Author: Jon Burfoot
|
|
Stefan Lerbech (27 days ago)
2 large chunks of Lamb A handful of onions ½ a dozen big carrots 1 large bone with marrow still in it 5 bay leafs Half a handful of salt Water (preferably from a clean well)' Beer Roast the lamb in an oven or over open fire, while bringing the water to a boil. In the water pour...hey wait a minute this is not my cookbook! OOPS, sorry Varion I hope it hasn't ruined too much. Oh and by the way, thank you for the kind words about me. Im not that special, and not very brave. Im just a cook, and I will help you where ever I can. I really liked this fighting, it was so much fun, that is until that spear hit me, I didn't like that very much. Sorry again about this page! -Tod Buttercup |
|
|
Jon Burfoot (26 days ago)
Thanks for the kind words, Dave! Stefan (Tod) thanks also....am not sure about the lamb/beer stew, mind! :-) |
|
|
Nick Hughes (25 days ago)
This is a great journal, and really in character as well. On a more serious and technical note I really enjoy this particular game because 3.5 allows a lot more freedom of action and flows a lot faster. You think of what you want to do and then the rules follow instead of following the rules and then figuring out just what it is you've done which is what I get with 4th. Having said that, the only thing that detracted from the last play session was the out of character tactical urgings from the players. I understand for the characters the battle was life or death but it does take a lot of fun out of a game when people shout out "shift there! Move there! Target that one! Move, attack, withdraw! No, don't do that!". Decisions must be left up to the player without being told what to do by others; I stopped playing Formule De for that very reason. As a player, character death is part and parcel of the game so I'm not so into getting the tactics spot on. |
|
|
Stefan Lerbech (25 days ago)
3.5 limits you to 2 action: attack or don't. That is probably why the game flowed faster as you don't really have many choices opposed to 4ed. So in my opinion you are completely wrong about giving freedom of action. All the actions that exist in 3.5 also exist in 4ed, most people tend to just not use them (such as disarm or grabble). And the flavour text on the powers in 4ed should be taken more as...well flavour text for those who cant make up their own :) That said, I really do enjoy our game as well, and we have despite an enormous amount of OOC tactic talk (will come back to that later) managed to make a very living tale of "how we defended the walls of "our" castle against the oncomming hordes". I would never have been as brave as Dave about sending massive hordes of monsters like that, and still make it a more or less fair encounter. So I take my hat off to Dave for this epic tale at level 1. I do agree on the tic-tac talks somewhat though. We all seem to be quite capable players, who know our way around in this combat system. And Dave is very supportive when it comes to helping us out on possible actions we can take. So none of us really need the advices that are slung around the table. I for one am most probably guilty of OOC advices, and I think we should try and change that, and see how it goes...so please DO scold me in the future should I start to give tactical advice without being asked. It HAS to be said though, that 3.5 is a very tactical game combat wise... and our characters are a unit of mercenaries in the making. And one thing that is very important in combat is communication, so we should be better at telling "in character" what our characters intentions are, so that others can act on it. And maybe even more important listen to what others are trying to say, and not just disregard it as flavour talks. Example: Stefan knows that with mage armour a shield and defensive fighting he can reach an armor class of 25 on Tod Buttercup and thus be an immovable front line obstacle. So Tod casts mage armor and moves to the front saying "I need a shield, I need a shield, I can hold them I promise!" but is completely ignored because I didnt out of character say: "listen I can reach AC 25 if someone passes me a shield, they wont ever break through our lines, its tactical brilliance from my side here" So yes, I am 100% for less OOC talk in combat (in my Danish group we called it "Combat Telepathy") if we in turn become a lot better at communicating in character and more importantly start listening to each other and maybe *gasp* even work together. :p |
|
|
Nick Hughes (25 days ago)
It was less like combat telepathy, it was more like combat hollering. I'm really not a slave to a rules system and I don't number crunch or go for min/maxing: As a player, I've never been one for analysing the rules to the point where I go "aha, if I do that I'll have this kick ass character". So all this overstressing the combat manoevers gets on my nerves. Thinking about D&D, I'm reminded of the movies of James Cameron. Basic is like Piranha II; OK, we all have to start somewhere but don't remind me of it. 1st ed is the first Terminator movie. Lovely, exciting and fun but kind of crude. 2nd ed is Aliens. Man, are things looking a bit more sophisticated and its a classic. 3rd ed is Terminator 2. Many people prefer it and it's a rollercoaster but for me it lacks the charm of the first one. 4th ed is Avatar. It's pretty, it's radical, it's the future but boy is it flat and lacking in character. |
|
|
Jon Burfoot (25 days ago)
I think a certain degree of combat hollering is to be expected, as it is kind of in keeping with the chaos of a defensive action and the ebb and flow of combat. Tod shouting 'I need a shield' and being ignored is totally in character. I mean, who would believe that the little rascal could possibly be a tank? I'm not sure Tod in the front rank is a great idea, as I can see an over-run easily happening... (*squish goes the Ogres foot* "'Ere! Wos dis quishy little mess on me foot. Oh, 's a halfling...") I do agree that each player is able to make their own choice. A little advice (so long as it does not go too far) is fine, in my book, again it's a little more realistic to have people shouting 'fall back left' in combat, as would happen in a real fight. Admittedly, we are looking at the maths and the likely best actions from a tactical battle-map sort of a way, but it does sort of work. :-) |
