| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
GuJiaXian
Sergeant
641 Posts
    
Roswell, GA
 | | 10/02/2006 8:23 PM |
| Here's an odd question for everyone. I just recently started a campaign with a group of friends that have been roleplaying together for some time. Our last DM's campaign had seven (yes, eight) PCs, which made for extremely long battles. In fact, we did little else, since a single round of battle took about an hour. Now, for my campaign, I wanted a much smaller group. I certainly didn't want to tell anyone that they couldn't play; that would be extremely rude. However, things seemed to work out: one guy had a baby, so he dropped out to spend more time with his daughter and wife. Another guy broke up with his on-and-off again girlfriend/fiancee, so she wouldn't be playing with us anymore.
That brought the group down to myself and five players. I was really hoping for the magic number of four, but I could live with five. Battle would move much more smoothly and swiftly, and I could run a slightly more roleplaying-oriented campaign, rather than the combat-oriented campaign we had just finished.
Tomorrow night will be the second session of the campaign. The one guy is back together with his on-and-off again girlfriend, and now he wants her in. This is where my problem begins. I'm sure you're all saying, "Just say no." I can't. It's not that simple. If I say no, she can't play, then this guy will drop (he's prone to be moody). He's the ex-DM's twin brother, and it'll just cause problems between the two of them. Another one of the players is this guy's roommate. So, as you can see, saying that the girlfriend/fiancee can't play will just result in a lot of bad feelings.
I've designed this campaign for a smaller group. I DO NOT want six players. While my campaign doesn't focus on combat, there are certainly battles awaiting my intrepid adventurers. The addition of an extra player throws off battle balance, XP balance, and more. Also, the girlfriend/fiancee doesn't enjoy roleplaying; she just likes the battles. To be blunt, she won't enjoy my campaign much at all. Also, battles will take longer, with six players. We only have 2 to 2.5 hours to play each week (we play on Tuesday evenings, and most of us have work the next day). I cannot run a campaign effectively when battles are taking up most of my time.
I'm really discouraged right now. I have less than 24 hours to figure out what to do. My wife, one of the players, offered to drop out so that there would only be six players. I told her that if she dropped out, then I dropped out. I'm not running a campaign and not letting my own wife play.
I'm really not sure what to do. Telling this girl that she can't play is definitely a stupid move on my part, though. I'm really open to suggestions.
| |
"Clearly a case of too many hunchbacks and not enough mad scientists..." | |
| 
Bert the Troll
Commander
3771 Posts
Adelaide
| | 10/02/2006 8:58 PM |
| One suggstion, espically if she just likes the fighting, is to make her roll for monsters etc.
She gets her fighting, kinda plays, and battle speeds up even more.
She doesnt even have to be all the NPCs/bad dudes. Just enough to keep her enertained.
| |
"Mutton yesterday, mutton today, and blimey, if it don't look like mutton again tomorrer." Bert the Troll - The Hobbit
Semi-Secret sig business: Sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason. ~ Seinfeld
Champion of Epic Lolth, Orcus, & Demogorgon and bring us Asmodeus! | |
|
GuJiaXian
Sergeant
641 Posts
Roswell, GA
| | 10/03/2006 7:05 AM |
| | Well, the girl is a bit of a new player; our last campaign was her first time roleplaying. Frankly, I'm not sure that I want to hand control of my encounters over to her. Any other suggestions? | |
"Clearly a case of too many hunchbacks and not enough mad scientists..." | |
|
gss_000
Commander
3204 Posts
Baltimore, MD
| | 10/03/2006 7:08 AM |
| This is tough, because with the situation as you presented it there is no way for all of you to be happy. You could go one of two ways not already given as an option:
a) The route that keeps the game going. If your wife quits and you don't play, then the game ends. If you say no and the worst happens as you present it, then the game probably won't function either. So the only choice is for you to be unhappy and the game not to be ideal and allow her back in.
b) Offend the least amount of people. Worst case scenario, that is just you by allowing her to play. Best case, that is her when you say no because everyone else is reasonable and sees your point.
