With all this talk about game design & theory, why don't we

[Essence]

I'd like to keep things somewhere between the beginning of Wild Shape and the beginning of Infinite Resource(s). Given sufficient houserules to keep the latter from being an issue, that'd be levels 5-20. (Not ready to rewrite the Joke Book yet.)

Other than that, I'm with JK.

[Wrenfield]

Frank is showing a rather wide breadth of flexibility in catering to a Gaming Den PbP game. As much as I think it's good that we all chime in with suggestions and preferences, it might now be a good thing to start nailing down a definitive 'aye' or 'nay' for each person that is willing to play and seriously commit. If your aye or nay needs to be stated with qualifying conditions ("I only want to play a 1st or 2nd level." ... "I only want to play a bugbear."), say it now!

Keep in mind, if the potential player list is high, the DM may wish to run auditions, or personally select who he wants to play. Or if we're lucky, we may get more DM volunteers for a 2nd game.

The reason being, with a set roster of players or potential players, we can hammer out the details and minutae of the starting level, house rules, party size, and potential co-DM's.

**

So ....

Wrenfield says" "Aye!" ..... preference for playing at levels 9-13, but I'll play at any old level based on consensus desire.

Wren

P.S. Frank - so far it looks like you are the only person committed to DM'ing. Your original desire - I think - was to co-DM. You still want/need an additional DM?

[Username17]

Want yes. Need no.

It figures that my laziness, though indisputably massive, is beaten only by the laziness of others.

-Username17

[User3]

Yes, I'm side-tracking =/

1118093416[/unixtime]]Not to get this thread even more sidetracked but:

[*] I am also a Marxist.
[*] The Communist Manifesto is in fact terribly boring, but it is short, and all of its demands have been met - it really is an absolute requirement of modern economies that you have centralized banking, 8 hour work days, and governmental oversight of working conditions.
[*] I hate China Miéville's writing. Really. I can't read any of his books for more than five pages without deciidng that chewing off my own arm to escape reading the next five pages is sounding like a fair trade.

Heh. I hope I haven't offended you too much.
Just out of curiosity, what do you read as far as the 'SF/F' genre goes?

1118093416[/unixtime]]Call me an optimist, but I still think the distant future will look more like Star Trek than like Starship Troopers. Of course, we are in general talking about some sort of Fantasy setting, which means that the most modern available economic system is Mercantilism. Goods and services are bartered for directly by means of precious metal intermediaries, and the most complex pre-corporate/commune system available is the Guild.

-Username17

I will call you an optimist!
That isn't a bad thing.

I'm just not convinced that the Marxism is really the IF/THEN system it proposes to be. We've met the conditions set out in the Manifesto for a long time, and the only 'revolutions' I've heard of were political vehicles for individuals/tribes. Not for any over-arching good.

Humans evolved as tribal animals, and I'm not sure that we're fully capable of funtioning beyond the Family/Tribe scale. And I think that (not to be a Hippy...) to change that will take some serious psychological evolution. So while Marxism may work, I don't think it works for humans as we are.

Maybe that just means I'm a pessimist atheist waiting in complacency for Deus Ex Machina.

[Kirin_Corrigan]

If everyone's cool with having me in the party, I'm interested in playing. I prefer playing levels 7+, though I don't really mind playing at lower levels. Actually, I believe at lower levels people will enjoy each other's gaming style much better.

I'd even co-DM if I have enough time to do it. I'm already DMing two campaigns, a third one is on its way and I'm in the midst of my finals. Time is my enemy. First time at PbP, though.

[Username17]

Does anyone know how to get the poll system to not split peoples' votes up if they vote for more than one thing?

What I'd like is to have a setup where it says "What Levels would you be willing to play at?" and then have a series of boxes from 1 to 20.

Unfortunately, as I understand it if one person checks first level and two people check 2nd level and 3rd level, the reported result is 1 vote for 1, 2, and 3. This despite the fact that the actually important data is that at 2nd or 3rd level there would be 2 players and at 1st level only one.

-Username17

[dbb]

I of course say "Aye!"

I prefer to start between levels 2-6, but I can certainly be convinced to start at higher (and for that matter, lower) level. I would very much like to have some idea of the house rules that will be in operation, though, because exactly which rules we play under has a big, big impact on how I feel about high level play.

With that caveat, I am willing to play at virtually any levels, though I admit my interest declines when the starting level is higher than about 13th.

--d.

[Murtak]

Does anyone know how to get the poll system to not split peoples' votes up if they vote for more than one thing?

I have not actually used the poll system on this board yet but can you just make votes exclusive (i.e. each voter may only cast one vote) and then have votes like:
level 1-5
level 1-10
level 1-15
.
.
.
.

[Wrenfield]

1118171307[/unixtime]]I of course say "Aye!"

I prefer to start between levels 2-6, but I can certainly be convinced to start at higher (and for that matter, lower) level. I would very much like to have some idea of the house rules that will be in operation, though, because exactly which rules we play under has a big, big impact on how I feel about high level play.

With that caveat, I am willing to play at virtually any levels, though I admit my interest declines when the starting level is higher than about 13th.

--d.

I think the big issue at higher level is in management of primary spellcasters. Specifically clerics, wizards, & druids (and well, artificers). Sorcs blow, so we aren't counting them. :tonguesmile: We can play pretty much straight-on 3.5 magic rules as long as we have players helming those primary spellslingers that are interested in playing them 'as intended', and not as showoff rules-abusers. Which from the maturity level and conscientious nature I see of the people interested so far, should not be a problem.

