pretty close.

> I currently have Jasin and Werebat as Evil Geniuses (tm); I'll probably
> be emailing you guys soonish.

Feel free not to be too heavy on the Geniuses part of that guys,
this is hardly the most optimised PC I've played. </wimper> 8]


> I'll be making the first in-game post in the IC thread as soon as
> everyone's finalized character is up.

"So anyway, you all meet in a tavern." 8]


Tried a couple of tests on the die roller, should have just chucked
them in name: test I suppose. Oh well. Didn't need to double damage on
the confirm roll, oops, and I guess I could do
"1d20+9; 1d10+9; 1d20+9; 1d10+9"
as a single roll and just ignore the last half when the first isn't
a crit threat, just like meatspace. Might save some clutter.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 3:05:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Repent !" said the Ticktockman. "Get Stuffed!" replied. Then he added:

> The first thing that needs to be decided is whether you guys are OK
> with me making any "reactive" rolls for you (that is, rolls normally
> made by you, but in the opponent's turn) like saving throws, Spot
> checks, Knowledge checks to identify a creature, etc. This is not,
> strictly speaking, necessary, but would speed things up a bit.
>
>

That's fine with me.

--
Billy Yank

Quinn: "I'm saying it's us, or them."
Murphy: "Well I choose them."
Q: "That's NOT an option!"
M: "Then you shouldn't have framed it as one."
-Sealab 2021

Billy Yank's Baldur's Gate Photo Portraits
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2xvw6/
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 3:25:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> In article <Xns969B49D3D536Abillyyanknetzeronet@199.45.49.11>,
> Billy Yank <billyUSCOREyank@verizonDOT.net> wrote:
> >"Repent !" said the Ticktockman. "Get Stuffed!" replied. Then he added:
> >
> >> The first thing that needs to be decided is whether you guys are OK
> >> with me making any "reactive" rolls for you (that is, rolls normally
> >> made by you, but in the opponent's turn) like saving throws, Spot
> >> checks, Knowledge checks to identify a creature, etc.
> >
> >That's fine with me.
>
> Me, too. In fact I don't mind if you roll everything, though I can happily
> roll my own attacks and damage if that makes things easier for you.

Seconded (or is that thirded?). DM can roll for me on anything.
That's how I did it the one time I tried to run an online D&D game way
back in the heyday of BBSes...

- Justisaur.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 3:37:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

tussock wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > tussock wrote:
> >
> >> Oh, BTW, how are we doing out of turn combat actions and the like,
> >>for when it comes up. I presume it'll be forced AoO's for PCs and NPCs,
> >>and any readied actions will have to be specific enough that the DM can
> >>resolve them as the triggers happen.
> >
> > I was about to bring this up on the OOC thread, but since you brought
> > it up here:
> >
> > The first thing that needs to be decided is whether you guys are OK
> > with me making any "reactive" rolls for you (that is, rolls normally
> > made by you, but in the opponent's turn) like saving throws, Spot
> > checks, Knowledge checks to identify a creature, etc. This is not,
> > strictly speaking, necessary, but would speed things up a bit.
>
> Sure, there's not normally any decisions to be made. I'm always
> going to try and make the save (when it's not a harmless spell at
> least), and so on.
>
> > The second problem is the one you brought up; out of turn actions. I'd
> > be inclined to _not_ force any AoO's or other such actions. Since the
> > board posts (unlike Usenet posts) are editable, minor retconning is
> > always possible. Here's what I mean:
> <snip>
>
> Hmm. I guess it'd involve showing us the monsters attack bonus for
> us to figure how their AoO effects our own turn as we go. I don't know
> how much of HP/attack bonus/AC you show either.
>
> IMC, when you try and hit the monster you get its AC, when it
> attacks you you get it's attack bonus. I'm also willing to show HPs
> after damage has been done, but as the monsters get the same knowledge
> players have prefered it somewhat abstract (50% left, 20% left).
>

I abstract everything, and don't tell the players anything about the
monsters. I tell them if they are hurt or not and give a description
of how much damage they are doing to something, like a scratch or a
huge gaping wound, if they are obviously fast healing or regenerating
and that's it. I suppose a skill or knowledge check of some sort would
be apropriate for % or actual hp. Not sure what I'd attach it to...
Healing maybe? What kind of DC though.

Probably why power attack wasn't being used much in my last campain.
I'd usually just tell the AC after they'd been fighting for awhile, and
don't have any issue if they figure it out on thier own though. I've
been a bit more lax about it this game because the super munchkin
player keeps asking what thier ac is so he can figure out his power
attack, and I'm prone to just give in instead of arguing about it. I'm
probably going to go back to not giving it out, as it got a bit
irritating last game.

I never even thought of telling the attack bonus, I suppose you could
figure out how hard/well aimed someone's attacks are, but again I'd
prefer to attach that to a skill, not sure what though.

