Housekeeping

[Gaffer]

I'm moving the housekeeping issues to a separate thread.

[Gaffer]

Re-posted from Character Creation:

I’d like everyone to create an alt for his character with a portrait for use when we have all the character creation stuff done. I think it adds to the immersion, which is tricky enough in a PbP game.

What is everyone’s preference on posting character sheets, as opposed to bios and descriptions?

I like third person, present tense for posting (“Rod writes”), but I’m not a fanatic about it.

[Gaffer]

Copied from Character Creation and Such

Postby Philulhu » Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:43 am

Is there any way to attach a file to a post? We could have a Character forum with the backstory & character sheet attached.

Post by Gaffer » Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:23 pm

I don't know. I'd love to be able to imbed some graphics in posts, rather than having to find a url to post as an image.

Matt and Sam, you're both experienced Keepers on these boards, is there a way to do this?

[Gaffer]

Reposted from Character Creation and Such

Postby Gaffer » Sat Oct 03, 2009 8:00 am

It looks like you have to post a url in the image slot, not just the image itself, right?

Like this: [img]url[/img]

Not this: [img]picture[img]

I think I'll also post an Investigator Matrix so everyone can make sure I don't miss anything.

<snip> let's talk a bit about how we'll handle game mechanics.

I'd like to get everything set up for a first in-game post on Monday 10/12.

Do we want to set up alts in the character's name with a gallery photo?

[Gaffer]

Reposted from Character Creation and Such

Postby Lammomedes » Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:48 am

I think you can also post the picture as a simple attachment, which I did for the two pics for Dex. I know the img/url/img way works as well, but the problem with that sort of function is if the link goes dead or if the site won't allow you to link pictures from it. The later seems to be more common than ever.

Matt

[Gaffer]

Reposted from Character Creation and Such

Postby A42 » Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:50 am

Gaffer wrote:Do we want to set up alts in the character's name with a gallery photo?

I vote "yea" on that one.

[Gaffer]

Reposted from Character Creation and Such

Postby Gaffer » Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:15 am

Lammomedes wrote:I think you can also post the picture as a simple attachment, which I did for the two pics for Dex. I know the img/url/img way works as well, but the problem with that sort of function is if the link goes dead or if the site won't allow you to link pictures from it. The later seems to be more common than ever.
Matt


Can you walk me through what you did to get the pics to post?

[Gaffer]

Reposted from Character Creation and Such

Postby Lammomedes » Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:20 pm

Okay here goes.

Select normal to post/post a reply. Don't click on quick reply.
Scroll to the bottom beneath the save/preview/submit buttons.
There are two file folder choices: options and upload attachment.
Click on upload attachment.
Browse for file name on your computer.
Click on add the file.
Make any comments you want.
Click on submit.
Viola, attached image.

However...
To get the image to show up, you may have to adjust your own preferences under User Control Panel.
I know I had to click on a button to allow images to show up for me, since the other images just had a place holder "image" until I adjusted my posting preferences.
If you have any another questions, let me know.

[Gaffer]

Reposted from Character Creation and Such

Postby Lammomedes » Sat Oct 03, 2009 4:04 pm

Gaffer wrote:So it has to be a separate .jpg file to post?

From what I can see, yes, it pretty much has to be a .jpg, .gif, or some other sort of file.

Matt

[Gaffer]

When posting dialogue, let’s use bright blue, #0000FF. When posting something out-of-character (but relevant), please set it off with < > or something similar and post in green, 008000. If you’re re-posting something you think I missed, please use red, FF0000.

Go ahead and use italics, bold and underline to give your dialogue and descriptions some extra oomph and interest. Adjectives and adverbs are always a plus (well, most always). I don't mind brief or even one sentence posts when that's all that's appropriate in your mind, but when possible, give your fellow players (and your Keeper) more to work with.

Use a character statement when you want to signal uncertainty or boredom (Rod wonders if he’s not just wasting his time hanging around longer.) with a scene. That will signal me that you’re unsure what to do or you’re ready to move on.

I want to minimize separate threads, but will accommodate independent action, so don’t be afraid to split up when you think it advisable. Such threads will be noted as <Character Name(s) only> to preserve mystery, but I’ve seen several games fragment when these go on too long. I’ll try to use the “Spoiler” button to communicate information to just one character in the thread.

[Gaffer]

I’m not sure how ToC will play out in terms of “action” scenes. I’m hoping we won’t have to do a lot of back and forth.

How do you guys feel about describing a couple of rounds’ potential actions and letting me resolve them? That method worked well when Matt ran “Season of Our Discontent” with John and Phil and me, but I’m not sure how spends will fit in.

