[FULL] OOC: Dichotomy's Age of Worms Redux [FULL]

[o3caudata]

um YOU took the feat m_n. and assuming you understood the rules when you did so, you either accepted them or passed up the glaringly obvious opportunity to reach some conclusion with Di at THAT time......

it seems to me that you must have taken the feat EXPECTING the rules to be overhauled to a degree that YOU found satisfactory.....

I want you to be able to craft things. it is enormously beneficial to the party....

From a real-world stand-point taking away the 4 week delay(or whatever it is) to create something that only .5% of the population can even afford seems unnecessary.

But the point of the crafting feats isn't REALLY to flesh out the mechanic used by the magicial shop keeper who sells you the bracers of armor... it's to enable to characters to increase the buying power of their money and to give some depth to the activities a character has. Everyone is fine with the bard performing at taverns along the way, because it doesn't 'interrupt' the game. I think what m_n is arguing is simply that mechanics which have a 'hard' cost to a pre-established storyline are derailing. Ti's point, as it was with learning spells, is that the delay can be seen as something other than derailing.

i feel like m_n doesn't agree with that, to the point where he is unwilling to take the opportunity to use the RAW. SO... to me, i'd say right now, we should have a vote on whether we can augment the rules to say that a caster can increase productivity by expending more spells in a day when creating something. if that vote fails, m_n deserves a slap on the wrist, some healthy berating from Ti, and a new feat, with the understanding that he shouldn't ever take crafting without determining if there is support for a rule change.... before the game is in full swing....

 

[Dichotomy]

Hmmm... Certainly not a solution I would have engineered, but I think we can go with that.

I'm assuming further discussion won't be beneficial.

Oh, and I'll let someone else vote first. I don't want people choosing based on me.

Of course, I also don't want to have to give up my right to indecision.

 

[o3caudata]

I vote we change the rules to read as such:

You can create any wondrous item whose prerequisites you meet. Enchanting a wondrous item takes one casting of every required spell for every 1,000 gp in its price, and a minimum of one day. To enchant a wondrous item, you must spend 1/25 of the item’s price in XP and use up raw materials costing half of this price.

And that we get to playing again.

(my justification is: m_n will whine if we don't. the point of this whole thing is to have fun. I seriously doubt that we'll have less fun as a result of this. Especially if m_n actually makes things for all of us

it will still take time to craft. 16,000 gp +4 str things are not going to be a "hey, i'll make this now, while she runs inside to gather some information" sorts of things. if it's your goal to prevent m_n from crafting, it'll still be within your power to move the group to be able to do so. if you're goal is to attempt to drive some non-combat, non-pre-built-storyline roleplaying, you'll still be provided the opportunity to. More than we would be if we took the feat away, or left it as is [as m_n has already said he'd never use it.]

To me, this solution might actually present SOME opportunity to incorporate those aspects into our games, and possibly we will find that we enjoy them and in the future not need to fight so vigorously to avoid them.)


and now, to continue this discussion, i would like to move on to m_n's next point of argument:

"wondrous items should not have a predetermined body slot. rather, they should have a slot which is similarly fitting for the enhancement being provided. for instance, there is no reason a +2 cha thing needs to be a cloak, a periapt or robe should be equally fitting. many other similar situations exist."

thank you and have a good sunday.

 

[michael_noah]

I'll um... vote the same thing.

I don't actually really care about body slots - though those rules are relatively clear in the DMG (i.e. there aren't restrictions, but there are reasons why the DM should tell you what you can and can't make where).

 

[worthley]

So, I vote for O3's solution.

On the defined slot, I think this might end up being similar to the reason that not every class has spot as a class skill. I haven't researched it enough, but it might be "too good" to allow much changes with this.

 

[Dichotomy]

Well, that's a quorum and a majority. So let's go with the "one casting of every required spell for every 1,000 gp in its price, and a minimum of one day" rule.