Might be an interesting topic for the whole NG...

- Justisaur.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 9:20:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <Xns969B49D3D536Abillyyanknetzeronet@199.45.49.11>,
Billy Yank <billyUSCOREyank@verizonDOT.net> wrote:
>"Repent !" said the Ticktockman. "Get Stuffed!" replied. Then he added:
>
>> The first thing that needs to be decided is whether you guys are OK
>> with me making any "reactive" rolls for you (that is, rolls normally
>> made by you, but in the opponent's turn) like saving throws, Spot
>> checks, Knowledge checks to identify a creature, etc.
>
>That's fine with me.

Me, too. In fact I don't mind if you roll everything, though I can happily
roll my own attacks and damage if that makes things easier for you.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 9:49:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> Well, I'm pleased to say that the campaign is now starting. Players,
> please check out the OOC campaign thread here:
> http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=206742
>
> as well as the IC campaign thread here:
> http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=206745

Okay, I've sent an email to everyone with their introduction to the
campaign. I hope you guys like them; I tried to stay true to what
little I know of your characters. If there's a problem, please email me
ASAP, and we'll work out a fix.

Everyone should now know exactly where they are, and with whom (there
are two groups, Jayla + Alex and Snarfi + Bear). You should all have
enough information to start posting on the IC board now. If anything's
not clear, just email me.

Note that _what_ and _how much_ your characters know varies pretty
wildly. What you share with your companions is up to you.

Laszlo
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 6:08:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> tussock wrote:
>
>> Oh, BTW, how are we doing out of turn combat actions and the like,
>>for when it comes up. I presume it'll be forced AoO's for PCs and NPCs,
>>and any readied actions will have to be specific enough that the DM can
>>resolve them as the triggers happen.
>
> I was about to bring this up on the OOC thread, but since you brought
> it up here:
>
> The first thing that needs to be decided is whether you guys are OK
> with me making any "reactive" rolls for you (that is, rolls normally
> made by you, but in the opponent's turn) like saving throws, Spot
> checks, Knowledge checks to identify a creature, etc. This is not,
> strictly speaking, necessary, but would speed things up a bit.

Sure, there's not normally any decisions to be made. I'm always
going to try and make the save (when it's not a harmless spell at
least), and so on.

> The second problem is the one you brought up; out of turn actions. I'd
> be inclined to _not_ force any AoO's or other such actions. Since the
> board posts (unlike Usenet posts) are editable, minor retconning is
> always possible. Here's what I mean:
<snip>

Hmm. I guess it'd involve showing us the monsters attack bonus for
us to figure how their AoO effects our own turn as we go. I don't know
how much of HP/attack bonus/AC you show either.

IMC, when you try and hit the monster you get its AC, when it
attacks you you get it's attack bonus. I'm also willing to show HPs
after damage has been done, but as the monsters get the same knowledge
players have prefered it somewhat abstract (50% left, 20% left).

> This'll give both you guys and NPCs the slight advantage of knowing
> what the enemy's round will look like before taking your AoO, but
> that's really a small bit of rules-bending for a lot of convenience.

Fair enough, I'm good either way. I might even be able to
pre-annouce my AoO's when it's obvious what's going to happen. I find
you can often see what's coming up when you pay attention.

<snips>
>> Tougher one; ready to "stay on and attack $adjacent_target" allows
>>move adjacent to if the above step and attack or short charge won't work
>>after your opponent moves?
>
> I'm gonna have to say no to this one, too... my interpreatation of a
> Ready action is that while the Ready trigger can be broad or narrow, as
> you like, the Ready action itself must be one specific action.

Yep, that's pretty much core. My games allow a bit more latitude
for action if you've given a specific target, as long as there's a nice
line of succession. Attack that guy => Charge him to attack because he
moved => follow him because the charge is blocked.

I'm not asking for a reconsideration or anything, just commenting
for the peanut gallery.

>> If not that last one, I presume "stay with $adjacent_target" would
>>let me move as my target moves, to keep him threatened at all times.
>
> That works, yes.

Cool, quite a handy trick against certain enemy types.

>> Not that I use ready a whole lot, but it can be useful to mess up
>>an opponents cunning plans at times, and is a bit open to interpretation.
>
> Definitely. I don't like getting bogged down in rules debates in the
> middle of a battle (especially in online games), so if you post a Ready
> action that I don't like, I'll probably allow it and note how it'll be
> ruled in the future.

What you've said here gives me a nice clear picture.