If I had to choose, I'd say go for b) and tell her no. Sure the situation stinks, but you are all adults and 2 hours a week is not a long time. You should be able to rationally explain your position and point and they should respect it. If you offer the idea of playing the NPC monsters, that should work out for everyone. In the end it is your game and if the DM isn't happy they usualy don't last long. | |
Completed trades: blackthorne, Drakkengi,Thorgrin, Ironfist Boulderbender x2, ckissee, nasamonkey, Username, Star, Ace13 x3, emontedodger x2, Drconveyor, church, Joeyb, Sir Bozak The Damned, Xeromod, the other guy x2, Qucalion of Celene, Dagaron x2, berus316, qillan_dvra, AshloreDarkShadow
For further info go to My Reference Thread and Trade Interface
Champion of Radiant Sevant | |
|
mordulin
Skirmisher
37 Posts
| | 10/03/2006 7:46 AM |
| | Wow, that is a pickle of a problem. I would have to agree with gss_000 and just say no. But, another option, is to put combat off for a few weeks and expand the role-playing encounters. If she is truly bored by it, she'll drop out on her own. If she is a problem player who will complain that she's bored the entire session, I'm sure the others, if they are having fun will stand by your decision to ask her to leave. Then it isn't you, its the group that made the decision. Seems sneaky and underhanded, I know but it is your game and you do have final say. The game is supposed to be fun for the DM as well as the players. | |
| |
|
GuJiaXian
Sergeant
641 Posts
Roswell, GA
| | 10/03/2006 8:30 AM |
| | Yeah, I do have combat encounters planned for the next few sessions, but I was planning on emphasizing the roleplaying aspects anyway. We'll see what happens...*sigh*. | |
"Clearly a case of too many hunchbacks and not enough mad scientists..." | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 10/03/2006 8:40 AM |
| I don't know if it's too late, but here are a few options that come to mind.
1) you say you don't want six players. Sometimes, i find that we set up barriers such as this that are not really that important in view of the big picture. For me, friends are more important than the actual game itself. Perhaps you could simply allow her in and handle the game as best you can with six players.
2) you could ask all players (including the girl in question) how they think you should handle this situation, telling everyone frankly that you don't want to kick anyone out and that you like them all personally.
3) do you have time for a second campaign? Perhaps splitting the group in two...
Sky | |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
Zoons
Underboss
1030 Posts
| | 10/03/2006 9:17 AM |
| Building off of what Skyscraper said, perhaps you could keep the whole party somewhat in smaller groups in the context of your larger campaign. While 3 of the PC's are doing X, the other 3 can be doing Y.   Then, at appropriate times, the whole party can be involved in some battles. Keep "newgirl v.2.0" in the smaller party that is more combat oriented and keep your more RP oriented players more involved in the RP scenes.
Note: Keep your wife involved at all costs. If she goes, you will lose more than you think. You are in a fortunate position that she games with you, she deserves special consideration for that. | |
Never teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.
Champion of the Blink Dog. | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 10/03/2006 10:59 AM |
| Posted By Zoons on 10/03/2006 9:17 AM
Note: Keep your wife involved at all costs. If she goes, you will lose more than you think. You are in a fortunate position that she games with you, she deserves special consideration for that. In case you can't read between the lines, Zoons means that you have to give her at least 1d20 gold pieces per session and one uber magic item per campaign. That's how marriages are kept alive and well. That, and including only low-charisma female NPCs.
Sky ;-)
| |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
wolfsbane114
Warrior
327 Posts
| | 10/03/2006 11:41 AM |
| Ok it may be two late but time for my two cents.
1. As it has been said split the group into two parties, I know sometimes time can be constraining, but I actually had to do this recently. I have a group of 8 that enjoys playing all time, but for reasons already given 8 is not a good group number (for me anyways) There was conflict in the group, because 2 players were natural leaders, and always seemed to be at odds with each other. So I split the leaders, ran two identical campaigns, with 4 ppl each. they loved it and for me it was an experience watching 2 groups do the same campiagn, handling encounters differently, etc.
2. Allow 6 and adjust your game accordingly, if the battles take too long because of 6 ppl, but thats the only area where the probelm lies, then maybe adjust your battles so they flow quicker. I recently had to do this also, not because of the amount of players, but because we were only getting one in per session.
3. Just say no. Explain to your players you created the game, for amount x, and thats the way its gonna stay. If they get mad, then maybe you need different players anyways. I have found out by explaining my decisions to my players, their more understanding than I gave them credit for. This guy should understand that since his relationship is off/on, this could be disruptive for the game.
I schedule my games usually a month in advance to give my players a chance to have their schedules clear. I have a rule, if you start a campaign, and miss for whatever reason, I won't garaunatee, they can join back in, it may sound unfair, but the others players had to work hard to get where they are, and its not fair to them ,for someone to miss these hardships yet share in the rewards.
