Monday night Lejendary Adventure™ game

[Treebore]

It got a bit tense.
I wonder how we'll reconcile the Alfar and Human parts of the group next game.

We can start with them fishing while the rest of us Hunt.

[Penny-Whistle]

I am really uncomfortable with playing at trophy hunting. I have thought about whether this might be something I can just deal with but to be honest it just makes me too uncomfortable. I am so sorry I misunderstood the setting and goal. I thought we were trying to recover a magical ring. Good luck with the adventure! You all seem like a great bunch of people and I really appreciated the opportunity to learn a new system.

[Treebore]

I am really uncomfortable with playing at trophy hunting. I have thought about whether this might be something I can just deal with but to be honest it just makes me too uncomfortable. I am so sorry I misunderstood the setting and goal. I thought we were trying to recover a magical ring. Good luck with the adventure! You all seem like a great bunch of people and I really appreciated the opportunity to learn a new system.

Well, first, I am sorry that you seem to have decided to not play any longer. Second, is the hunting issue a personnel thing or a character thing? If its a character thing, why not just create a different character? Or change the one you've got? Third, our characters do not hunt for a trophy, they hunt for food and a living. Even the White Stage that my character hunts isn't a trophy hunt. If found and killed, it will be eaten and its skin will be used to create some kind of holy raiment. Its antlers will likely be turned into some holy use as well, possibly Votive or propitiation items.

So unless the Hunting thing is a personal issue, please keep playing.

[Aramis]

I am really uncomfortable with playing at trophy hunting. I have thought about whether this might be something I can just deal with but to be honest it just makes me too uncomfortable. I am so sorry I misunderstood the setting and goal. I thought we were trying to recover a magical ring. Good luck with the adventure! You all seem like a great bunch of people and I really appreciated the opportunity to learn a new system.

I don't think hunting is a main goal of the game. Or, at least, it's not for me. I thought we just started at a hunting lodge in the same sense old adventures used to say "you all meet in a tavern, and a mysterious merchant hires you to...". I am not particularly interested in playing as a hunter or trapper either. I am an adventurer

Also, the kerfuffle at the end of last session was quite unusual for our group if that has put you off at all. Hopefully you will keep with it.

So, let's go find that magic ring!

[Aramis]

I am really uncomfortable with playing at trophy hunting. I have thought about whether this might be something I can just deal with but to be honest it just makes me too uncomfortable. I am so sorry I misunderstood the setting and goal. I thought we were trying to recover a magical ring. Good luck with the adventure! You all seem like a great bunch of people and I really appreciated the opportunity to learn a new system.

Well, first, I am sorry that you seem to have decided to not play any longer. Second, is the hunting issue a personnel thing or a character thing? If its a character thing, why not just create a different character? Or change the one you've got? Third, our characters do not hunt for a trophy, they hunt for food and a living. Even the White Stage that my character hunts isn't a trophy hunt. If found and killed, it will be eaten and its skin will be used to create some kind of holy raiment. Its antlers will likely be turned into some holy use as well, possibly Votive or propitiation items.

So unless the Hunting thing is a personal issue, please keep playing.

Although I hear what you are saying, clearly the hunting thing makes a couple of people very uncomfortable, so I think we would be better off just to drop it entirely. As I said above, I am an adventurer, let's have some adventures.

[Lurker]

PW

Rgr on what tree said about hoping you don't just quit. I'll say that we can loud and boisterous, but the end of the game was an oddity and a confluence of some random events that formed a perfect storm so to speak.

If it is the hunting thing, not sure what to say. I don't think hunting will be the key focus of the adventures to come, but I'm sure there will be hunt elements in those adventures. I know I'll play my character very close to my real life feelings on hunting. Yes hunting is fun and exciting, but also hunting is never 'trophy' and a waste of an animal. Everything will be used, the animal will be harvested as painlessly and quickly as possible, and after the kill it will be honored.

Aramis, rgr on being an adventure, but ..... I can see at least 2 things where the hunt is the adventure. Of course the white stag that the knight & I are questing after, and then hunting the mountain lions.

