General Discussion
Qik
First Post
My initial thought is that it'd be a great new dimension to LPF, and as long as there (presumably) wouldn't be any mechanical benefits occurring in these threads (i.e. xp, etc), I'm not even sure you actually need the judges' input on this one.
I would say it'd be best to set up these sorts of personal threads in the "Playing the Game" thread. We've already decided that's where we want our game threads to be, so that makes the most sense; otherwise these personal threads could clutter the LPF thread, and plus, we seem to have tended towards separating our IC and OOC threads.
I'll even do you one further: these personal threads could also be used for RPing character developments like obtaining an animal companion, a blackblade, or the like. I've always thought a space for that sort of thing would be really nice..
I would say it'd be best to set up these sorts of personal threads in the "Playing the Game" thread. We've already decided that's where we want our game threads to be, so that makes the most sense; otherwise these personal threads could clutter the LPF thread, and plus, we seem to have tended towards separating our IC and OOC threads.
I'll even do you one further: these personal threads could also be used for RPing character developments like obtaining an animal companion, a blackblade, or the like. I've always thought a space for that sort of thing would be really nice..
DalkonCledwin
First Post
yeah these were each possibilities that I was really liking as potential sources of Role Playing Interest for the characters. And I thought it would be a good idea to have access to these types of things. Plus the ability to invite other players to come into your thread to participate in small 2 person interactions between the characters would be of interest to me as well or heck even 3 person interactions would be pretty neat if you ask me.
Maidhc O Casain
Na Bith Mo Riocht Tá!
I'd also vote for it, though I feel obliged to point out that mfloyd and I made a very similar - in fact, a pretty much identical - request some time ago so that we could RP out some 2 character interaction with Pari and Garnet between adventures and were shot down. Never did really grasp the reason for that . . .
perrinmiller
Adventurer
Stupid Internet. Duplicate post.
Last edited:
perrinmiller
Adventurer
That's because you two wanted to receive triple TBX/TBG while running skill challenges of tiddlywinks against each other. j/k 
Seriously, I cannot imagine why you would be told no. Must have been WD, HM, and AFg that wouldn't let you? Wasn't me. Whatever deviant behavior you two wanted to engage in behind closed doors is your business.
Seriously, I cannot imagine why you would be told no. Must have been WD, HM, and AFg that wouldn't let you? Wasn't me. Whatever deviant behavior you two wanted to engage in behind closed doors is your business.
Maidhc O Casain
Na Bith Mo Riocht Tá!
That's because you two wanted to receive triple TBX/TBG while running skill challenges of tiddlywinks against each other. j/k
Seriously, I cannot imagine why you would be told no. Must have been WD, HM, and AFg that wouldn't let you? Wasn't me. Whatever deviant behavior you two wanted to engage in behind closed doors is your business.
Nice one! As I said, I was never sure why either. It was in the early days of LPF - the characters were on their way back from GE's lighthouse adventure and we wanted to play out a discussion between Garnet and Pari. I guess we were just being more cautious then. LPF - and judging/moderating a living world - was still a new thing for us.
GlassEye
Adventurer
Nope, that was me (as I'm sure Mowgli remembers and was just being too kind to point fingers). Honestly, I don't remember exactly why the request didn't sit well with me at the time but I think it was that you wanted to run your private interaction thread and join an adventure at the same time. Or maybe that was AFg who wanted to rp in the Inn and be in adventure at the same time. As I said, I just don't remember the details of why I was against it then.
Since then, however, I've experienced my share of unnecessarily restrictive attitudes and realized that imposing my own restrictive attitudes on others was just as frustrating and I'm trying to curb that tendency to say 'this is the way we have to do it' in myself. We're all here to have fun, after all is said and done, and that means some of us might need to loosen up a bit.
I like the idea of allowing private residence RP. I think the only concern I have involves newcomers. I'm not sure how likely it is, but I could see scenarios developing wherein all the 'idle' characters are off in various private residences, and a newcomer winds up alone in the DWI when there would previously have been activity to meet him / her.
Likewise spreading out unattached characters might make it a bit difficult for GMs to realize who might be available. I'd say maybe the Adventures page should still list any private/ non-adventure characters as in the Dunn Wright category whether they actually are or not. I'd have suggested the Wandering the Streets category, but in a fair number of cases, that actually indicates a player isn't active, and sorting through the difference between those active and inactive souls could be an obstacle.
Likewise spreading out unattached characters might make it a bit difficult for GMs to realize who might be available. I'd say maybe the Adventures page should still list any private/ non-adventure characters as in the Dunn Wright category whether they actually are or not. I'd have suggested the Wandering the Streets category, but in a fair number of cases, that actually indicates a player isn't active, and sorting through the difference between those active and inactive souls could be an obstacle.