For example, our 12th level party wizard might have the ability to abuse Planar Binding via endless loop rules stupidity - but we pretty much know that nobody will be dumb enough to try such stuff. This should be a fun, collaborative game, not a soapbox forum to show us what a wacky rules-wrangler you are. Whee!!

[Username17]

Since a comprehensive poll of that type would require 2048 entries without even referencing the D&D Joke Book, I would prefer to not do it that way.

-Username17

1118176463[/unixtime]]

Does anyone know how to get the poll system to not split peoples' votes up if they vote for more than one thing?

I have not actually used the poll system on this board yet but can you just make votes exclusive (i.e. each voter may only cast one vote) and then have votes like:
level 1-5
level 1-10
level 1-15
.
.
.
.

[dbb]

1118181189[/unixtime]]I think the big issue at higher level is in management of primary spellcasters. Specifically clerics, wizards, & druids (and well, artificers). Sorcs blow, so we aren't counting them. :tonguesmile: We can play pretty much straight-on 3.5 magic rules as long as we have players helming those primary spellslingers that are interested in playing them 'as intended', and not as showoff rules-abusers. Which from the maturity level and conscientious nature I see of the people interested so far, should not be a problem.

I assume that people won't go straight to the outright worldbreaking stuff, sure. But there is a legitimate question over where the line between "game-destroying rules-mangling" and "character optimization" lies, and part of my unease at high-level play results from the conviction that we'll spend a lot of time arguing over whether things fall on the right side or the wrong side of that line.

Of course, we could always split the difference and play a high-level game without any primary spellcasters.

--d.

[Neeek]

Well, I think we can all agree that anything that makes the game implode is over the line.

Personally, I like starting around whatever levels you can first get a PrC. I know Frank's got his own system for that sort of thing, so I don't know what level that would be in this case.

[Carcharoth]

Count me in as an "Aye," or perhaps an "Arrrrr!" I'm game for a truly wide range of level options, but I'd kind of like mid-level as a starting point - maybe start around 7-8, work up from there?

I'll probably be able to post 2 times daily on average.

[MrWaeseL]

I'm certainly in, and I've already voted on level preference.

[Murtak]

Since a comprehensive poll of that type would require 2048 entries without even referencing the D&D Joke Book, I would prefer to not do it that way.

1-5
1-10
1-15
1-20
5-10
5-15
5-20
10-15
10-20
15-20

Looks like 10 to me. That rating system you found is obviously a better way though.

[Essence]

I'm willing to co-DM, but honestly, I don't have much time to spend online recently, and I don't want to slow things down with my 'assistance'. If it's OK to have a co-DM that's only on once a day for a half-hour (and, to make things worse, will be out of the country from June 25th to July 4th), I'm totally down.

[Alansmithee]

Haven't posted much, but have lurked alot. I've been DM'ing a game for awhile, and all games i've tried to play in have broken down quick recently, so if there's a spot open I would definately be up for it, as long as the level is 7+.

[User3]

I'm interested in playing as well. although it's hard to tell if this game is still going on or not

[Essence]

OK, since the majority of the 10th level issues seem to be in hand, it's time to make the call:

Kirin, ddb, or I -- who is going to be the co-DM?

I cited time issues, and I still have them, but as I said, if Kirin and ddb can't make it or back out for whatever reason, I'm here. So what's it gonna be, guys?

[Wrenfield]

For those co-DM candidates with time issues, it might help to state what kind of posting rate the game will run at. This will help determine if they can manage the time commitment.

Frank, as primary DM at the moment, might like to chime in on that.

Perhaps the posting rate should be once per day or ... once per 2 or 3 days for the players, but with more frequent checking of the thread (and posts) by the DM duo. If this sounds overwhelming, it shouldn't - people have busy days, vaca days, sick days etc. As long they announce their absences and assign auto-pilot notices to the DM or fellow players as a courtesy.

[Kirin_Corrigan]

For those co-DM candidates with time issues, it might help to state what kind of posting rate the game will run at. This will help determine if they can manage the time commitment.

I agree.

It could also be of help knowing what exactly Frank expects his co-DM to do.

[MrWaeseL]

In my experience, getting all of the players in an online game to post once a day is all but unmanageable.

[Neeek]

I know I can easily post everyday, and probably several times a day, if necessary. The trouble I run into is often I have nothing to respond to.

[Wrenfield]

1118698254[/unixtime]]I know I can easily post everyday, and probably several times a day, if necessary. The trouble I run into is often I have nothing to respond to.

A character's inquisitive nature or busybodyness is helpful here. For example, while the other party members are doing there actions, your character could be poking around doing other stuff. Investigating, being nosey, ruminating thoughts in the ole' brain, or just performing flavor actions (like scratching your ass, sharpening your sword, nibbling on a piece of bread and realizing it has mold on it - yuck!).

Some DMs actually give a little extra XP to players who really make their characters come to life and/or are integral to moving the storyline along. Whether and Frank and DM #2 do that, that remains to be seen.

- - -

Regarding Mr. Waesel's comments, I guess when it comes time to getting a definitive roll call of players .. and the selection process itself (whether by audition or automatic inclusion), we'll get a better picture as to who is best able to play in the game.

Granted, once the players are chosen, the storyline's pace will undoubtly be most affected by the player who posts the least. That's not peer pressure, that's just the way things go.