Apolyton D&D: SF's PBEM.

SnowFire · July 11, 2003, 16:55

This is the thread for those interested in playing in my Play-by-Email RPG. System knowledge is optional, as long as you're willing to learn. However, I am looking for time commitment. Ideally, you should check your email daily to play in this game. I'm not saying you'll actually have to respond every day, but things get slow otherwise. Vacations are fine, as are sudden bursts of schoolwork. But in general, if we want the game to move, you should check your email a good bit.

I will be accepting four players only. It's possible I might take 5 in event of weirdness. But otherwise, it takes too long to get a consensus on the next action. Note that this is not first-come first-serve; if you already see 4 people having posted, feel free to express your interest anyway. There are a few people who have priority if they want to play (well, okay, 2); after that, if there are still too many interested, I'll roll dice in true D&D fashion. Unfortunate, but sometimes that's the way it works.

In any case, if you're interested, please post answers to my little poll here as to what kind of game you want. Also post your email address, AIM, and ICQ number.

Most importantly: Campaign type. I have two ideas:

1) In a seemingly healthy kingdom, you are this year's band of recent recruits into the equivalent of the army's "Special Forces." Perhaps you were noticed as unusually clever in basic training, perhaps your father was an aristocrat and pulled some strings, perhaps you are a special observer from the Elven nation sent as a diplomatic gesture. So instead of lying around the barracks training and waiting for a non-existent war to start, you get to be sent out on interesting missions your superiors believe might aid your training. Obviously, more is at work underneath the surface, and how you solve your various missions might determine how important events go... This would use my own world setting, which I'd be happy to describe and flesh out.

2) A more standard "Adventurers unite!" kind of deal. By the odd workings of fate, a company of young (or old?) adventurers is forced together, and after their initial problems are dealt with, discover they enjoy adventuring together and scour the land in search of evil (or good?) to stop, treasures to find, maidens to romance, blah blah blah. This will need more party chemistry to insure that it works (as in, unlike the army where you might be ordered to work with someone, if you're free and hate a comrade, explaining why you keep with the party is hard), and the freeform nature makes it a bit harder to GM. It's more likely this would use an established setting (like the Forgotten Realms) to aid in providing things to do.

As you can tell, I have a slight preference for #1 (Soldiers), but I can do #2 (Adventurers) as well.

2. Format. I'd prefer to do this PBEM, but I wouldn't be averse to the occasional IRC game for a dramatic battle where you want to micromanage character actions. And if for some reason no one wants to do PBEM after all, then I suppose we could try it fully IRC.
3. Length. How long do you expect to want to play this? Remember, short campaigns can generally be extended if people are enjoying it, but if you ask for a long campaign and people quit halfway through, then it's dissapointing and the plot doesn't resolve. We'll say 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and a year are the default length options.
4. Alignment. Do we want a generally Good party, Mixed, or Evil? Good and Evil kind of speak for themselves- in a Good group, everyone should have a Good or Neutral alignment and generally not complain too much for reckless altruism. Evil alignment group, evil & neutral characters who don't have a problem with being hired by slave drivers, etc. A Mixed group is possibly the most interesting and the most dangerous- people who can go either way. It allows the most character growth- if halfway through, the Mixed group realizes the true threat to the land (or whatever) and becomes Good, it's pretty cool. However, if you have a Noble Knight & a crazy murderer, you just have the party fall apart.
5. Edition. I'd far prefer to run this in straight 3rd edition (As in straight from the PHB. No supplements.), but if there is a great demand for 2nd edition, so be it. If you want to see 3rd edition online, see
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html

I'll try and post examples of how a PBEM generally runs soon.

Once we decide the setting and who's playing, we can start with character creation, hopefully.

korn469 · July 11, 2003, 17:23

sorry, i meant it to be a pm

Jon Miller · July 11, 2003, 18:07

Snowfire

would you be willing to be in the same setting as the other GMs so that people can interact and the like?

I think that would be cool

Jon Miller

SnowFire · July 11, 2003, 18:33

Well, as noted, it depends on what setting the main group chooses! If they do a setting I know nothing about, that doesn't seem likely. If they do a setting I know, then sure, maybe that'll happen.

korn: Thanks for the message. I'll consider it, and if your schedule clears up, feel free to play, of course.