Any ideas?

[jabonko]

I’m not sure how ToC will play out in terms of “action” scenes. I’m hoping we won’t have to do a lot of back and forth.

How do you guys feel about describing a couple of rounds’ potential actions and letting me resolve them? That method worked well when Matt ran “Season of Our Discontent” with John and Phil and me, but I’m not sure how spends will fit in.

Any ideas?

I'm a fan of the "two-round-resolution" for action scenes in investigative games. Round one: we describe our actions and set the stakes. Then we resolve and see whether we won or not. Round two: same as round one, but with stakes based on what happened.

For example:
Our investigation has led us to a boat-house in the seediest wharf we've ever seen. We think the head cultist is hiding out in there and we try to sneak in. Tommy trips over a loose plank and the loud thud of him hitting the deck alerts the thugs in the boat-house to our presence. A shootout ensues.

Round one:
Our stakes: getting to the boathouse
Cultist's stakes: stopping us from getting to the boathouse
We describe our actions - maybe ducking behind a crate, firing a few shots, creeping forward during those half-second pauses in the gunfire.
The GM describes the cultists' actions - suppressing fire, locking the door
We resolve the actions: Tommy and I roll very well and the cultists roll not-so well. We win the stakes and get to the boathouse. Or Tommy and I don't do as well as the cultists and don't win the stakes: we don't get to the boathouse. Or maybe it's a tie: both parties roll well or poorly.

Round two:
If we won round one: our new stakes might be "we capture the head cultist." The cultist's stakes might be "I escape" or even "I fight to the death"
If we lost round one: our new stakes might be the same as before, "getting to the boathouse." Or we might change our minds and decide our new stakes are "escaping with our lives!" The cultists' might keep the same stakes "keep them from getting to the boathouse" or they might change to "flee!" or "destroy the evidence" or something else entirely
If we tied: both parties would probably keep the same stakes, reflecting the stalemate.

Again we describe our actions and resolve.
This time if we win, we've captured the cultist, escaped with our lives, etc.

This usually keeps the action scenes quick-moving and doesn't bog down the game with a lot of back-and-forth. If we want there to be more action (are enjoying it, it's a more detailed encounter, etc.) we can add more resolution rounds as needed. Or if it's a short fight make it one round.

[A42]

I’m not sure how ToC will play out in terms of “action” scenes. I’m hoping we won’t have to do a lot of back and forth.

How do you guys feel about describing a couple of rounds’ potential actions and letting me resolve them? That method worked well when Matt ran “Season of Our Discontent” with John and Phil and me, but I’m not sure how spends will fit in.

Any ideas?

I'm very big on that method. For me, it worked extremely well in "Discontent." It felt very organic and managed to preserve the suspense quite well. Whatever method we use, spending points on General abilities is going to complicate it.

Here's an example taken from "Discontent" and modified (in red) to show an example of how this might work for ToC:

Percy
The glimpse of Ladbroke gives my eyes something to focus on, anything to tear them away from this ... this monster lumbering across the floor at us. By the time I realize what I'm doing I'm half way across the floor, banking on Ladbroke's vision being affected by the flash of the shotgun.

I can see it all in my mind -- I come in low, under the still hot barrel of the weapon; my left hand forces the gun up and away as my right hand plunges in the knife and rips upward as I stand. I've never killed a man but I'm damned sure going to now.

I'll spend the last 3 points in my "Athletics" pool to try and block the shotgun out of the way. I've got 6 points left in "Weapons" and I'm willing to use them all -- I HATE Ladbroke -- so let's say two points at a time until he's dead or I'm out of points.

Thoughts?

[Gaffer]

I very much like this sort of descriptive action, as it makes for heightened drama and gives other players something to base their actions on.

I like the spend summary in red to draw the Keeper's attention. I can do the rolls and post the results with similar drama, "returning" any unused points from the spends.

[A42]

I like the spend summary in red to draw the Keeper's attention. I can do the rolls and post the results with similar drama, "returning" any unused points from the spends.

I only made it red to distinguish it from the original post. We could also tag it with something, make it italic, etc. Whatever works.

[Dexter Ford]

I'll go with whatever the group decides. My roll and describe system from the old game worked well because I wanted to preserve the flow of the story without worrying exactly about what was going to happen. It took you guys a couple of scenes, but you all got into it and it made my life easier.

I am still coming to exactly figure out how ToC works, so I would prefer a more descriptive system over a hard numbers system, but I can learn anything, given time.

Matt

[Gaffer]

Ack! Something I forgot. Tell me how your character knows, however slightly, the other three characters and what you think of them.

