Quote from: Planet Algol;625706Whuh... Blackhand is dissolving a campaign becuase they're not playing out the story he'd like?

Who said dissolving a campaign? Just the current party to forge a new one. It's been said over and over and over again...

Quote from: Benoist;625707They're not role playing the way he'd like, and the way they could role play would suck for him anyway so... better kill the whole campaign.

Again... Not the campaign... Ugh...

Quote from: Fiasco;625710Pretty much. The irony being that they sound like charoppers who are playing 1E like its 3E. Double Specialisation with 19 str. Pfft

Wow... Have you read the books? Double Specialization is in there. Why is this an issue??

Campaign/party... splitting hairs. He's not dissolving the milieu.

Quote from: Planet Algol;625706Whuh... Blackhand is dissolving a campaign becuase they're not playing out the story he'd like?

Hilarious, isn't it?

This thread delivers.

Quote from: Malphaeus;625715Who said dissolving a campaign? Just the current party to forge a new one. It's been said over and over and over again...



Again... Not the campaign... Ugh...



Wow... Have you read the books? Double Specialization is in there. Why is this an issue??

So are drow who dual wield scimitars. Doesn't make it less of a wank.

Quote from: Fiasco;625746So are drow who dual wield scimitars. Doesn't make it less of a wank.

Oh right, I forgot that making a character using rules presented in the book is wanky. From now on I'll just make all my characters douchebags. Just send me your stats so I'll know where to start.

Quote from: Malphaeus;625750Oh right, I forgot that making a character using rules presented in the book is wanky. From now on I'll just make all my characters douchebags. Just send me your stats so I'll know where to start.

Why all the hand wringing and angst over alignment? Just roll up your new 18/00 dart specialist and get back in there tiger!

Mind you make him Lawful Good though so you don't mess with the DM's 'story'.

Hey Blackhand!

Quote from: Blackhand;624799I feel that by their own decisions, the players have created an unworkable party who have no reason to stay together and no reason for adventure.  They are all evil and out for themselves, save the two good aligned players that will start to receive penalties for association with evil.  I've already warned the cleric that Hieroneous doesn't like him healing Evil folks.

What do you think?  Is dissolution the only answer?

So, if I get you correctly.

- You and your group have decided to play ToEE. Playing this module is your group's goal.

- Through the normal course of the sessions and how events unfolded, the high attrition rate has caused a situation in which, if PCs are properly portrayed, they have no reason to adventure together, less son in an environment as the Temple, where no profit is seemingly at hand, only death.

- As you and your group decided that your goal is to play the module, if the PCs are not fit for that you are thinking about replacing them.

- Other than that, you and your group are enjoying the game and don't have any problem with the rules, setting or of personal nature.

Did I understand you correctly?

If I got you right I agree with you, you should dissolve the party and create a more cohesive one who is motivated to explore the ToEE. For example, they (and any replacement PC that could be needed) could be employed by someone or something who needs the Temple defeated. Other than a "mission" type of adventure, party dislution is the most sensible choice to me, assuming everyone in the group is OK that the party is not working.

Hope it helps.

Quote from: Imperator;625772Hey Blackhand!


So, if I get you correctly.

- You and your group have decided to play ToEE. Playing this module is your group's goal.

- Through the normal course of the sessions and how events unfolded, the high attrition rate has caused a situation in which, if PCs are properly portrayed, they have no reason to adventure together, less son in an environment as the Temple, where no profit is seemingly at hand, only death.

- As you and your group decided that your goal is to play the module, if the PCs are not fit for that you are thinking about replacing them.

- Other than that, you and your group are enjoying the game and don't have any problem with the rules, setting or of personal nature.

Did I understand you correctly?

If I got you right I agree with you, you should dissolve the party and create a more cohesive one who is motivated to explore the ToEE. For example, they (and any replacement PC that could be needed) could be employed by someone or something who needs the Temple defeated. Other than a "mission" type of adventure, party dislution is the most sensible choice to me, assuming everyone in the group is OK that the party is not working.