I agree with Zoons, keep your wife involved at all costs, Your lucky she enjoys playing.
| |
Champion of Flint Fireforge
Knight of The DarkMantle
KoK: The Easily Swayed
"I use to have a working probelm, until it got in the way of my gaming." | |
|
Zoons
Underboss
1030 Posts
| | 10/03/2006 12:03 PM |
| I disagree with #3.Â
Part of having a friend is being a friend.  It's only natural that his friend would would want to include his significant other in the natural flow of his activities. Otherwise he'd have to ostrisize himself from his own life and friends to get quality time with his girl. Of course, I'm assuming that everywhere else he chose to go reacted with the same selfish stance. "No more room, please move on, nothing more to see here." Otherwise he'll just drop this non-understanding group like a bad habbit.
Putting your foot down and saying a flat "no" would put your friend in an awful position. Plus if he does end up marrying this woman, do you think she's going to be understanding of his gaming hobby after. You could be crippling this guy's creativity outlet for years to come.
*Shudder*
At the very least, talk it out. It's a relatively free form game. There's ALWAYS room for one more, you just have to make some adjustments. Change the scale of the battles, change the adventure, split the party, whatever. Ask all the players out there with no group to play with how fun that is.Â
| |
Never teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.
Champion of the Blink Dog. | |
|
GuJiaXian
Sergeant
641 Posts
Roswell, GA
| | 10/03/2006 12:05 PM |
| Posted By wolfsbane114 on 10/03/2006 11:41 AM
Ok it may be two late but time for my two cents.
1. As it has been said split the group into two parties, I know sometimes time can be constraining, but I actually had to do this recently. I have a group of 8 that enjoys playing all time, but for reasons already given 8 is not a good group number (for me anyways) There was conflict in the group, because 2 players were natural leaders, and always seemed to be at odds with each other. So I split the leaders, ran two identical campaigns, with 4 ppl each. they loved it and for me it was an experience watching 2 groups do the same campiagn, handling encounters differently, etc.
2. Allow 6 and adjust your game accordingly, if the battles take too long because of 6 ppl, but thats the only area where the probelm lies, then maybe adjust your battles so they flow quicker. I recently had to do this also, not because of the amount of players, but because we were only getting one in per session.
3. Just say no. Explain to your players you created the game, for amount x, and thats the way its gonna stay. If they get mad, then maybe you need different players anyways. I have found out by explaining my decisions to my players, their more understanding than I gave them credit for. This guy should understand that since his relationship is off/on, this could be disruptive for the game.
I schedule my games usually a month in advance to give my players a chance to have their schedules clear. I have a rule, if you start a campaign, and miss for whatever reason, I won't garaunatee, they can join back in, it may sound unfair, but the others players had to work hard to get where they are, and its not fair to them ,for someone to miss these hardships yet share in the rewards.
I agree with Zoons, keep your wife involved at all costs, Your lucky she enjoys playing.
Oh, my wife will always be in my campaigns. I recognize I'm a pretty lucky guy to have a wife that enjoys the "geeky" stuff like this.
As for the campaign (which will happen at 8pm tonight, so in about 7 hours), I'll probably just end up accomodating a 6-player group. I don't really want to split the party: I'd end up with groups that were too small (wouldn't that be ironic). I might have to pull the "if you miss a session, you're out" rule. Beginning with next week'd session, there isn't any way for characters to hop in and out, due to events in my plot.
| |
"Clearly a case of too many hunchbacks and not enough mad scientists..." | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 10/03/2006 12:11 PM |
| I'll add something which is only partly related to the case at hand.
15 years ago, when we were young and innocent (ok, not so innocent  ), we decided at one point to kick out all the girlfriends from the D&D games. The rationale behind that move, was that they were there to be with the guys and weren't all that interested in playing anyway, and they were changing the group dynamic and we didn't like it.
Oh, the error. Man o man o man.
I don't know what we were thinking exactly. Well, i do, since i just explained it somewhat. But really, that was one of our worst moves - ever! The girls didn't take that well at all. And retrospectively, i think they were right. They were having their own experience with our D&D games, which albeit different from ours, was fun for them nonetheless. It was insulting and disrespectful to them to have done such a thing, and even now 15 years later there is one of the three that were present then, that we still see, and she still has an edge to her voice when she speaks of this event.