As for the other bit with slots, I don't know when that issue was placed on the table. Do we need to say anything else about it?

Oh, and is Ti ever gonna post? I'm totally waiting on him in the IC thread.

 

[worthley]

Last I heard Ti was in Ohio, so, I don't know if he has much of a chance out there.

 

[TiCaudata]

yup I officially suck at life

I vote that o3's compromise (being a version of MN's original compromise (which I tentatively agreed to provided it would ever be fleshed out), but with actual substance) is fine.

Not that it really matters anymore since it took me 15 years to put it up. I'm just striving for unanimosity or something.

 

[Dichotomy]

I'm just striving for unanimosity or something.

u·na·nim·i·ty
–noun
the state or quality of being unanimous; a consensus or undivided opinion: The unanimity of the delegates was obvious on the first ballot.

an·i·mos·i·ty
–noun, plural -ties.
a feeling of strong dislike, ill will, or enmity that tends to display itself in action: a deep-seated animosity between two sisters; animosity against one's neighbor.

So, "unanimosity" seems like quite the... interesting... non-word choice. That's hilarious!

 

[Dichotomy]

So, I've decided that I'm not going to wait for you guys to sort this out anymore. It seems that isn't working.

I'm sensing a deeper problem. Why do I always do that? Oh well...

So...

wtf am I supposed to be doing about "buying" "crafting material"?

Maybe Erdolliel should ask. It makes sense that she (character) is just a clueless as Ti (player).

Bazrim turns to the others. "Where is a good safe place to rest? I feel that we will wake up to an interesting day."

HOORAY for worthley trying to get this going. (I am NOT being sarcastic.) Note how long it takes for an answer to come...

in case y'all forgot I also offered to lead everyone to the mine shack. if any of you have any better options you really ought to offer them since the looming silence across the boards here is pushing the recokulous limits

Maybe they did. There was sorta a traumatic raising of dead girl followed by dead girl absolutely ranting for a bit. It might have gotten lost. Perhaps Erdolliel (character) might have answered Bazrim's (character) question.

I'm pretty sure we're following the girl to the mine office.

So, props to o3 for trying to keep this going. I ALMOST went with it (because I personally wasn't sure that was what people wanted to do). But, as it turns out...

"Once she gets back with the goods, we'll head to the mine. I want to see what all this dream nonsense is about."

This seems to clearly indicate that, in fact, the group had NOT decided what they were doing. Which illustrates the reason that I hadn't moved you to the mine office.

This is the IC response that I would have liked to see to Bazrim's question. However, given the way that things had played out, m_n's misconception about the time of day, and possibly Erdolliel's lack of knowing what Kushnak is talking about, it didn't make a ton of sense.

So, I explained the time of day thing...

for some reason i thought it was just "church" late. silly. so yeah, we'll go to the mine first, plan to have her shop in the morning - if that's ok with Allustan.

So, if that is what Kushnak thinks, maybe he should tell the others. If he wants to know whether Allustan is okay with it, maybe he should ask him.

****

The comments above probably sound mean, caustic, something. I am NOT trying to be a jerk. I suspect that the problem is my own fault for failing to communicate and then thinking the problem would self-correct. I apologize for that error. I should have stepped in sooner.

So, two things.

1) At what level do we want to do this stuff? We just had our discussions revolving around down-time, having this not be like "playing a video game," and all that talk. Obviously, it is not an on-off switch. I just want to get a better feel for where on the continuum we want to be. Do we want to just say "We go do X and Y, then rest at A, do Z when we wake up, and then meet Allustan?" Or do we want to play it out more?

2) I simply didn't know what you guys wanted to do. o3's understanding was that the group was going to go to the mine office, but I didn't know if that was in fact what the group wanted to do. I don't even know if the entity of "the group" DID have such an opinion. But I'll call mea culpa on that one. It is obvious (and should have been obvious to me earlier) that the clarity issue is mine and mine alone. I will endeavor to be more explicit when I need clarification.