[Kayolan]

The others are quite correct, let me further explain:

The hunters' camp is a starting area. Some Avatars had hunting as a reason to be there, others may not
have. A hunting trip was offered by Torgen and the party agreed to go with him. This is a sandbox; there
will be no railroading. Many opportunities await, Torgen spoke of several areas that could be looked into
and the party could always travel to even other locations and explore. The Ksarvinian legends you have
heard could be pursued to find their veracity.

In short Penny, I think there has been a serious misunderstanding here. Our game is not limited to hunting
exercises (though Avatars that wish to hunt may decide to, even if only as they travel).

[Tadhg]

I am really uncomfortable with playing at trophy hunting. I have thought about whether this might be something I can just deal with but to be honest it just makes me too uncomfortable. I am so sorry I misunderstood the setting and goal. I thought we were trying to recover a magical ring. Good luck with the adventure! You all seem like a great bunch of people and I really appreciated the opportunity to learn a new system.

I don't think hunting is a main goal of the game. Or, at least, it's not for me. I thought we just started at a hunting lodge in the same sense old adventures used to say "you all meet in a tavern, and a mysterious merchant hires you to...". I am not particularly interested in playing as a hunter or trapper either. I am an adventurer

Also, the kerfuffle at the end of last session was quite unusual for our group if that has put you off at all. Hopefully you will keep with it.

So, let's go find that magic ring!

Yes.

[Tadhg]

PW

Rgr on what tree said about hoping you don't just quit. I'll say that we can loud and boisterous, but the end of the game was an oddity and a confluence of some random events that formed a perfect storm so to speak.

True.

[Tadhg]

Although I hear what you are saying, clearly the hunting thing makes a couple of people very uncomfortable, so I think we would be better off just to drop it entirely. As I said above, I am an adventurer, let's have some adventures.

Indeed.

[Tadhg]

I am really uncomfortable with playing at trophy hunting. I have thought about whether this might be something I can just deal with but to be honest it just makes me too uncomfortable. I am so sorry I misunderstood the setting and goal. I thought we were trying to recover a magical ring. Good luck with the adventure! You all seem like a great bunch of people and I really appreciated the opportunity to learn a new system.

Well said and I agree . .

but [it may have been me and my char that perhaps fueled your ire] I would say that was the most unusual game session that I have been in. "Perfect storm" weirdness as Lurker mentioned.

So, Penny ~ mebbe give the game another session and let's all see how it goes.

I'm also thinking that the craziness at the back end of the bear encounter could be attributed [in game] . . to the fact that the adventurers really don't know one another - and so, what occurred is actually an interesting role playing start [assuming that we get past that encounter going forward]!

[Kayolan]

I'm also thinking that the craziness at the back end of the bear encounter could be attributed [in game] . . to the fact that the adventurers really don't know one another - and so, what occurred is actually an interesting role playing start [assuming that we get past that encounter going forward]!

I didn't think I'd have to say this, but I will say it now: I will not tolerate in-party killing or attempts to do other Avatars harm. This is not acceptable to my style of gaming. It ruins the fun for everyone else and all too often leads to animosity in real life between the players involved.

No doubt Avatars may not always agree on what course of action should be taken or have the same background, culture, ethical or moral standards. But there is bold line between disagreement and using deadly force.

[Tadhg]

I'm also thinking that the craziness at the back end of the bear encounter could be attributed [in game] . . to the fact that the adventurers really don't know one another - and so, what occurred is actually an interesting role playing start [assuming that we get past that encounter going forward]!

I didn't think I'd have to say this, but I will say it now: I will not tolerate in-party killing or attempts to do other Avatars harm. This is not acceptable to my style of gaming. It ruins the fun for everyone else and all too often leads to animosity in real life between the players involved.

No doubt Avatars may not always agree on what course of action should be taken or have the same background, culture, ethical or moral standards. But there is bold line between disagreement and using deadly force.

I'm not sure why you are responding so harshly to my post here after there seems to be a quietness and forthright discussion and I think we might be coming to some consensus as to how to proceed.

We've discussed this online and I'm not sure why you are expressing this sentiment here.

Penny made a very good point in our discussion about why should any PC be allowed to choose the in game action of the party over another party member's choice.

If one PC goes too far, then another might go further. I thought this was resolved in our discussion the other night.

While I agree totally with your opinion, it could be that the you allowed the situation to escalate to the point where the PC actions exceeded your style of gaming.