|
|
Nick Hughes (25 days ago)
I got annoyed with it though: OK, if a player asks for advice that's one thing but when you've had a whole turn to work out what you're going to do and declare the action only to have 2 or 3 people yell "No! Don't do that you want to do this..." and start moving your model figure on the map then I think that's crossing the line. If you want to keep it in character by uttering short phrases like "fall back" or "look out behind you" that's fine, but not "you want to fall back one square, declare a defence manoever and hand over your +1 shield to the Halfling because he gets a power bonus" said right in your ear at a loud volume. It was that kind of thing that put Jules off. |
|
|
Gary Yam (25 days ago)
Not to hijack the campaign journal, but some observations on Nick's comments: The group is still too large and the players too diverse. Some players want to blow stuff up and kill monsters and take their gold. Others want to recreate the last half hour of Apocalypse Now in every encounter. Either way, there are too many players with differing ideas on play, and who also do not know one another that well. In the olden days, we did have big groups, but 1e was a very unsophisticated game, everyone took their turn in a matter of seconds. There were no choices to be made if you were a fighter - and very few if you were any other class. The game seemed to flow faster, but it was a very different game. There were no tactical choices to be made, and it was pointless shouting advice at one another - I seem to remember that OOC shouting seemed to add up to a begging auction for healing, and hurling abuse at the Magic-User for only having magic missile and dimension door left in his arsenal after two rounds. It's been said before, but if we want civil, viable games, the RPG group is going to have to : 1. Become properly organised 2. Have a proper schedule of upcoming games 3. Decide which game is to be played and by whom 4. Set opening limits on player numbers at the start of a scenario At the moment, we are lurching from one system to the next and taking on all comers. That's fine if you're playing Ticket to Ride or Battlestar - but if we want to play RPGs, we are going to have to look at our time commitments and be ready to accept some compromises. If we want to be in a game, we start with a sensible group size, we see it through and stick to the starting party. Is that too unreasonable? |
|
|
Dave Brown (24 days ago)
I thought it all went rather well actually. 3.5 is good at handling large, diverse fights because the initiative system allows everyone to have their go. There are enough actions available that a player can describe what they want to do, and the DM can convert that to rulesspeak. It usually works best when you spend the time that everyone else is doing something to plan your next action, to keep it flowing. I think Nick was barracked a bit and given unwanted advice. I would suggest conversations of 'what can I do' best be left between the player and the DM and more importantly - hands off someone elses figure unless they ask you to move it :P Im looking forward to doing another installment after the half-term break! |
|
|
Nick Hughes (24 days ago)
I don't want to give the impression that I think the game or the session was bad; on the contrary, it was excellent and I was impressed by the set up of having to defend key points from a well organised horde of orcs and goblins...it really was LotR meets Zulu meets the Alamo meets Beau Geste. Towards the end, when it was getting really life threatening for the characters, was when it got annoying with all the combat advice and that's because I think it's easy to get fixated at the "we've got to win at all costs!" way of thinking instead of hey, it's a game and everyone's got their own way of doing things. I think Gary is right in principle, but I think the group functions well enough because it's friendly and a lot of laughs most of the time. I think we've all got different schticks as players and no doubt we all have our "pet" games which we excel at: We play D&D because it's the compromise system we can all agree to play. In the future, a better planned calender of games might be the way forward but in the meantime I'm having fun with Dave's game and would happily revisit the two 4th ed campaigns. |
|
|
Jon Burfoot (24 days ago)
I'm with Dave and Nick, on this one. I thought the evening's session went really well. It was touch and go at the end, after we had waded, hip-deep, in Goblin gore and then the Orc Heavies turned up. We fought sensibly (if with a little barracking) and as a defensive fight it was very Zulu-esque (with a hint of The Hornburg from LOTR). In the three sessions we have had so far, we have had a fair amount of monster-bashing, character interaction with NPCs and so on. All we need to do now is deal a crippling blow to the Orcs, kill their leader and get the money in that confounded chest. Easy, peasy! (Ahem!) THEN we can investigate that undead catacomb level beneath us, find the two youngsters and generally reap our heroic rewards and plaudits. 's what we signed up to do, wasn't it? :-D |
|
|
Gary Yam (24 days ago)
Started a thread on RPG philosophies so as not to further derail the campaign journal. "RPG Discussion contd" |
|
|
Nick Hughes (24 days ago)
I can't find it |
|
|
Gary Yam (24 days ago)
That's because of a rip in the fabric of space/time. |

This is fantastic.
A very moving account :)