I like to rule that the DM should be able to run the player's ready
action for him (and visa versa, if need be), no options or decisions
allowed. Triggers must be blatantly obvious, actions must be clear, and
intent is normally visible.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 7:06:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

tussock wrote:

> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>
>> Well, I'm pleased to say that the campaign is now starting. Players,
>> please check out the OOC campaign thread here:
>> http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=206742
>>
>> as well as the IC campaign thread here:
>> http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=206745

The side comment the kobold made about hating the smell of wet dog was
pretty funny to me, and possibly other people who remember 2nd Edition
as well. :^)

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 9:04:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
> tussock wrote:
>
> > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> >
> >> Well, I'm pleased to say that the campaign is now starting. Players,
> >> please check out the OOC campaign thread here:
> >> http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=206742
> >>
> >> as well as the IC campaign thread here:
> >> http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=206745
>
> The side comment the kobold made about hating the smell of wet dog was
> pretty funny to me, and possibly other people who remember 2nd Edition
> as well. :^)

What, just because they were dog like (i.e. more like Kobolds to
Gnolls, as Kobolds are to Lizardfolk now)?

Even though I like reptiles, I like Warcraft's take on them. Basically
Rat-Humanoids. It fits very well with thier place in D&D, and we don't
have a Rat-Humanoid race (beyond were-rats, unless there's some obscure
race I don't know or remember... or gnomes :) ). I think D&D could do
with morphing some of the humanoids more toward anthropomorphic
animals. We don't have any major cat race (again exception or
Rakhashas, but way too powerful & rare), Orcs might fit the bill (even
though traditionally in D&D they are Pig-like)... You could make
goblins like chimps, hobgoblins like baboons, and bugbears like apes.

Lets see, on the demi-human side, you could make... actually Halflings
seem more like cats than Orcs do... Gnomes are like Moles, Dwarves
like... BADGERS! and Elves... uh... hmm... Horses, no that's too
plains, forest... forest... deer (wild elves could be mooses)?

Well enough of that tangent.

- Justisaur
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 5:47:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:
>
> Even though I like reptiles, I like Warcraft's take on them. Basically
> Rat-Humanoids.

A take based heavily on Germanic folklore.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...

Berawler: Is there any sanity or light left in this shrivelled husk of a world?
SingingDancingMoose: There was, but we had to trade it in for the internet.
Berawler: That is quite possibly the best response to any question ever.
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 10:19:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:

> Werebat wrote:
>
>>tussock wrote:
>>
>>
>>>laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Well, I'm pleased to say that the campaign is now starting. Players,
>>>>please check out the OOC campaign thread here:
>>>>http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=206742
>>>>
>>>>as well as the IC campaign thread here:
>>>>http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=206745
>>
>>The side comment the kobold made about hating the smell of wet dog was
>>pretty funny to me, and possibly other people who remember 2nd Edition
>>as well. :^)
>
>
> What, just because they were dog like (i.e. more like Kobolds to
> Gnolls, as Kobolds are to Lizardfolk now)?

2nd Edition specifically stated that kobolds smell like wet dogs. Hence
the funny of a kobold detesting the smell of wet dog. :^)


> Even though I like reptiles, I like Warcraft's take on them. Basically
> Rat-Humanoids. It fits very well with thier place in D&D, and we don't
> have a Rat-Humanoid race (beyond were-rats, unless there's some obscure
> race I don't know or remember... or gnomes :) ).

There's Skaven, which can convert from Warhammer easily enough, but
Skaven are very different from kobolds. I'm running a campaign partly
centered on Skaven as bad guys right now.


> I think D&D could do
> with morphing some of the humanoids more toward anthropomorphic
> animals. We don't have any major cat race (again exception or
> Rakhashas, but way too powerful & rare), Orcs might fit the bill (even
> though traditionally in D&D they are Pig-like)... You could make
> goblins like chimps, hobgoblins like baboons, and bugbears like apes.
>
> Lets see, on the demi-human side, you could make... actually Halflings
> seem more like cats than Orcs do... Gnomes are like Moles, Dwarves
> like... BADGERS! and Elves... uh... hmm... Horses, no that's too
> plains, forest... forest... deer (wild elves could be mooses)?
>
> Well enough of that tangent.

About time. Furvert.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 4:17:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
> Justisaur wrote:
>
> > Werebat wrote:
> >
> >>tussock wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Well, I'm pleased to say that the campaign is now starting. Players,
> >>>>please check out the OOC campaign thread here:
> >>>>http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=206742
> >>>>
> >>>>as well as the IC campaign thread here:
> >>>>http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=206745
> >>
> >>The side comment the kobold made about hating the smell of wet dog was
> >>pretty funny to me, and possibly other people who remember 2nd Edition
> >>as well. :^)
> >
> >
> > What, just because they were dog like (i.e. more like Kobolds to
> > Gnolls, as Kobolds are to Lizardfolk now)?
>
> 2nd Edition specifically stated that kobolds smell like wet dogs. Hence
> the funny of a kobold detesting the smell of wet dog. :^)
>
>

That especially ironic since I don't even remember that...


> > Well enough of that tangent.
>
> About time. Furvert.
>

Bah! Besides, I'd be a scalevert, if I was a vert, which I'm not.

- Justisaur
!