Not a good idea
I know your situation is different since she's not in the game yet, but still, think about it.
Sky | |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
wolfsbane114
Warrior
327 Posts
| | 10/03/2006 12:15 PM |
| Good luck, Honestly I think that is the best solution. As a fellow DM, I realize how hard it is to have things prepared for one way, only to have to change them at the last minute, but the main thing is for everyone to have fun, and that includes the DM. And only having time for for one battle may not be so bad, as long as everyone has fun. Our last session, I was running RHoD, we started out right before the Keep of Vraath. we had one small random encounter with some Trolls, then they assaulted the Keep, because of the tactics they used, and other factors, that are too long to go into, the battle took longer than it should, and when it was over, it was time to stop for the night. The thing about it was afterwards, they all commented on what a great time they had, due to the longevity of the battle and the details that went into it. So maybe sweating over the length of the battles isn't so bad, as long as no one is complaining.
Just my two cents. | |
Champion of Flint Fireforge
Knight of The DarkMantle
KoK: The Easily Swayed
"I use to have a working probelm, until it got in the way of my gaming." | |
|
wildmage
Sneak
123 Posts
| | 10/03/2006 1:44 PM |
| It sounds like your group became used to a certain (slow) style of combat in the previous campaign- perhaps it doesn't have to be like this. In agreement with the previous posts I think honesty is the best policy in terms of talking with the group and asking for their feedback and ideas, but making it clear that you have a real problem with the situation that must be worked out. However, rather than boiling the issue down to whether or not you've got 1 player too many, instead make it very clear what you're goals are to have fun with this campaign:
1.)Â Emphasize role-playing as much as possible
2.)Â Keep things running smoothly, especially combat
3.)Â Provide appropriate challenges for your group to encounter
Number 1 above is definitely dependent on both the players and the DM to pull off with any kind of consistency. In this regard, the difference between 4,5, or 6 players is not that large and some people will open up more and role-play more when there are a few more people around whose personalities they can play off of. Therefore I don't think #1 has to be sacrificed just because you've had to add ONE more player.
Number 2 definitely suffers when you've got more players involved trying to decide what to do. The problem also gets compounded if you like to have large groups of monsters in your encounters, since there are that many more actions to resolve. One option is to use fewer and tougher monsters to speed up combat (you can almost always add character levels to 1 or more of your existing monsters and maybe reduce the overall number a bit and have the same challenge rating). Other speed ups include having a party member track initiative (with only 1 entry for "monsters") or using "flashcards" to represent each monster and party member, then stack them in initiative order and simply flip through them to track each round (while recording HP changes, spells, effects, etc. on each card). Overall having some sort of quick reference for each individual or type of monster helps you keep track of things more easily than flipping through books. Using miniatures falls under the same category of speeding things up so long as you've pre-sorted or pre-selected the minis you'll use rather than digging through a box looking for a kobold champion. Rolling multiple attacks from one creature or several creatures at the same time with different colored dice including damage dice is also a good speed-up.
 As the DM if you've "maximized for speed" how you handle encounters, the problem then usually lies with how long you allow players to decide "what's best" for their character to do on their turn. This can only be resolved by sitting down with your players and talking about the need to keep combat running along smoothly. The main idea here is to have each player decide ahead of time what they'll do when it is NOT their turn such that when it IS their turn they can simply declare actions, roll dice, and keep things moving. One way to do this is to say that each player has 10 seconds to declare their action on their turn or else they loose their actions for that round. It is acceptable to declare "delay" and then pass until a later initiative point, but when they come up again they still only get 10 seconds. Now, resolving actions- adding up dice rolls, recording conditions/HP changes can run a little longer than 10 seconds, but don't allow any player longer than this to merely decide what to do. It is important in a situation like this to only allow "in character" talking unless the player whose turn it is specifically asks for help deciding what to do, and even that should be limited as much as possible. So what if the player's character doesn't perform the absolutely optimal move for that situation? He/she is in the middle of combat! If you can establish ground rules like these, then the difference between 5 or 6 players will become very small and you will notice an increased ability to get through more encounters in a night and overall everyone can be happy and have more fun.
As for #3 above, if you've prepared encounters with a certain number of players in mind, it is really pretty straight-forward to jack up the number or monsters or challenge rating to make sure it remains challenging and that XP work out. You can advance a few hit dice or add class levels to pretty much any monster out there without vastly changing the mechanics of combat. If you don't want the CR to change much you can add just a couple of hit dice to each creature, add a few low CR creatures to the encounter, or add NPC class levels to increase HP and maybe BAB to give a bit more challenge for more PCs without having too big an effect.
