Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
Playing the Game
Talking the Talk
(OOC) Fitz's Folly (ToA PBP)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 7491564" data-attributes="member: 23484"><p>Hey team,</p><p></p><p>so there is now information in the OOC that I didn't have before, operating at the IC and OOC levels. I'll be honest: I expected none of this when Imogen took the ring. I'm trying to play her consistently, but not at the expense of you, the other players. </p><p></p><p>That's a big but. </p><p>I do not see why giving the ring back to someone wearing it (who is known to have it) is better than us carrying it AND NOT WEARING IT and working to destroy it, or (failing that) keep it from the factions. I really don't. I understand the One Ring story-model from LOTR, but that's not the situation here, so far as I know. </p><p></p><p>All of this is framed in terms of her wearing and using the ring. </p><p></p><p>I didn't know the ring's larger ambitions. I guess there's a difference between a sentient legendary magic item and an artifact (which will have special conditions to destroy); and I don't know which this is. But my instinct (as I've told Fitz) is not to simply return to the status quo ante and give it back. That feels deprotagonizing, turning away from elements in the story that are clearly important. I would like us to work together on this, and face the problem together. </p><p></p><p>But, at the same time, I am not feeling buy in from you all on this. </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I am finding this hard to get past; we're in this situation and it didn't take much. </p><p></p><p>If it's too early, the thought of carrying but not wearing a non-magically-detectable object seems a good solution. As long as we are silent (and we would be, right?), then the only one who would tell anyone looking for it is Cimber and Dragonbait. </p><p></p><p>If it's too hard to control, again, I think carrying but not wearing it makes sense. </p><p></p><p>I also know that Harb has a quest related to Cimber. I knew that when I took the ring, but if the details had been said, I had not remembered them. </p><p>This too is new information. Cimber appeared honest, but the characters could not know that he was. Once we know the ring is sentient, we have even more reason to doubt him -- he wore the ring, and did not take it off for a century.</p><p></p><p>We're all playing our characters. I get that. I've gone non-violent as soon as I could. Imogen asked for Harb to back down and Chrysagon for a promise, neither of which happened for reasons I am sure you could explain if asked, but I am not asking. Just believe that Imogen's reasons are as principled as your character's reasons are.</p><p></p><p>If Imogen were to walk in with the ring and stand there refusing to give it to Cimber what would happen? He might kill her. I've had her hide the ring to avoid that, but i can take that part of the action back, and she can have it on her, still in the inner pocket of her skirt, if that's what (as players and/or as DM) you all want. <strong>If two of you say so here, and I'll cross out the relevant parts of IC 1048.</strong> </p><p></p><p>She is not going to fight. She thinks there is a better solution than giving Cimber back the ring. But this is holding up the game and I do not want to lose momentum in a game that I am really enjoying.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kobold Stew, post: 7491564, member: 23484"] Hey team, so there is now information in the OOC that I didn't have before, operating at the IC and OOC levels. I'll be honest: I expected none of this when Imogen took the ring. I'm trying to play her consistently, but not at the expense of you, the other players. That's a big but. I do not see why giving the ring back to someone wearing it (who is known to have it) is better than us carrying it AND NOT WEARING IT and working to destroy it, or (failing that) keep it from the factions. I really don't. I understand the One Ring story-model from LOTR, but that's not the situation here, so far as I know. All of this is framed in terms of her wearing and using the ring. I didn't know the ring's larger ambitions. I guess there's a difference between a sentient legendary magic item and an artifact (which will have special conditions to destroy); and I don't know which this is. But my instinct (as I've told Fitz) is not to simply return to the status quo ante and give it back. That feels deprotagonizing, turning away from elements in the story that are clearly important. I would like us to work together on this, and face the problem together. But, at the same time, I am not feeling buy in from you all on this. I am finding this hard to get past; we're in this situation and it didn't take much. If it's too early, the thought of carrying but not wearing a non-magically-detectable object seems a good solution. As long as we are silent (and we would be, right?), then the only one who would tell anyone looking for it is Cimber and Dragonbait. If it's too hard to control, again, I think carrying but not wearing it makes sense. I also know that Harb has a quest related to Cimber. I knew that when I took the ring, but if the details had been said, I had not remembered them. This too is new information. Cimber appeared honest, but the characters could not know that he was. Once we know the ring is sentient, we have even more reason to doubt him -- he wore the ring, and did not take it off for a century. We're all playing our characters. I get that. I've gone non-violent as soon as I could. Imogen asked for Harb to back down and Chrysagon for a promise, neither of which happened for reasons I am sure you could explain if asked, but I am not asking. Just believe that Imogen's reasons are as principled as your character's reasons are. If Imogen were to walk in with the ring and stand there refusing to give it to Cimber what would happen? He might kill her. I've had her hide the ring to avoid that, but i can take that part of the action back, and she can have it on her, still in the inner pocket of her skirt, if that's what (as players and/or as DM) you all want. [B]If two of you say so here, and I'll cross out the relevant parts of IC 1048.[/B] She is not going to fight. She thinks there is a better solution than giving Cimber back the ring. But this is holding up the game and I do not want to lose momentum in a game that I am really enjoying. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Playing the Game
Talking the Talk
(OOC) Fitz's Folly (ToA PBP)
Top