Hope it helps.

Hello my friend, it's good to see you again!

You nailed it directly on the head there, Imperator.  

I really don't understand all the hate coming up from this.  Yet it seems no matter how many times it's said, or how many people say it that a lot of the folk here seem to be willfully misreading everything I say.  Not that they have to read it and comment in the first place.

Appreciate you taking the time.  I've almost finished preparing the new module jumping off point, and I have to tell you I think it's going to revitalize the campaign.  I'm going to run The Ghost Tower of Inverness, and from there segue into the Temple in a slightly different manner - since we played through Hommlett already.

Some folks have suggested a "mission-master" type patron.  We do this sort of play with Dark Heresy (the Inquisitor and all) so I wanted to let the players come up with it themselves.  We had a couple of really fun stories somewhere in the 24 characters (between 10 players) these past many weeks, but what's left isn't working so well.  

My players really get into their characters, and are literally taking the logical choice here, in character.  It's not really a metagame thing.  I'm not heavy handed at all (though I am strict by the book), and I'm pretty lenient on character choices.  Already one of the players has created a background involving Tenser, and I liked what I read.  I think we might have a winner in the run for the patron, but that's just one player's background.  When we make the rest of the party (half a session in itself) we'll see what shakes out.

I think the hate is coming from the concept that we are somehow stopping the game.  Players feel it's a douchebag GM move to dissolve the campaign in a like manner and I understand that. Yet this is a mutually agreed thing, between the players and I.  The "hearing" will likely be a formality at this point, because we like to do things as a club, a group.  

I'd like to point out that even if I was the sort of person who'd get mad at my players, say "Fuck it!!" and nuke the campaign - taking all my books home and whatnot - the club has a schedule for gaming.  One of the other players is going to run Rise of the Runelords, immediately after we are done with AD&D 1e.  The gaming would not stop, and the largest portion of the group has been gaming together for almost two decades.  I am NOT that sort of person, and I resent being portrayed as such.

I can't figure out if this is an elaborate and expertly-crafted trollthread or not.

Lord Hobie

I think Blackhand and his group are being genuine - it's just that they have a very specific internal culture which 100% works for them but looks odd from outside, especially if the internal culture of your own gaming scene is very different. (For instance, they seem to be really against homebrew systems or deviating from RAW or improvising adventures on the fly, which runs directly against the preferences of more or less all the groups I've ever played with.)

Quote from: Warthur;625822I think Blackhand and his group are being genuine - it's just that they have a very specific internal culture which 100% works for them but looks odd from outside, especially if the internal culture of your own gaming scene is very different. (For instance, they seem to be really against homebrew systems or deviating from RAW or improvising adventures on the fly, which runs directly against the preferences of more or less all the groups I've ever played with.)

It's not that it's that he can't say three words about why he plays the way he does without grossly disparaging people who play even slightly differently.

Admittedly he's far from alone with that particular problem.

Quote from: Piestrio;625830It's not that it's that he can't say three words about why he plays the way he does without grossly disparaging people who play even slightly differently.

Admittedly he's far from alone with that particular problem.

And even then it wouldn't really be a problem if the way he played were broadly compatible with the way most of us play.

As it stands, it's a combination of his group's internal culture having fairly rigid expectations and the fact that he can't seem to imagine why people might find that constraining or not to their tastes unless they are namby-pamby wuss gamers who can't take it.

Ive been a member of Blackhand's group for about two years now and i can say that i look forward to the games he DM's more than anyone elses ,no offense comrades of the Wargate ! Its not that he doesn't allow us to have fun its that we really push it, ie. Mushue worshipping Heironius and healing the evil Hextor worshipper ? They should both be smited by their corresponding saviors! And they don't think of how it will affect the group, or they do  realize and just want to stir things up! A lot of us , including me, are still fairly virgin to RPG's or at least AD&D . I think a group discussion about solidarity and unity is in order before the restart.

Welcome, Blackhand's group!