Difference between revisions of "Talk:The Western Empire (ie, WFRP)"
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Also, people can (and should) use this page to post their feedback on the game in general, though by that I don't mean getting upset about getting double-critical'd like three times in a row... | Also, people can (and should) use this page to post their feedback on the game in general, though by that I don't mean getting upset about getting double-critical'd like three times in a row... | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:208.146.45.110|208.146.45.110]] 21:05, 30 October 2006 (MST)If we are not going to play WHFRP this week, I think we should go back to PA. We ended at sort of a bad spot, ie in the middle of combat, which in itself was in the middle of a major story arc. I don't want people completely forgetting what was going on, or perhaps more (or less) pertinently, where they were and what they were doing in the middle of getting jumped by the savages. That having been said, once this story line comes to a "conclusion", I do have a few things brewing, but I would be fine with switching over to some one shots. I'm going to vote against a "mini-campaign" because I feel like two games are about as many as I can keep straight at a given time: if we want to dump one of them and start something new, that's fine, but I'd rather not have us playing more and more campaigns in parallel. I do really like the Exemplars tests: they are like one-shots with story continuity, which is cool. But I think they have a laid-backed-ness that derives from the fact that we see them as "tests" that a campaign, mini or otherwise might lack. That's gotta be at least thirty-five cents worth, canadian. | ||
| + | Wrote this before matt posted, so I will add: I think we are getting into a bad habit switching every two weeks. I agree with Ed that it takes a bit to get a "groove", and I think we've been bouncing around a lot lately and the stories are suffering. We started out switching at three week intervals: the last few months have seen lots of absences and a few cancelled sessions, so that we have had as good as no continuity. There was a five week period where we played no PA but only like two sessions of PA with more than three people present. So, if we are going to switch back to PA, I request we play for 3 sessions, minimum, then do whatever. Likewise the next time we are in WHFRP, we should play 3 minimum, etc. I also think that unless it's an issue of poor attendance, GM absence, or a logical stopping point in the story, we should try to put one-shots in between the sets of 3. | ||
Revision as of 22:05, 30 October 2006
As many of you know, Matt is having some difficulty reorganizing the game into something that makes sense for his vision. I think we can go to PA for at least a while so he has time to do this, but in case we need another idea there are two things I can suggest. One is the ODESSA Hunt I recently posted, which would be a mini-campaign. Another idea is more MoC testing, probably laying groundwork for the Exemplars game. Post ideas here, or create a more relevant page.
--Matts 20:58, 30 October 2006 (MST)I'd say that I wouldn't need that much time to implement the ideas I have; A few sessions of PA should cover it. On the other hand, I'd love to try out some of this MoC testing that I missed out on... Maybe two sessions of PA and a MoC test?
Or, if people want, I could be ready with stuff within two weeks probably. I imagine I'll need that much time to digest my thoughts.
Also, people can (and should) use this page to post their feedback on the game in general, though by that I don't mean getting upset about getting double-critical'd like three times in a row...
--208.146.45.110 21:05, 30 October 2006 (MST)If we are not going to play WHFRP this week, I think we should go back to PA. We ended at sort of a bad spot, ie in the middle of combat, which in itself was in the middle of a major story arc. I don't want people completely forgetting what was going on, or perhaps more (or less) pertinently, where they were and what they were doing in the middle of getting jumped by the savages. That having been said, once this story line comes to a "conclusion", I do have a few things brewing, but I would be fine with switching over to some one shots. I'm going to vote against a "mini-campaign" because I feel like two games are about as many as I can keep straight at a given time: if we want to dump one of them and start something new, that's fine, but I'd rather not have us playing more and more campaigns in parallel. I do really like the Exemplars tests: they are like one-shots with story continuity, which is cool. But I think they have a laid-backed-ness that derives from the fact that we see them as "tests" that a campaign, mini or otherwise might lack. That's gotta be at least thirty-five cents worth, canadian. Wrote this before matt posted, so I will add: I think we are getting into a bad habit switching every two weeks. I agree with Ed that it takes a bit to get a "groove", and I think we've been bouncing around a lot lately and the stories are suffering. We started out switching at three week intervals: the last few months have seen lots of absences and a few cancelled sessions, so that we have had as good as no continuity. There was a five week period where we played no PA but only like two sessions of PA with more than three people present. So, if we are going to switch back to PA, I request we play for 3 sessions, minimum, then do whatever. Likewise the next time we are in WHFRP, we should play 3 minimum, etc. I also think that unless it's an issue of poor attendance, GM absence, or a logical stopping point in the story, we should try to put one-shots in between the sets of 3.
