BJ Back From the Beyond

Click to reveal.. (Marra) HP: 25/25 STM: 7/10 Stealth: 6 Perception: 6 (+1) Missile (Bows): 5 Melee (Shortswords): 5 First Aid: 4 Athletics: 4 (+1) Acrobatics: 4 (+1) Composure: 2 Nature: 2 Banked Skill Points: 0

Well, that was a session. Chantico learned what firewater is, Bandek attempted to find out where Vyncin was by bribing the guys guarding him, Hopping Jaguar watched a locked door, Viatrix was one with the ether the whole time (Nalyd didn't show), and Sarelim left on a boat with the bad guy at the end. It was definitely interesting. The party levels up as well. They get 12 skill points to spend this time around. I'll hold off on officially scheduling the next session until after Sarelim's side-session, but I'm aiming for March 12th at 8pm EST.

Update: I've finished judging all of the BoA scenarios, so now I just need to go through The Crusaders. I PMed Bain about getting the crusaders.bmp file for it, but haven't heard back yet.

Those dates work for me, too.

Well... I could do some judging, but there are a few problems. First, I have two entries in the Newcomer category, so unless there's some way I can judge that without either wrecking or rigging my own scenarios' chances I shouldn't be judging that category. Second, I have played BoE, but it's been many, many years since I last played it for any serious length of time. Third, I've never judged a scenario contest. If you're okay with that last one, I can give this a shot.

Log of session 4 is away! Instead of doing the usual individual quotes, this time I decided to just pull an entire conversation that I felt summed up the session nicely. Click to reveal.. (Not your usual quote) Hopping Jaguar: "Umm...the jungle's over...and so is the trail." Bandek: "He went east, right? So we just keep goin' east." Chantico: "This is good. We'll see him a long way off." Sarelim: "We'll be out in the open. Sactorri soldiers will see us a long way off too." Chantico: "And we'll see them. Unless they can set things on fire with their brains, this favors us." Sarelim: "Speak for yourself. I'm not looking for another fight." Hopping Jaguar: "Maybe...maybe we should camp for a while, in the cover at the edge of the jungle...before we continue the chase? I hate to admit it, but stiff breeze would kill me right now..." Sarelim: "That sounds... reasonable. It's not like there's a trail we can follow anymore." Viatrix: "He will only escape further into his country." Sarelim: "He'll still do that if we pursue. The difference will be whether we're rested or not for whatever happens next." Bandek: "The kid's got a point. If we get to 'im in this state, are we gonna be able to catch 'im? 'Cause we haven't done such a great job of holdin' on to him so far."

Actually, that's my fault. I sent it to the wrong e-mail address again. I'll try not to repeat that mistake. The log of session 4 is almost finished. I just have to put the final touches on it.

*bump* So... I don't like to nag, but we do still need a calendar for this thing.

Well, I just beamed the log of session 3 to Nioca. He should have it up before long. In the meantime, here are some quotes to nibble on. Click to reveal.. (Mmmm. Quoterific) Hopping Jaguar: "Neither jungle nor river nor gloom of night...shall stop a ninja from fighting for right!" Viatrix: "I will happily be outnumbered by the sleeping." Chantico: "There's always a better option: fire." Hopping Jaguar: "You do not fear starting a new war between Actan and Sactorria? Will your Lord Gorble be pleased?" Bandek: "He didn' tell us not t'start a war." Hopping Jaguar: "A ninja is an honorable foe." Chantico: "Is a ninja a flammable foe? Because if so, you should back down." Jamison: "Are you guys sure you want to go attack a Sactorrian patrol? These are professional soldiers we're talking about." Sarelim: "I would rather not fight at all, but that's what you're forcing me into. Seeing as it's not my plan that's putting my neck on the line, I'd at least like to come out of it with as many limbs as I can muster." Viatrix: "You will be silent, prisoner. Else you risk your fragile finger-bones." Vyncin: "That threat would be a lot more effective if I hadn't already seen you try to fight."

Well, it turns out that our party's antagonist, Vyncin, is a lot slipperier than he appears to be. Especially when he makes everything wet. It also doesn't help that the party almost died. Again. Next session is scheduled for February 27th at 8 pm EST in room SWRPEternal. Logs coming soon, I promise.

Yeah, this is today. I haven't been feeling so hot and my sleep schedule is all out of whack (again), so I may or may not be on time. I apologize in advance if I'm late.

Things are certainly getting interesting, what with all the future PvP looming over us. Definitely looking forward to the next session. Click to reveal.. (Marra) HP: 25/25 (+2) STM: 10/10 Stealth: 6 Missile (Bows): 5 Melee (Shortswords): 5 (+1) Perception: 5 (+1) First Aid: 4 Athletics: 3 Acrobatics: 3 (+1) Composure: 2 Nature: 2 Banked Skill Points: 2 Also, I've got some technique slots to fill out. Click to reveal.. (1 Melee and 1 new Missile) Melee Stalwart Defense: (1 stamina) As a free action (no roll required), can prepare to parry oncoming attacks. That round, Marra receives a bonus to defense and takes slightly less damage from hostile attacks. Refraining from attacking that round provides a stronger effect, as does spending additional stamina. Missile Rapid Fire: (1 stamina) Fires off two arrows, either at different targets or at the same one. Both attacks have a slight penalty to hit. Since Rapid Fire is essentially Lightning Swipe for archers, I doubt approval is going to be a problem.