[Kayolan]

I'm not sure why you are responding so harshly to my post here after there seems to be a quietness and forthright discussion and I think we might be coming to some consensus as to how to proceed.

We've discussed this online and I'm not sure why you are expressing this sentiment here.

I wasn't trying to be harsh by any means and I wasn't aiming this at you specifically, just letting everyone know (especially those who weren't there for this conversation) that I don't allow player characters to kill other player characters, unless it's by some magical compulsion or possession.

While I agree totally with your opinion, it could be that the you allowed the situation to escalate to the point where the PC actions exceeded your style of gaming.

I'm glad we both feel the same way. If you think I escalated the situation please, let me know how.

[Tadhg]

I'm glad we both feel the same way. If you think I escalated the situation please, let me know how.

I'm thinking that just when that situation started, you were going to allow my char to defend the bear and cast a spell if necessary to hold off the killing of the helpless bear. And then Tree's character was ready to move in for the kill.

I believe at this point a "stop" game or action might have been helpful so we could sort out the situation.

Instead, we(and our chars) all got a bit heated and the argument broke out and we some of us were ready to do battle (in my case, I was only trying to be fierce and threaten without really trying to harm anyone. If indeed I were to shoot or cast a spell, it would only be to maim/stop another party member from continuing their action whilst attempting to explain my actions).

[Kayolan]

You are correct and that was my fault for not saying "stop the game" immediately.

You all started to talk to this out before it got to that point, and once I realized that it most likely would result in at least one character death, I was prepared to say no to any attacks. My rule (since I allowed a player to kill Treebore's son's character in my old C&C game ) has been to not allow characters to kill each other, but that's not to say they couldn't hurt each other. But now I've actually updated this rule since Monday night to say that no harming each other is allowed, unless it's in good fun, like a fist fight or test of skill for example.

[Lurker]

I'm not sure 'escalated' is the right word ... and in his defense, I think the situation took him (and others) by surprise.

I know it has been years since I've dmed, and would be rusty at it. However, even back in the day when I ran a lot of games, I'd have never expected that random encounter to take the left turn it took. As such, I doubt I'd have handled it any better than it was handled, and honestly, I'd probably handled it worse.

In a way this is an example of both the good and bad side effect of gaming like we do (across the whole us, on Skype etc etc etc). We get a very wide swath of cultural outlooks and backgrounds. That is great, I'd never talk and joke around with people from the cold north, Yankees, and desert dwellers. However, at the same time that wide breath of background/cultural outlooks may have surprising side effects. We saw one such example Monday night. Everyone I gamed with back in the day hunted, and almost everyone I gamed with in the military hunted, so I'd never expect anyone to react like they did when the bear was down but not dead.

Also, it doesn't help that we aren't setting across the table from each other, so there is that loss of non-verbal communication that would have helped keep the edge off everyone's reaction

I expect, knowing you all over the years of posting and from gaming with you all for almost a year now, we will all learn from it and be more prepared to keep the next unexpected friction from spiraling so much.

[Treebore]

Yeah, when you say I am going to cast a spell that does real damage, your taking a disagreement to a life and death struggle.

For example, if your having an argument with someone, trying to stop them from doing something you don't agree with, and shoot them in the foot, you will still very likely be charged with Assault with intent to kill. Same thing pretty much applies in game, even when you KNOW your attack won't do enough harm to outright kill them, your still spilling their blood. Your still elevating your actions to a threat to their life. You become an enemy, just like the bear did when it started cutting our guide to shreds. When the bear attacked, we ALL acted to bring the bear down in order to save our guides life. We didn't wait to see if the bear would stop slicing and biting before deciding to bring the bear down.

Bottom line, taking it to threatening the life of another Avatar, dropped the fun of the game down to a lower level. For some, I suspect the fun of the game went completely out the window. Whose fault is it that the encounter escalated to this? The person who said they were going to use a life threatening spell on another players Avatar. This kind of thing NEVER results in a fun game session, which is why I have the "Golden Rule" in my house rules. I never allow players to attack one another. Ever. Every time I allowed it in years past, every time I have seen other GM's allow it, the game fun plummeted. I was even part of one group that disintegrated over it. So that is why I never allow it to happen. In my games, you want to disagree? Fine, then do so, but that is as far as it goes. Agree to disagree, and move on.

