[OOC] Forests of Fear

[LeDragon]

Acc. to the rules: you just missed.

[SnakeOilCharmer]

I'll post Syrota's (initiative 21) action tomorrow, when I finally have a full day off.

[Greyling]

Originally Posted by LeDragon

Acc. to the rules: you just missed.

Oh good. Thanks

[SnakeOilCharmer]

OK, a lot of questions.

Will it use up the free object interaction to open the door of the carriage? (I'm not sure if these are covered or not).
Would there be a clean line of sight from the square immediately northeast of the dog nearest to Oodiliana?

[LeDragon]

The carriages are caravan wagons like the old Wild West prairie schooners. You can leave through the front or back opening - or cut your way through the cover (which Prod will dislike).
However, the characters are sitting next to the coachmen. The characters can just jump off the wagon.

Which line of sight? The second fighting dog can see the white-haired monster, so everywhere around, you can also see the monster.

[SnakeOilCharmer]

OK, assume I have no idea what an old wild west prairie schooner is. No action? And line of sight?

[LeDragon]

Prairie schooners: see here.

What do you want to see? I understand the starting point next to the dog, but to which end point?

Any movement is acc. to the rules.

[Gath]

Ran into a complication formatting my post template, but I have it squared away. Replaced a imperceptibly fouled bit of code with an apparently identical bit of code after half a day of scouring the code for flaws. I still have no idea what happened, but the code was correct the first time I entered it so it was easy enough to replace the fouled code after I confirmed it was no good. It's pretty, but the bug was a big waste of time though.

Actions are already resolved, I just need to type up my post. I will take care of that tomorrow (Saturday).

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

[secretID]

Most of you know that I always propose a version of the "48-hour rule." After X time after a DM It's not often an issue outside of combat because the game usually isn't waiting on one player.combat post, any player can post a move for any PC that doesn't have one yet. That way the DM doesn't have to carry the responsibility for keeping things moving. Usually we use 48 hours, sometimes not counting weekends.

Any objections? Preferences for the time period?

[Gath]

That sounds like a bollocks rule.

This game was designed around 2 posts a week. Now you want to give everyone carte blanche to post actions for anyone who hasn't posted within 48 hrs of an update? What an atrocious pressuring tactic to bully and write out other players.

Do you even care that there are other people in the game? You would prefer to NPC everyone else?

I knew it would be problematic to have multiple DMs in the game.

[purplerook]

Originally Posted by Gath

That sounds like a bollocks rule.

This game was designed around 2 posts a week. Now you want to give everyone carte blanche to post actions for anyone who hasn't posted within 48 hrs of an update? What an atrocious pressuring tactic to bully and write out other players.

Do you even care that there are other people in the game? You would prefer to NPC everyone else?

I knew it would be problematic to have multiple DMs in the game.

Sigh, and I was hoping for a game where the only stress would be avoiding LeDragon trying to kill us.

I’m fine with a debate about the pro/cons of the a 48 or 72 hour rule, which SecretID put on the table as a suggestion for the group to discuss.

What I’m not happy with is a single post that starts off with a disrespectful personal attack - “what an atrocious pressuring tactic to bully out other players” - and then ends with a general attack on DMs (or perhaps only West Marches DMs) - “I knew it would be problematic to have multliple DMs in the game.”

I think that Gath owes at the least SecretID an apology, and perhaps more generally GMs.

[secretID]

"Site-Wide Posting Rules

a. Respecting Each Other

a.1 - 'Flaming' is not tolerated - A flame is a deliberate personal attack (including insults and threats) directed at a site guest, member, or group of members. Having a civilized discussion without arguing, or having different opinions is perfectly fine. If it turns into a fight, it will be stopped, with possible banning."

I'm bringing this to a DMs as a whole, assuming Gath wants to stick around.

[Gath]

I am sorry for being inappropriate.

[Greyling]

As a player, I don't feel overly comfortable directing the actions of another player's character. IC, I have suggested actions for others, but personally prefer to leave that to the player.

That said, if I was absent for an maybe 5-7 days?extended period of time, I'd be fine with the DM either puppeting my character for a post or two. Or simply having the character be a wallflower for a short time.

I generally can handle posting every couple of days, but also know others may have more restricted schedule. Sometimes patience is needed so those with tighter schedules don't feel pressured or left out.

[LeDragon]

As a both non-American and the DM, I feel a kind of lost, now.

1.) I can't assess completely Gath's first comment due to a lack the cultural and linguistic knowledge. I hope, secretID and the others accept their apology.

2.) In general, I understand that both Gath and Greyling prefer that PCs are played by the DM and want to have more time.

3.) I also understand the wish to keep the combat quick. I experienced no misuse of the 48-hours-rule in the WM games at all.

3.) So my proposal: during combat phase, please post or write a short comment about your character's actions, e.g. Sammy attacks the goblin next to the column. Please roll for me., within 3 days. This can be done easily via the mobile phone. On the fourth day, I play the actions if no post or comment is made.



Any objections or other proposals? I'm open to an objective discussion.