Hey guys. Remember that this is tomorrow (or today, depending on where you live).

Well, the party survived (despite their best efforts to the contrary) and have managed to capture their target. We'll see how long that lasts. Next session is scheduled for February 16th, at 7pm EST.

3 hours to the next session! Click to reveal.. (Daily recommended dose of wit) Hopping Jaguar: "That man is no ninja." Bandek: "Maybe not, but he keeps shootin' his mouth off like that an' he's gonna suffer a ninja-ry." Chantico: "I am watching with baited breath to see how you make the best of this lumber yard." Hopping Jaguar: "Great ninja are...ow...less clumsy." Sarelim: "Are ninja known for trampling their friends?" Hopping Jaguar: "I sure hope we haven't accidentally irritated the wrong evil wizard." Sarelim: "Ow! Why do I keep getting hurt by being next to you guys?!" Bandek: "Nice thinkin'! That'll smoke him out! Trouble is, if we set THIS side of the forest on fire, isn't he just gonna run out the OTHER side?" Viatrix: "I will crush the craven dogs if they dare show themselves."

21.5 hour notice! I still need a level-up for Chantico and Viatrix.

Thanks for the help, Nioca. Click to reveal.. (Quotes!) Hopping Jaguar: "A true ninja knows the value of stealth!" Chantico: "Does a true ninja know the value of an indoor voice?" Chantico: "If they'll burn like a candle, they're things I can handle." Bandek: "Hah. Only time anyone ever calls me 'sir' is when they're tryin' to kick me out of a tavern." Sarelim: "Erm, we're not going to enter the pass during the night, are we? It seems like ghosts would work best at night." Hopping Jaguar: "I once heard a sage say that rocks grow best in the dark. I have yet to discern the full import of the proverb." Chantico: "Woohoo! We're on fire!" Bandek: "Actually, they are! Let's keep it that way!" Viatrix: "This armor hasn't failed me yet. It will, of course, but not yet." Lord Gorbus: "Oh, I know all about your 'experience'. Suffice it to say that very few secrets escape my ears."

Rules: to me, the rules serve two purposes. First, they ensure that all the players are being fair to one another and to the GM (this isn't as much of a concern if you have a really cool group of players, but every once in a while you'll get one of those players that reminds you why the rules are important). Second, they are there to provide the players with a myriad of possible tactics while ensuring that each of those tactics is as viable as the rest (I know this rarely happens, but this is supposed to be my ideal RPG). One thing I've realized about RPGing is that it's as much a creative exercise as it is a tactical one, and I love that aspect of it. I think trying to make a rule for every situation would only stifle the creative process, though for common situations, those that each party member would possibly run into at some point, it's nice to have a set of rules to fall back on. As a GM, it simplifies things by taking some of the rules decisions off your shoulders so you can focus more on the story. As a player, it's nice to know what you can expect to have happen in a given situation so you can plan around it. This doesn't mean the DM needs to follow the rules; they're just nice to have. Combat: I haven't had any experience with table-top RPG combat beyond AIMHack, so I'll just give my impression of that. To me the characters feel like much more than just pieces on a board, even when we're running around on a battle map. It feels much closer to an actual battle, especially with everyone in the party taking their turns at once. There's less time to think about what action you're going to take than if you were waiting on everyone else, and this gives me a sense of urgency similar to what I imagine my character is feeling. There's also less input from the other players. One player could be typing up an argument for my character to go do something, and in the meantime I may or may not tell my character to go do something else entirely before the other player has a chance to say anything at all. As for strategies, I think making combat too straightforward would just make it dull ("my warrior swings!", roll, wash, repeat), but having too many strategies available would slow down the combat too much, especially for online play. There is a sweet-spot, and I think we've about reached it. Party Power: I think the party's power really needs to be determined by the campaign (and thus, by the GM). I've played in campaigns where the party was barely able to stay on their feet (Zombies 2) and in campaigns where the party was so capable that they practically looked for trouble (All the Creeping Things), and I have to say that I've really enjoyed both. Character Creation: I don't really have any hard and fast rules on character creation. Usually when I want to make a character I start by thinking about what that character's personality is like and what their main capabilities are. Then I think about their past by asking the questions "Why are they the way they are, and why are they good at what they do?" I don't always come up with the answers before playing the character, but usually I do. From that I try to fill out their skills and abilities with ones that would be logical for them to have based on their backstory and try to give them items that are either logical for them to have (like Nathan's lockpicks) or say something interesting about them (like Lucia's pendant). Then I go back through and tweak as needed until satisfied.