[Tadhg]

Everyone I gamed with back in the day hunted, and almost everyone I gamed with in the military hunted, so I'd never expect anyone to react like they did when the bear was down but not dead.

Not really sure that's the issue. My family and my wife's family hunt and fish. But not bear. Anyway, if the bear could have lived - I should think that "hunters" would step back and let it have a chance for survival. If it were in agony and needed to be put out of its misery (which was not described in game) then yes, kill it.

[Tadhg]

Whose fault is it that the encounter escalated to this? The person who said they were going to use a life threatening spell on another players Avatar.

Tree, if you are referring to me, I'd prefer that you address me directly rather than couching your statements in an attempted subtlety.

The spell was minor and most likely would have hardly damaged you. The threat was such as to get you and all the other party member's attention rather than you taking actions that all of the party would be held to.

Penny mentioned this the other night in our discussion. Why should any party member be able to direct the action in the game at the expense of all others.

You use the word fault, I do not.

Kayo had accepted the fault for what occurred. And again, I'd rather not say "fault", but instead allow the word "responsibility".

But I don't entirely blame him for what happened the other night, so I hope that you don't blame me either.

[Aramis]

Much like when the incident happened in game, I am getting a feeling of "what the heck just happened" from this thread

Let's just drop the whole hunting thing entirely as it is obviously a sore spot for some people. And, remember, no one online ever convinced someone else of anything so arguments online only lead to hard feelings.



So, my humble vote is we forget the whole thing entirely, go and find a proper adventure with dark dungeons and monsters (no momma monsters just protecting their baby monsters, now, Kayolan! ) and take their treasure.

[Tadhg]

For example, if your having an argument with someone, trying to stop them from doing something you don't agree with, and shoot them in the foot, you will still very likely be charged with Assault with intent to kill.

Glad you mentioned this as it proves my point and negates yours!

My character moved quickly to the defense of the bear. Your char moved in for the kill. YOU actually threatened me and my character. We held a defensive position. I said if you move in, I will shoot/or cast a spell.

Perhaps one might argue that you escalated the situation and were at fault for all that happened afterword!

[Treebore]

For example, if your having an argument with someone, trying to stop them from doing something you don't agree with, and shoot them in the foot, you will still very likely be charged with Assault with intent to kill.

Glad you mentioned this as it proves my point and negates yours!

My character moved quickly to the defense of the bear. Your char moved in for the kill. YOU actually threatened me and my character. We held a defensive position. I said if you move in, I will shoot/or cast a spell.

Perhaps one might argue that you escalated the situation and were at fault for all that happened afterword!

The only thing I threatened was the bear. I never threatened your Avatar, you threatened mine. Once you attacked me, like you clearly stated you were going to do, two times, separated by at least 20 minutes, I would have been free to attack you back at that point. Its called "self defense". So why don't you take responsibility for what you did?

[Penny-Whistle]

[quote=

Well, first, I am sorry that you seem to have decided to not play any longer. Second, is the hunting issue a personnel thing or a character thing? If its a character thing, why not just create a different character? Or change the one you've got? Third, our characters do not hunt for a trophy, they hunt for food and a living. Even the White Stage that my character hunts isn't a trophy hunt. If found and killed, it will be eaten and its skin will be used to create some kind of holy raiment. Its antlers will likely be turned into some holy use as well, possibly Votive or propitiation items.

So unless the Hunting thing is a personal issue, please keep playing.

I was surprised as anyone that the hunting thing pushed a button. But it did. I do love a sandbox. I think those make the best games. But it started to sound as though questing after a rare animal was going to be a main goal. I asked myself if that was going to be fun for me and the answer is honestly: not very much. I do understand that there is a long tradition of that kind of thing. It just isn't right for me. You suggest changing my character but I like her. I wouldn't ask you to change yours. I'd prefer finding some common ground but I get the impression you are not really the negotiating type. =) All good. It is what it is.

I do feel bad about the whole thing though, mostly for Kayolan. I love this setting. Having people meet at a hunting lodge made perfect sense. I really was taken in by the vivid description. And i did like every single person that was playing. Especially the kind soul that shared the beef jerky with Amarok. If I can will my loot, I'd like it all to go to Eboergar on my death. hahahha

I hope you can reach some agreement about how to bury the anger and play on. How many other opportunities will there be to play this particular system again? And with people who actually played with Gary? Slim to none. When I asked to join it felt like a little bit of history and I was pretty happy to be included.