Jon Miller · July 11, 2003, 18:37

well, your posts made it sound as if you would be an interesting GM, so put me down for #2 (I would be interested in #1 but that would be hard to coordinate)

Jon Miller

Jon Miller · July 11, 2003, 18:38

what settings are you familiar with?

could you post stuff like that in the GM thread

Jon Miller

Victor Galis · July 11, 2003, 20:15

This could be interesting, but depending on what happens with the rest of the AD&D stuff, my time might be highly limited for the next 4 weeks ('till college starts again, at which point I have all the time in the world*). I'd be interested in campaign #1 for 6 months.

(Also, I would suggest posting some more about the setting, then asking people what sort of character they'd like to play then rolling off between people somewhat based on class (You wouldn't really want to end up with a party composed of 4 mages... or maybe you might, but that would impact their survivability somewhat (I assume military high command has some clue about such things))).

* (Applies only to playing AD&D, all other activities are subject to limited time due to priorities: AD&D, sleep, not flunking out)

SnowFire · July 11, 2003, 20:48

VG: A delayed sign-up is fine too. I already have a college friend of mine interested; originally he would take the place of anyone who dropped out, but it would work having him have a character for awhile until you could join.

As for setting information in the case of #1... well, I was thinking of using a setting I developed for a game I might run 2 summers ago. I'll try and post some of that later. But I do agree that there should be coordination about character creation; the thing is, it's kind of pointless to do until we know who's playing and what edition. So sure, once that's settled, we can have people saying what kind of character they'd prefer to play and insure the party isn't too unbalanced.

Victor Galis · July 11, 2003, 21:41

Right. I was just saying it'd be good to avoid a situation where you end up with 4 people whose heart is set on playing a mage (or any other class... though 4 clerics might work, if designed propperly). In any case, I don't think the other campaign will start too soon either, so that should give me time.

Urban Ranger · July 12, 2003, 00:53

I am interested, though I am moving so my connection to the Net should be sporadic for the next week or two, even though e-mail should be okay.

SnowFire · July 12, 2003, 01:07

UR: No problem. Like I said before, short vacations aren't an issue.

I would ask, though, that you give your preferences on the things I asked for player input on- how long do you expect the game to run? Would you rather do "Soldiers" or "Adventurers?" And so on.

I've decided as for flavor on #1, I'll just post a small website where I put all my (non-confidential) work up. Hopefully that should be done by the end of the weekend.

Metaliturtle · July 12, 2003, 01:14

I'd like to get in on this, the first setting sounds cool, my email and aim are Rainismydoggy@aol.com, and I check daily

Skanky Burns · July 12, 2003, 02:28

I would also be interested in joining this game. Checking email daily isn't a problem for me. This will be my first real D&D experience (if you exclude games like Diablo ^_^), so I don't have any hard preferences for how the game is run aside from wanting PBEM.

Soldiers sounds good, and assuming we can extend the game, I will say 6 months. Good alignment sounds... good. No preference for (or experience with) any edition.

I will provide my contact details to the group if I get included.

Victor Galis · July 12, 2003, 02:39

I would like to point out that, at least according to the PHB, paladins will not knowingly associate with evil characters. That being said, I'd preffer a good/neutral party. Not that I'd ever really want to play a paladin again, but...

Of course houserules and roleplaying could circumvent that limitation, as well as any of the variety of means of concealing one's alignment.

Wraith · July 12, 2003, 09:48

This does look interesting. I'm not too familiar with the 3rd edition rules, but I played a lot of 2nd edition.

My only problem is time. I haven't had a lot of it to spare recently. A once-a-day e-mail check is no problem, but I wouldn't be able to respond every day. Length doesn't mattter. Last campaign I was in was in college and ran about two years, playing basically every weekend classes were in session.

In any case, I tend to prefer the adventurers style campaigns. My general run of characters are not the kind that fit well in a military setting, so it'd have to be a pretty unusual military group for that to work if I'm in. I generally prefer good groups, but I can do evil real well if necessary.