Having more players has its advantages. You'll probably notice an increase in the variety of PC classes chosen and play styles represented. There is much less pressure on having 1 fighter, 1 cleric, 1 wizard, and 1 rogue. Plus you've got that many more backstories and potential motivations to touch upon with events in the campaign. Good luck and have fun!
| |
Champion of the Bone Naga
(There's just so much roleplaying to be done with a large skeletal snake!) | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| |
GuJiaXian
Sergeant
641 Posts
Roswell, GA
| | 10/03/2006 6:06 PM |
| | Well, wish me luck. The session begins in less than an hour, and I have five pages of notes for this one session! | |
"Clearly a case of too many hunchbacks and not enough mad scientists..." | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 10/04/2006 8:04 AM |
| Posted By ChristopherGroves on 10/03/2006 1:51 PM
You can speed up combat by simply speeding up combat. We do this alot and I know it rushes the heck out of folks but the characters don't have hours to think, neither should the players.
Even when we're running 6-8 PCs and a host of critters we can do a round of combat in 15 minutes typically ... more for really big encounters or tons of monsters. Cheat sheets and good preparation helps.
That's pretty good time there for 6-8 PCs. Would you care to share your technique in greater detail? What do you cheat sheets look like? How do you interact with players that take their time? What is the general attitude around the table during combat? Is there still time for fun and laughs during a round? 
Sky
| |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
GuJiaXian
Sergeant
641 Posts
Roswell, GA
| | 10/04/2006 10:33 AM |
| | I can't speak for ChristopherGroves, but I write out extremely detailed session notes. As I mentioned above, my notes for a planned-two-hour session were five pages long. I cut-n-pasted any needed monster stats from the SRD so I wouldn't even need to refer to the MM (plus, that way the players can't guess what's going on when you crack the MM open to a certain page). The players are currently 1st level, so combat moved fairly quickly. At higher levels, I have everyone roll their to-hit and damage ahead of time, and I just let them know if they hit or miss when their initiative turn comes up. It's really pretty easy. | |
"Clearly a case of too many hunchbacks and not enough mad scientists..." | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 10/04/2006 11:53 AM |
| Posted By GuJiaXian on 10/04/2006 10:33 AM
I can't speak for ChristopherGroves, but I write out extremely detailed session notes. As I mentioned above, my notes for a planned-two-hour session were five pages long. I cut-n-pasted any needed monster stats from the SRD so I wouldn't even need to refer to the MM (plus, that way the players can't guess what's going on when you crack the MM open to a certain page). The players are currently 1st level, so combat moved fairly quickly. At higher levels, I have everyone roll their to-hit and damage ahead of time, and I just let them know if they hit or miss when their initiative turn comes up. It's really pretty easy.
Interesting suggestion about the notes including relevant MM passages.
About rolling attack rolls in advance, however, i'm unsure i see what you mean. If you have everyone roll at the start of the round (or more in advance), perhaps the PC will decide when his initiative comes up to do something else than attack if he knows that his attack roll is an obvious miss? ("Hmmm, considering the evolution of combat this round, i think i'll move and drink a potion instead of attacking..."). How do you handle that?
Plus... isn't it fun to have everyone hoping for the axe-wielding fighter to score a critical when his turn is up, considering that the BBEG got the upper hand during the round? I know that players are sometimes all standing up and huddled around the other player who's rolling when they're in a tight spot in combat, and everyone cheers when good rolls come up!
I'm interested to see how you run things and compare with my own game.