As a group, if you do decide on a different adventure path than hunting after rare animals then please count me in. Defending ourselves against an enraged animal was one thing -- setting out to kill another crosses a line for me. Do what you must, Sir G., but count me out. Otherwise, no hard feelings over here. And please don't take this as me telling anyone how or what to play. I am just trying to be honest with myself. I wouldn't play a Barbie fashion adventure either cuz that's just not my thing. Not that there is anything WRONG with liking Barbies. hahaha

[Tadhg]

For example, if your having an argument with someone, trying to stop them from doing something you don't agree with, and shoot them in the foot, you will still very likely be charged with Assault with intent to kill.

Glad you mentioned this as it proves my point and negates yours!

My character moved quickly to the defense of the bear. Your char moved in for the kill. YOU actually threatened me and my character. We held a defensive position. I said if you move in, I will shoot/or cast a spell.

Perhaps one might argue that you escalated the situation and were at fault for all that happened afterword!

The only thing I threatened was the bear. I never threatened your Avatar, you threatened mine. Once you attacked me, like you clearly stated you were going to do, two times, separated by at least 20 minutes, I would have been free to attack you back at that point. Its called "self defense". So why don't you take responsibility for what you did?

Naww. I clearly stated ~ right when Kayo said the bear was down and the suggestion was made to kill it, that my char raced up to and over the bear to protect it from being killed. That's when your char would have approached to attempt to kill it, thus threatening my character who was standing guard. I did and do take responsibility for having my character coming to the aid of the wounded bear and saying that we should not kill him.

[Tadhg]

Thinking out loud . . . with regard to resolving a party member conflict in the game.

When the bear fell unconscious, and several members of the party had opposing views about killing him ~ perhaps keeping the PCs in initiative mode to resolve the action would be the way to handle the situation.

So, if it was Treebore's turn and he kills the bear, then too late for my char or anyone else to do anything.

But, if it was my turn and I then go and stand over the bear to say, "no, let's not kill it". And if other PCs follow my lead and stand with me (or not, depending on the initiative order), then Tree's char might step back to listen to opposing opinions.

Thoughts?

[alcyone]

(stay out of this, Aergraith!)(oh, just one post...)

I have every confidence in Kayolan's ability to resolve the in-game conflict. The initiative rules, combined with an absolute no-pvp policy, and perhaps even some retconning or fast-forwarding would work, I'd think, but whatever Kayolan comes up with, I'll go along with, because that is the general contract under which we play all of our games.

Even when things run smoothly, refereeing isn't an easy task, and I respect anyone willing to do it. When someone referees for us, we are under their roof, so to speak, and rules of hospitality apply. We don't quarrel under the roof of our host. I'm not saying that as a lecture; it just my understanding of how it's done. Yes, we challenge the referee's calls, but once they say "that's final" we move on. I look forward to hearing the referee's final call on the matter. He can't be blamed for not just fixing it as it happened, it was unexpected and its a hard call and I think a couple of weeks of distance will result in a good decision if we wait for it.

In game, I did say Egor would defend Sir Edwin against Roweena, especially not knowing the lethality of her magic. However, it would pain him greatly to have to do so, and in any case, it would lead to a broken game, since we do not tolerate PvP. As a player I wouldn't execute this plan even though Egor would, as it conflcts with the table rules. Going forward, if Egor realized the bear was a mother with cubs and could be spared, he would probably not think well of Sir Edwin. Even so, that would be strictly in character. No conflict in-game is important compared to keeping companionable with my fellow gamers, of whom I am fond.

There's some precedent for Sir Edwin's actions. I don't know how many times we've played an interrogation where we bicker over whether to leave a goblin alive where we look back to see the beheaded goblin and the matter settled. A goblin is not a mama bear. Still in the goblin example, a Paladin would feel as strongly as Roweena. We just don't usually play it out nearly as strongly as we did here.