Wraith
Carpe DM: Seize the Dungeon Master

Metaliturtle · July 12, 2003, 12:29

I played lots of second edition but never really got into third edition, but if it's PBEM there shouldn't be a problem with any rules.

Victor Galis · July 12, 2003, 14:00

Yeah, my last character played in a sort of military campaign (Milo "loot anything that isn't nailed down" Greenwood) didn't get along with his superiors that well. He was Chaotic "Good," in that his looting generally occurred in the lair of some evil person we were sent after and that he opposed the Zhentarim (actually this was his priority, but the DM didn't throw too many of them at us).

SnowFire · July 12, 2003, 16:18

as well as any of the variety of means of concealing one's alignment.

Which, if I'm doing my own setting, would be readily available I might add. As in "Detect Alignment" spells wouldn't exist, and maybe only Paladins and extraplanar creatures would be able to do it. Even then, they would only get a response on seriously evil (or holy) creatures. I do this mainly because having "Detect Alignment" spells available makes things rather weird... it's hard to have a "sympathetic" or even "crazy" villain who thinks he's doing the right thing, then notices he has a big evil aura coming out of him. Heck, most people think they're some form of good, even if they're not.

My general run of characters are not the kind that fit well in a military setting.

Amusingly enough, the longest PBEM I was in had a somewhat similar idea as #1- working for the military. That said, being that this DM was the same one that ran the "Chaotic Neutral Special" one shot at a convention, this was about the silliest, most incompotent military ever. We were "The Border Guards," an old relic of wars against Orcs & other nasties in the northern mountains hundreds of years ago, and generally ignored by the vast majority of people down south. Not funded very well, either. So the Border Guards hired whoever they could get, pretty much.

As it turned out, just as Border Guard HQ was getting smashed by a return of the nastiness from the north (while we were out), the king dissapears with no successor setting off a fun little civil war. Meaning that our little group of former Guards was kind of free to make our own destiny after just 4-6 missions working for the military (I forget exactly how many). The game puttered out just before this happened, though (we had 6 players! Ack!).

Speaking of which, it'd be good to give an example character sheet for those who haven't seen 3rd edition. My character (who rolled pretty pathetic stats- his highest was a 15, and he had an 8*) was Arion, a Chaotic Neutral pureblooded elf (unusual in his world) who had left the treetops to give the puny lesser races a shining example of perfection and grace. Let me assure you that amazing arrogance + 6 Constitution makes for a fun combination. For people new to D&D: it's okay if you don't quite understand everything on the sheet! I'll be happy to walk you through character creation when the time comes.

*If you don't know, Elves have +2 Dex and -2 Con. I wanted to be able to do something well, so he ended up with 17 Dex, and at 4th level you get to increase a stat point by 1- so that's why he has 18 Dex on the sheet, not 15. And 6 Con instead of 8.

korn: Probably not, time commitments.
jm: Interested in "Adventurers."
VictorG: Interested, good alignment, but if you get elected head DM in the "other" thread, I'm curious if you'll have the time.
UR: Interested.
Metaliturtle: Interested, preference for "Soldiers."
Skanky: Interested, preference for "Soldiers," good alignment, 6 months base plot completion time.
Wraith: Interested, preference for "Adventurers," but time constraints are troubling.

So it looks like we can have 4. I'll leave this open until Sunday in case anyone else happens by, upon which I'll post all the character creation information and everything. Speaking of which, if anyone not playing wants to lurk- as in, be on the email list, but not play just yet- also feel free to post, or send me an email.

Jon Miller · July 12, 2003, 19:13

I would also be interested in soldiers if it can be in the same setting as what the other groups play in...

Jon Miller

Urban Ranger · July 12, 2003, 23:16

I suck at playing evil characters, the only time I played my character died like in the first hour.

I don't have any preferences as to style, and I usually play some sort of ranger (dang, what a surprise

) and/or rogue type. I heard that rangers suck in 3rd edition though.

SnowFire · July 13, 2003, 00:12

Argh! I had a whole big thing ready to post on PBEMs, and was busy downloading a PHB pdf (80% done). Then I try and open Jon Miller's files... and the first one is corrupted and fails. So are the next 3. Fine, whatever. What annoys me is that it's only when I try and open the 5th and last one that the computer crashes, not the 1st one. Of course, I had done all my work in Notepad, which has no autosave. And the download is lost.

