[LPF] Roaming Dead

[perrinmiller]

[sblock=ooc]

Are you talking about when DC have folks the 'go rest' option? If not, this is the first time I've had a chance to post since combat ended (as is I think fairly common, my weekend post rate is well below my weekday), so I'm not sure what more I could have done? What follows is what I think Eanos' reaction would be to the events, but with a declaration of adventure's end, too much RP player posting at the end would seem like trying to soak time XP.

Personally, I would not have wrapped up an adventure on the same post as the results of the last sword stroke.

Jkason is exactly right, he had not had a chance to even react to the conclusion of combat yet and WHAM! Adventure's over and thanks for playing. The fact that no one even objected to such says something for some of the players and their importance on actual role-playing vs. roll-playing. To each his own.

As a very casual observer, I thought the game went at a break neck speed for PbP. I will use the last scene as an example of what could have been done to potentially make the experience more enjoyable. It is possible that these ideas could have been applied better throughout.

-----------------
I would have concluded combat, let everyone have a chance to post and interact with each other having just finished doing something. ie. back slapping and healing. DM updates with results and provides descriptions of what people see as they look around (even if they don't say they are looking) since they first saw the room occupied by critters and were too distracted for sightseeing.

Then you could interact with the scenery, ie. search the remains and identify the items you found. DM updating with results of their actions, providing treasure and such.

Then you could have decided that "hey, it looks like we are done" and exited, the DM advancing the scene to have the guard show up. Perhaps some NPC interaction, maybe. "Hey what are you tomb robbers doing?" "Nothing, sir. Just stopping the undead from escaping." Then ultimately they get the finale interaction with the Captain of the guard and some explanations of things.
-------------
So, that would have likely taken about 1-2 weeks, maybe more if character interact with each other. And Maui could have reached level 2. I don't see that as just soaking up TBX/TBG, but actually role-playing. Afterall that is what this game is, it ain't no board game.

If you just rush from encounter to encounter, then you probably get no sense of scenery or interaction with the plot.[/sblock]

OOC: Final numbers match my calculations. They are good to go.

 

[jkason]

[sblock=ooc]

The fact that no one even objected to such says something for some of the players and their importance on actual role-playing vs. roll-playing. To each his own.

I think a lack of objection is probably because, as IronWolf said, it's DC's first game, and we've been doing a fair amount of objecting/correcting just during the course of it so we were all on the same page re: rules and intentions and the like. Instead, folk gave DC the overall feedback he was asking for so he'll have a smoother go of it in future games.

So, that would have likely taken about 1-2 weeks, maybe more if character interact with each other. And Maui could have reached level 2. I don't see that as just soaking up TBX/TBG, but actually role-playing. Afterall that is what this game is, it ain't no board game.

In general, I wouldn't call it soaking. In this context, when the GM had called the game done, players insisting that they get more time for denouement might seem like dragging feet for, like you pointed out, getting to a near leveling point.

Okay, more than my two cents buys me, so I'm outty. See y'all in another game.
[/sblock]

 

[jbear]

Davian decides to stay out of harms way and let the rest of the party perform the actions of combat as it appears that his particular skill set is not necessary for this fight.

[MENTION=88649]perrinmiller[/MENTION] As I'm the player most effected by the decision to split a complete share with Rolyat's charater Davian, as it leaves me a just a few points short of lvl 2, I would like to respectfully challenge it.

DalkonClewdin had expressed his concern about Rolyats absence which was consistent from the beginning of the adventure and completely ended 3 encounters? from the end of the adventure. You can check the date of his last post yourself. He did so without advising the DM whatsever. To reward this behaviour with XP seems completely wrong.

Also he was actually excluded from the final combat as the quote indicates above.

I have seen many DMs state at the beginning of an adventure that absent players will have their characters NPC'd and they won't receive XP for that encounter and if they can't gracefully pick up where they left off they will be dropped altogether. This is Dalkon's first adventure and he doesn't have experience with player management. So as judge I think you are within your rights to make a fairer/better judgement on this issue.

Even if the xp/treasure share is split between all Davian should not receive any xp for the encounters he was NPC'd. I think it is also questionable that the final encounter should count as if he was NPC'd. Dalkon didn't have the experience to know to have removed his counter from the map but he had expressed his concern to the group and gave an indication that his character wouldn't participate in the fight. Davian literally stood in the corner.

As for the abrupt end, it had little to do with a preference for roll play over role play. jkason mentions part of the reason for making little of the abrupt end. Part of it also was a personal struggle I had engaging with the story throughout the adventure.

I respectfully await for your response and thank you for your consideration.
Cheers
J

 

[perrinmiller]

There are clear precedents set by NPC's taking their share of the XP and treasure. See this post in the http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-pathfinder/314230-general-discussion-10.html#post5761741 thread.

Roaming Undead Annex B is a prime example with two NPC and only one player.

I asked DC off-line about the status of Davian during the final encounters. He was there and eligible to be hit by the enemy in all encounters, therefore he takes an equal share. Sucks, but that's the way it works. Even if he got killed in the final encounter, he takes a share of both from it.

What Davian did during the encounter is immaterial while under the DM's control. DC opted to have Davian do nothing as the 1st level rogue would have very little impact on a fight the higher level characters could handle.

However, if you would have encountered some bad luck, he would have been available to do something.

Now the calculations for what Rolyat58 actually gets to receive are much less than Maui, only getting what he was present for. Frankly, unless he returns I am not going to waste my time calculating that out. But that has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on what XP Maui receives. Those rewards are lost to the void.

BTW, the other two Judges that played alongside you said nothing about this, so I am taking their silence as agreement.