Most of the games I play with everyone here don't go deep on the roleplaying, and that's my personal preference. I like roleplaying, but I don't like it more than keeping the game light, casual, and fun. There is a school of play that involves heavy personal and emotional involvement in the in-game drama, and I find that produces out-of-game drama that more often than not spoils my mood. That's just me, but if that's the sort of game you prefer, we are probably at odds. Not that we can't try that once in a while, but it needs to be clear from the outset. I am not involved in every game among these groups, but the ones I have been don't generally go there.

As an example, in one game I play Barlieg, the Half-Orc Barbarian. He has a rival in Lupa-Spadar, a confident and somewhat haughty human swashbuckler. They engage in light banter, ribbing, and boasts, and that's as far as it goes; we keep it in-game and we keep it light and we make sure it's no more than humorous for those involved. In any case, they are co-workers, and will always work to achieve the same goal.

As has been mentioned, this incident provided some background and did a good job at highlighting how Alfar aren't just pointy eared humans. I think we can keep the background and push the hostility down, and get after this ring.

As for hunt/don't hunt, my character has Hunt as his first ability. But the game isn't about my occupation when I am not adventuring. So Hunt shapes my ability to adventure. We're all adventurers. We are on an adventure. That's the priority. We're just leaving the Inn, as it were, lets see where it goes.

As for who is right and who is wrong, I just don't see the need for it. We all just want to get back to playing, I think. We hit a bump, we pick ourselves up, we move on. I hate drama, and I apologize for adding to it with this post.

[Treebore]

Lets also remember what our Avatars knew and when they knew it, versus when we as players knew it. Our Avatars did not know the bear was female, or defending a cub, until well after the fight ended. We as players knew earlier, and some of us acted on that knowledge before they should have. That is often called "meta gaming". Plus, if your going to be a militant nature protector, you may want to make that clear before going on a hunting expedition, and get into a fight with any of the rest of us.

We were on a hunting trip, specifically to scout out the surrounding environment for the purposes of hunting. So if killing a bear, that attacked and did their best to gut one of our group, is going to offend and anger you enough to draw blood on one of us, you shouldn't have even gone along in the first place. This is NOT the LM's fault, this is the fault of the player who failed to act appropriately. Who failed to role play their character well enough to let the rest of us know how aggressively they would protect bears, before attacking one of us. Its as simple as that.

We all play with certain assumptions, and if your going to play a character that is going to go outside those assumptions, and attacking another Avatar is most certainly outside of those assumptions, then you should make that clear well ahead of the time, rather than have it result in the "drama" we are now having.

This is most certainly not the fault of our LM. He had no way of knowing this was going to go where it has. He was as blind sided by the actions of the Ilf as I was. As we all were. The bear is dead. All the Ilf should have done was express how the bear should not have been killed, and let it go at that. Assaulting another Avatar over this is wrong, period. To obsess over it is wrong. This is a game, a fantasy, in a world where animals are killed as a matter of survival, not trophy hunting, or for the heck of it. The bear will feed and clothe people and make them some money in the process. It is the way of life in the world we are playing in. It is the expectation of how things are. No animals are in danger of going extinct, etc... in this world. People kill these animals for survival, for food, for clothing, etc... that is the way of this world.

If playing by those expectations is too much then withdrawing from this game is definitely a wise move. We certainly don't play this game for negative drama.

[Aramis]

As a group, if you do decide on a different adventure path than hunting after rare animals then please count me in. Defending ourselves against an enraged animal was one thing -- setting out to kill another crosses a line for me. Do what you must, Sir G., but count me out. Otherwise, no hard feelings over here. And please don't take this as me telling anyone how or what to play. I am just trying to be honest with myself. I wouldn't play a Barbie fashion adventure either cuz that's just not my thing. Not that there is anything WRONG with liking Barbies. hahaha

Good to hear. I personally don't care about the hunting either way (it is all make believe after all) but I do greatly prefer dungeoneering to hunting or fishing (roll a d20...hmmm....you caught a...bass!). Although now that you mention it, this Barbie fashion adventure intrigues me



Let's do this thing!

P.S. - Rigon has already reserved the one in the white smock as his brave warrior

[Tadhg]

That was an excellent post, Aergraith even if I don't completely agree with everything you said. I was thinking that your comments might have us turning this situation around moving towards resolution and positive posting . . until I read Treebore's post.