Sigh, I'll find something.

UR: Not really. Think of Rangers as Fighters who get actually useful skills and a decent amount of them (4 skill points + Int), but don't get some of the nifty fighting feats. In 2nd edition terms, they're kind of like 3/4 a fighter, 1/4 a Rogue.

That said, as time goes on, they do lag a bit in power... but I rather doubt we'll be playing a 12th level + campaign. They start out well, at least.

More to the point, a party is generally helped by having either a Ranger or a Druid in it anyway, at least part of one. At least in the Soldiers campaign, I would have requested at least one person be one of those, and while hardly required for an Adventurers campaign, it does make things harder when you hear "Um, you lost the trail" again and can never track anyone down.

Urban Ranger · July 13, 2003, 01:58

I don't like to play straight MU and fighters anyway.

Jon Miller · July 13, 2003, 02:39

sorry about that Snowfire

not really sure wy all of what I have sent are screwed up

I always play good characters myself, usualy lawful good

Jon Miller

Metaliturtle · July 13, 2003, 03:18

chaotic good or chaotic neutral for me, I needs me some chaos tho :-D

Wraith · July 13, 2003, 10:09

--"the "Chaotic Neutral Special" one shot"

Okay, that sounds fun. One of my favorite characters was a chaotic neutral wild-mage. The other players got to hating him, of course, and I bet I gave the DM fits, but he was damn fun to play.

--"So the Border Guards hired whoever they could get, pretty much."

Well, my players tend toward the chaotic. Good or neutral usually; my evil players are generally neutral evil. The first is unlikely ever to join a military organization. The second is unlikely to survive in a military organization. The last could very well fit in, though, although he might be in it for the lootiing.

--"I would also be interested in soldiers if it can be in the same setting as what the other groups play in..."

Did they decide on one?

--"they're kind of like 3/4 a fighter, 1/4 a Rogue."

With a dash of cleric, since they do get some priest spells eventually.
I'm not really familiar enough with the 3rd edition rules to comment, but it does look like they're not quite as good as they were in 2nd. Of course, that may be because I like playing rangers, and so have the 2nd edition Rangers Handbook, which has some neat stuff in it.

--"I would have requested at least one person be one of those"

Rangers and mages are my two favorite classes.

--"I always play good characters myself, usualy lawful good"

That's a hard alignment to play. I've only ever known one guy who did a really good job at it, and his character was, of course, a paladin. Paladin Wu. Strongest character I've ever seen on a natural roll, too (18/93). Once he got his hands on a Holy Avenger (long, powerful campaing)... well...

Wraith
When the DM smiles, it's already too late

Urban Ranger · July 13, 2003, 11:52

Ranger/Bard sounds like fun

Metaliturtle · July 13, 2003, 14:27

wow, only kings and emperors on this thread... OTHER THREADS BOW DOWN BEFORE OUR REGAL MIGHT!!!

seriously tho, I think chaotic good would fit into the army, they may have to do a ton of pushups in training, but they would be allowed in, (especially if they thought that the nation was sooo good)

Chaotic Neutral can be pulled of too if being a soldier struck their fancy at the moment, then dammit they'll be a soldier.

Dr. Nick · July 13, 2003, 19:25

Poll thingy:

Campaign type: 2. I've always preferred the most standard adventures. But 1 sounds good too, especially from the 'small actions affect the big picture' scenario.

Format: I'm happy with either PBEM and/or IRC, both or only one. Mishmash or purely one of them.

Length: I'm happy with playing a long game or a short one, but I'm not exactly acquanted with PBEM rpging, and therefore am not fully aware of the kind of time constraints implied.

Alignment: Good, evil, neutral, lawful, chaotic, I'm perfectly happy either way. Mixed or not, I always have some character concept to try out.

Edition: 3rd, hands down.

Urban Ranger · July 14, 2003, 01:07

I don't know how to do the PBEM thingie either, combat might take a very long time to resolve

Metaliturtle · July 14, 2003, 01:14

pbem is all I can do cuz of AOL's anti-coolness policy