[FrankyEsposito]

Ack! Something I forgot. Tell me how your character knows, however slightly, the other three characters and what you think of them.

Dex - we would've crossed paths at some time while he was working for the G. That could be good, or bad. Haven't decided yet.

Delores - if she's hanging out at the station for news then I've seen her. I've probably even been given "Delores Duty" on multiple occasions. Best to keep all the crazies together, right?

Langdon - he's a public official, right? That's probably all I know about him. But really, what more do I need to know?

[Langdon]

"Franky. I've heard your name before. Somewhere." He scratches his chin, thoughtfully. "I just know it. Oh who was it... oh yes! Detective Sims! He always spoke so highly of you!" He claps Franky on the back "Said you could solve just about any case, find any man. Good man, that Sims, he's going places. Are you still working for the force? Well, if Sims is right about you, we should see what we can do about getting you on more important cases, eh?" He chuckles and moves along as if following a conversational cadence that permits only the briefest of introductions.

"Dexter, is it?" He grabs the man's hand in a firm, businesslike handshake, "Oh now... I know we've met before, haven't we? Policemen's ball? No. Oh where was it? Oh yes! Club Majestic, in St. Paul! Yes yes, a bit seedy for a prohibition officer like yourself and a politician like myself to be seen there, what with the well-known back-room goings-ons during those dry years. But such fun we had! Do you remember taking my car and driving, that very night! all the way to Chicago? Oh. That wasn't you? But. Well I could have sworn it most certainly was. Hmm..."

"And Delores... well now, I'm sure we haven't met before, but I'm more than delighted to meet you now." He smiles, going for warmth, but achieving something a bit more leering, "You see, I've always been quite the fan of the press. Yes. Indeed. The press is the voice of the people, true, but it is so much more! It is the bread with which they nourish their minds! And an ignorant public, my dear, is the most dangerous threat to our democracy today! Yes, yes! Now I remember. Delores Brown! May I say that it is more than a pleasure to meet you" He bows slightly, and gently kisses her hand.

[Gaffer]

I’m not sure how ToC will play out in terms of “action” scenes. I’m hoping we won’t have to do a lot of back and forth.
How do you guys feel about describing a couple of rounds’ potential actions and letting me resolve them? That method worked well when Matt ran “Season of Our Discontent” with John and Phil and me, but I’m not sure how spends will fit in.
Any ideas?

I'm a fan of the "two-round-resolution" for action scenes in investigative games. Round one: we describe our actions and set the stakes. Then we resolve and see whether we won or not. Round two: same as round one, but with stakes based on what happened.
For example:
Our investigation has led us to a boat-house in the seediest wharf we've ever seen. We think the head cultist is hiding out in there and we try to sneak in. Tommy trips over a loose plank and the loud thud of him hitting the deck alerts the thugs in the boat-house to our presence. A shootout ensues.
Round one:
Our stakes: getting to the boathouse
Cultist's stakes: stopping us from getting to the boathouse
We describe our actions - maybe ducking behind a crate, firing a few shots, creeping forward during those half-second pauses in the gunfire.
The GM describes the cultists' actions - suppressing fire, locking the door
We resolve the actions: Tommy and I roll very well and the cultists roll not-so well. We win the stakes and get to the boathouse. Or Tommy and I don't do as well as the cultists and don't win the stakes: we don't get to the boathouse. Or maybe it's a tie: both parties roll well or poorly.
Round two:
If we won round one: our new stakes might be "we capture the head cultist." The cultist's stakes might be "I escape" or even "I fight to the death"
If we lost round one: our new stakes might be the same as before, "getting to the boathouse." Or we might change our minds and decide our new stakes are "escaping with our lives!" The cultists' might keep the same stakes "keep them from getting to the boathouse" or they might change to "flee!" or "destroy the evidence" or something else entirely
If we tied: both parties would probably keep the same stakes, reflecting the stalemate.
Again we describe our actions and resolve.
This time if we win, we've captured the cultist, escaped with our lives, etc.
This usually keeps the action scenes quick-moving and doesn't bog down the game with a lot of back-and-forth. If we want there to be more action (are enjoying it, it's a more detailed encounter, etc.) we can add more resolution rounds as needed. Or if it's a short fight make it one round.

I'm not sure I can necessarily describe the PCs "stake" or necessarily want the NPCs "stake" to be public. But I think this is actually rather similar to what John described, in terms of declaring a series (maybe several rounds) of actions and what spends he might want to make, resolving those actions (to the extent necessary/possible) and then declaring again.

I think we'll start with that method and see how it develops.

Thanks for the input, guys.