Sky
| |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
gss_000
Commander
3204 Posts
Baltimore, MD
| | 10/04/2006 11:54 AM |
| | Other than the one the PHB I believe mentions of rolling damage with the attack, I like to call combats when the outcome is obvious. If it's just the crunchies and the main bad guy is dead or out of thefight, there is no reason to wast another few minutes for combat. | |
Completed trades: blackthorne, Drakkengi,Thorgrin, Ironfist Boulderbender x2, ckissee, nasamonkey, Username, Star, Ace13 x3, emontedodger x2, Drconveyor, church, Joeyb, Sir Bozak The Damned, Xeromod, the other guy x2, Qucalion of Celene, Dagaron x2, berus316, qillan_dvra, AshloreDarkShadow
For further info go to My Reference Thread and Trade Interface
Champion of Radiant Sevant | |
|
gss_000
Commander
3204 Posts
Baltimore, MD
| | 10/04/2006 11:56 AM |
| | Oh, and more than the brief mention you gave, how did the session go? Did it work out? | |
Completed trades: blackthorne, Drakkengi,Thorgrin, Ironfist Boulderbender x2, ckissee, nasamonkey, Username, Star, Ace13 x3, emontedodger x2, Drconveyor, church, Joeyb, Sir Bozak The Damned, Xeromod, the other guy x2, Qucalion of Celene, Dagaron x2, berus316, qillan_dvra, AshloreDarkShadow
For further info go to My Reference Thread and Trade Interface
Champion of Radiant Sevant | |
|
GuJiaXian
Sergeant
641 Posts
Roswell, GA
| | 10/04/2006 12:07 PM |
| Yes, it is always fun to "huddle" around like that. However, let me use the last campaign I played in as an example. It was a deliberately overpowered campaign. We are all gestalt characters with monstrous races/level adjustments. Frankly, even the spellcasters were rather powerful. My wife played a monk/fighter, and at 12th level she was doing insane amounts of damage. She had four attacks (being a half-dragon and all) that she needed to roll for. Then, she had to roll damage for each of those attacks, and these usually consisted of multiple dice each.
Now, take that situation and multiply it by seven: the number of PCs. Add in the DM's usual two NPCs that tagged along with us and you had battles that took over an hour to do one round. It became almost a necessity to have the players simply roll up their attacks and damage when it wasn't their initiative turn. Once their turn came up, they could just say, "Does a 29 hit? How about a 30 and a 32?" Then they could just rattle off the damage.
Did it over-streamline battle? Yes, it did, and battle really became nothing but numbers (instead of everyone imagining the battle swing by swing). However, given the circumstances, it was really the only way to handle things.
Hope that answers your question. | |
"Clearly a case of too many hunchbacks and not enough mad scientists..." | |
|
GuJiaXian
Sergeant
641 Posts
Roswell, GA
| | 10/04/2006 12:10 PM |
| Posted By gss_000 on 10/04/2006 11:56 AM
Oh, and more than the brief mention you gave, how did the session go? Did it work out?
Last night's session was a bit of a fiasco. Due to unforseen circumstances on the part of a number of the players, we got started almost 45 minutes late (remember, we only had 2 hours or so to play). I managed to introduce the new players and catch everyone up to my "master plot." Unfortunately, the players took longer in some areas than I had anticipated, so between that and getting started so late, they made it through less than half of what I had planned.
But they did get to play out a "titantic battle" against a swarm of stirges, all while in a hot-air balloon some distance in the air. Things got interesting when the party's fighter ended up accidentally severing a few of the ropes connecting the basket to the balloon while swinging his sword at the stirges.Â
| |
"Clearly a case of too many hunchbacks and not enough mad scientists..." | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 10/04/2006 12:14 PM |
| Interesting. I don't think i'd be willing to sacrifice the role-play that inevitably occurs in our campaign during combat to streamline the combat, but i can see how that would indeed speed up things significantly.
Sky | |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 10/04/2006 12:16 PM |
| Posted By GuJiaXian on 10/04/2006 12:10 PM But they did get to play out a "titantic battle" against a swarm of stirges, all while in a hot-air balloon some distance in the air. Things got interesting when the party's fighter ended up accidentally severing a few of the ropes connecting the basket to the balloon while swinging his sword at the stirges.Â
Was it a 40-foot colossal sword? 'cause i could see that happening... | |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
GuJiaXian
Sergeant
641 Posts
Roswell, GA
| | 10/04/2006 12:27 PM |
| Posted By Skyscraper on 10/04/2006 12:16 PM Posted By GuJiaXian on 10/04/2006 12:10 PM But they did get to play out a "titantic battle" against a swarm of stirges, all while in a hot-air balloon some distance in the air. Things got interesting when the party's fighter ended up accidentally severing a few of the ropes connecting the basket to the balloon while swinging his sword at the stirges.Â
Was it a 40-foot colossal sword? 'cause i could see that happening... 
No, it was a kopesh, a Mulhorandi (Forgotten Realms) weapon that functions the same as a bastard sword.
| |
"Clearly a case of too many hunchbacks and not enough mad scientists..." | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 | You must be signed in to participate in the
games. |