I've carefully reviewed the feedback everyone gave. Thanks, all of you, for providing it. For the most part, it sounds like the game is going smashingly well, which pleases me since that matches my sentiment. My sense is that this is the best PbP I've ever run. While everything commented on has meaning for me and has been food for thought, there a few things that stand out as warranting further discussion:
I have a slight concern, moving forward, regarding our party composition. We don't have a true front-line fighter (don't tell Kago I said that!), and I think that I'm starting to play Brinn more to his strengths and as I originally conceived him - dart in, hit hard (well, it is d4, so maybe hard isn't quite the right word), dart out. But if Brinn is doing that, Solace is using ranged attacks, Kamael is spellcasting, and Raza is spellcasting, we may have some interesting combats.
From the DM's perspective, I haven't noticed the lack of a true front-line melee combatant. Ya'll seem to be sorting things out just fine with Kago and Brinn at the front. Raza's wildshape is a help here, too. As will Solace when she hits her stride at level 5. I think you guys have been and will continue to be fine. I haven't wanted the NPCs to actively contribute because they're not the stars of the story. You guys are the protagonists. If someone's genuinely concerned about the lack of a true front-line fighter, you can multiclass and pick up levels in whatever you want starting at 4th level. Don't forget the abundance of Unearthed Arcana material available to you.
I'm looking forward to a wild magic surge, I'm sure it will happen at some point!
I'm quite eager for one, too. I think a static 5% chance of getting a surge is not high enough odds. I'd like to see the percent chance of hitting a surge be cumulative with each casting, until at last the wild magic bursts through. I've seen progression charts on this site for homebrewing the frequency of a surge. Does this interest you?
Several of you comment about enjoying the writing, but occasionally feeling reluctance about matching it. It's true, I picked each of you in part because I recognized you were fine writers. But that shouldn't be a deterrence to posting in the IC; we all know we're good writers. We all know each other can bang out beautiful prose when moved to do so. Conversely, it's ok if you need to toss up a quickie in the IC with less than prosaic form or that contains a rules error. Breathe a little. We're all friends here. Contribute what you can, in the manner you can, when you can.
Sometimes I feel like an outsider. Then I remember that the only one of this group that I've gamed with before is CB. It takes time to find your way in a group of strangers; at least it does for me. I'm not generally a chatty, OOC type person, but maybe I'll get there. And when some small thing happens in the IC that doesn't seem like much on the surface, but builds ties between the characters one small strand at a time then I feel pretty satisfied that things are going very well.
This is an incredibly human response. I admire you for putting it out there, mainly because I can relate to how you feel. If it is a comfort to you, I haven't felt you're holding back the group. Your posts for Raza are, like your colleagues, impeccable. And, knowing you through these many years, I'm mindful that you're a contemplative person. Even when you're quiet, I know you're still there, GE.
Sometimes I feel a little constrained. I think my gaming style is just a little different; a little more liberal in interpretation/implementation of rules, for example. [. . .] I think as I get more familiar with the rules, get reacquainted with CB's GMing style, then I'll loosen up a bit and settle into the pace and style of the game and all will be fine.
This is a comment worth unpacking. I spent some time today mulling over what my GMing style is, and arrived at the conclusion that I don't have one. Or, if I do, it's a chameleon style. I've seen myself be a complete hardass about the rules. And I've seen myself throw the rules out the window. What I think I do particularly well is
tailor the rules to the group for whom I'm running. Which brings me to my next question for all of you: Do you prefer to play with a liberal interpretation of the rules? E.g., "Does
create water fill waterskins? Answer: YES. Of course! The cleric channels a thin stream of water into each of your waterskins." Or do you prefer the challenge of strict construction of the rules? E.g., "Can I inspiration to jump on the dragon's back and ride it? Answer: Hell no. Rules say you get advantage on the check only. But go ahead and try it, let's see if you get eaten or flambéed in the process."
Finally, several of you mention really enjoying the journal. I can't tell you the sense of satisfaction and pleasure I got from reading that. Really, is there anything finer than permitting yourself vulnerability in front of an audience, only to have your vulnerability be embraced and uplifted? Thanks, guys. Your interest in the journal and kindness touches me, profoundly. For the record, since a couple of times people have mentioned a desire to respond to specific entries, go ahead and respond in the manner that feels appropriate to you. Occasionally someone will remark on an entry here in the OOC. I've received a couple PMs, too. If you want, I could create a journal discussion thread in the community. I'm a fan of transparency; you won't offend me by commenting in public on something I've written. And also: should any of you ever have a blog, I expect an invitation to read it.
)