 

[Satin Knights]

Well, I agree with jbear. I was keeping silent because PM was the assigned judge, and I didn't want to muddy the water. But if you want my opinion; Rolyat58 went missing long ago, but since there was mention that he was in active military service, several of the players said we would give him slack to see if he returned. So far, he did not through the rest of the adventure or even now that it is over. (Hope he is safe and just busy.)

I feel:
Time GP and XP stop at last post,
encounter GP and XP stop at street fight. Since, as an NPC, he did fire his weapon, he would get credit in the street fight.
He had the same affect on the last combat as a stone pillar did. So, for the last fight, he doesn't count at all.

That will shift the XP awards per character by +100 XP (if it was a CR4 fight) in the last fight, Maui only needing 61 of that to level. It keeps him happy. And keeping the players that stayed in the game happy is the important part.

 

[Qik]

I don't mean to unnecessarily throw my own voice into the fray, but I would like to third SK and jbear.

Left to his own devices, DC would have removed Rolyat from the game long ago; he was kept only due to the considerations brought about by his specific circumstances that SK mentioned, which I think were valid. But, as SK said, he was a literal nonfactor in the tomb combat, and I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be treated as such in terms of XP.

Not trying to pile on, just thought it'd be worth it to voice my opinion.

 

[IronWolf]

I think this one could go either way. I am on record agreeing with PM about experience and gold for NPCs (whether GM controlled or absent players). If they are present they get allocated a share even though in many cases the experience and gold won't be actually assigned to them.

In this particular case though several of us did suggest not dropping Rolyat58 completely out of the game because we realized he was active military and realized what that could do to his schedule. The actions of a couple of us saying go ahead and keep him around just in case ended up hurting jbear's character.

So yes, technically speaking, PM is right, Rolyat58 gets a cut of the xp and gold for calculation purposes. But, by some of us trying to be nice to the person that wasn't present and actively playing we hurt jbear, one of the people that actively participated in the adventure.

Rules are good, they have their purpose - but they shouldn't necessarily override reason. If 61xp is all Maui needs and it helps him have a good LPF experience I hate to see him hurt because a couple of us were trying to be nice to someone that wasn't present for the majority of the game.

 

[DalkonCledwin]

I am going to have to weigh in here and say I am wanting to rule in favor of jbear, but ultimately this is not my decision so I really don't have any say in the matter even though it was my decision to keep Rolyat's character around. I will say however that if it were not due to the opinions of the players as a group, I would definitely have dropped Rolyat's character right before sending the group off to the final tomb as he had disappeared prior to that and I had been NPC'ing him for the majority of the time proceeding that and continued to do so until the very end.

 

[jbear]

[MENTION=88649]perrinmiller[/MENTION]

Me again. Sorry for being a pain. Would you mind pronouncing your final word on the matter so we can all move on? Thanks again for your time and consideration.

Cheers
J

 

[perrinmiller]

I feel:
Time GP and XP stop at last post,
encounter GP and XP stop at street fight. Since, as an NPC, he did fire his weapon, he would get credit in the street fight.

I have no argument on what XP Rolyat would actually get to apply to Davian if he would return. If his last post was in combat, he would get that XP, otherwise only awards up to his last post. If he returns, I will spend some time to calculate that properly. But, that is not the issue here on the policy. I am being very particular in my use of Davian vs. Rolyat in this dicussion, because they are not one and the same for this.

I think this one could go either way. I am on record agreeing with PM about experience and gold for NPCs (whether GM controlled or absent players). If they are present they get allocated a share even though in many cases the experience and gold won't be actually assigned to them.

In this particular case though several of us did suggest not dropping Rolyat58 completely out of the game because we realized he was active military and realized what that could do to his schedule. The actions of a couple of us saying go ahead and keep him around just in case ended up hurting jbear's character.

So yes, technically speaking, PM is right, Rolyat58 gets a cut of the xp and gold for calculation purposes. But, by some of us trying to be nice to the person that wasn't present and actively playing we hurt jbear, one of the people that actively participated in the adventure.

Rules are good, they have their purpose - but they shouldn't necessarily override reason. If 61xp is all Maui needs and it helps him have a good LPF experience I hate to see him hurt because a couple of us were trying to be nice to someone that wasn't present for the majority of the game.

How is not getting extra XP being "hurt"? Let's be clear, he is not being hurt at all, just not getting additional awards. Maui would only have to wait 9 days into his next adventure to level up, something he can work out and arrange with his next DM. XP and GP are not score, this is a role-playing game not a board game, folks. If it were score and there was a prize, I would dump all my DMC into one character and win.

And, it is also organized play with policies. As of yet, all reasons presented thus far are circumstantial, not rules based. IronWolf has said the policy is technically not ambiguous in this case. Without a clear cut-reason, making an exception to a policy will set a precedent and can lead to potential arguments down the road. It is the duty of a Judge to strive to be impartial, upholding policy, and ensuring fairness is upheld.

My take on what you all are saying is this; "we were gracious enough to not boot Rolyat out, but since he did not return we want his share of XP/GP now." I think you all made the decision to give up the XP back then.

Trying to get it now after the DM made a mistake of not realizing the impact of making Davian just stand there, instead of wasting ammo (-4 shooting into melee, giving up +4AC, and trying to overcome DR) is like crying over spilled milk to me when the first level rogue realistically would have had little effect on the outcome.

Counterpoint; a rogue spots and disarms a trap while the rest of the party stands back like "pillars" and takes no risk. Every character gets a cut of that XP award, correct, yet you did nothing to earn it. The policy works both ways, guys.

Me again. Sorry for being a pain. Would you mind pronouncing your final word on the matter so we can all move on? Thanks again for your time and consideration.

I think you should decide that it is petty to continue to impatiently push the issue and just move along without it.

However, if you must have it, go ahead be greedy and take it.

Choose to be greedy or gracious as your conscience decides. You all cannot have it both ways in my book.