Since it's likely going to be the last session, I personally would rather have everyone there. I'm fine with waiting until the 7th.

Well, it appears that once again Nioca's character and my character are destined to fight each other. It's fortunate that they haven't come to blows yet, as Marra would just skip the slapping stage and go straight for the coup de grace. Click to reveal.. (Marra) Name: Marra Race: Nephil Female Occupation: Scout Alignment: Vengeful HP: 21/23 STM: 9/10 Stealth: 6 Missile (Bows): 5 [+1] Perception: 4 First Aid: 4 Melee (Shortswords): 4 [+1] Athletics: 3 Acrobatics: 2 Composure: 2 Nature: 2 Banked Points: 1

The party survived their stint in Eidrisk (again, no thanks to me ) and have pursued their quarry to the border with Sactorria. Everyone levels up. They get 1 attribute point and 10 skill points. Next session is Monday, February 6th, at 8:00pm EST.

Hey guys, just under 2 hours till the next session. I've got the log of session 1 ready, but I'm going to need someplace to upload it. If anyone wants to help with that, that would be great. Originally Posted By: Letter sent from Actan to Sactorria, author unknown Five persons seen exiting G's manor. Sources say one is Actani lieutenant and other is mercenary. Other three unknown. Recommend further inquiry.

This is your 24+1 hour warning for session 2! Remember, the room is SWRPEternal. See you guys there.

*looks above* This is why I usually don't like talking about politics on the internet. It always makes me feel like the bottom man in a gigantic dogpile. Originally Posted By: Lilith Devil's advocate here: provided there isn't a single party that has a stranglehold on power, why is voter fraud actually a problem for democracy? Presumably every party that has the opportunity to engage in voter fraud will be about equally inclined to do so, and will do so roughly in proportion to their resources, which in turn will be roughly proportionate to the size of their support base (or at least, no more disproportionate than their ability to do other things that increase the number of votes they get, like advertising). Which is to say, the number of votes a party obtains through voter fraud will be proportional to the number of legitimate votes it's getting, and it'll all come out in the wash, so to speak -- the final election results will most likely be the same as they would have been without fraud. It follows from this, by the way, that everyone committing equal amounts of fraud is much better for democracy than only one party committing fraud, even if it may be worse than nobody committing fraud. In fact, given that voter fraud exists (which it does) and can't be eliminated (which it can't), one could argue that every political party has an obligation to commit fraud to the same degree that they believe their rivals are, in order to level the playing field and ensure that the final result reflects the will of the people. I have a couple of points to make on this. First of all, I agree that voter fraud exists and that it cannot be eliminated, but I would like to add one thing to that list: it is impossible to tell exactly how much voter fraud there actually is (at least not without seriously hindering personal rights). As such, it is highly unlikely that the different parties will actually attempt to commit equal amounts of voter fraud. One party simply does not know how much the other party is gaming the system. It follows from this that elections will then be skewed in favor of the parties that are both unscrupulous and have the power, influence, and/or wealth to act on it. That brings me to my second point, that a party's resources are not necessarily proportional to the volume of its base. There are situations where, despite the opposing side having the popular vote, the less popular candidate is voted into office simply because he has a few very powerful friends who don't mind breaking a few dozen laws in exchange for some favors down the road (I don't know of any instances of this in the USA, but have heard of it happening in other countries). Then you also have situations where powerful people want to remake a foreign country to fit their vision, and so start indirectly backing a political party that has similar ideas. That party would be receiving support from someone who is not even a part of their base. So, in short, even if having two parties who are equally corrupt is better than having one be more corrupt than the other, such a situation is extremely unlikely to come about. (I really hope that wasn't as rambling as it sounds...) Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit 1. The article cited attempts to expand what I said--voter impersonation fraud--into a larger election fraud issue. That's fine, but then you can't fight it with ID requirements for the polls. For example, if a state allows non-citizens to register then no "show picture ID to vote" plan will suffice. I'm against poll taxes and other attempts to control who votes. The cited article agrees with me that voter ID laws will not be effective in fighting election fraud. I stick by my smoke screen statement. Requiring ID limits the numbers and types of people voting. That is the intent. 2. My point here is that those on the side of democracy want as many citizens to vote as possible. Voter ID laws work against this ideal. The American way is to err on the side of preserving rights. Legitimate voters are disenfranchised. Republicans support voter ID laws and lie about (or--more often--fail to understand) the intent. 3. If the Republican party includes the liars referenced in #2--and it does--then this goal is not universally accepted within the GOP. I'm explicitly referring to the universal suffrage portion of my statement. The informed electorate portion would require a separate thread. Let's just say that I equate neoconservatism with lying for the purposes of precluding an informed electorate. Fox News is the embodiment of this tenet of neoconservatism. 4. Agreed with some of your comments. I was referring to limitations based upon the intent described in #1. States are closing picture ID sites (perhaps for legitimate budgetary reasons) while simultaneously forcing registered voters to visit these (now farther away) sites before utilizing a nearby polling place. States are charging for state IDs, with limited exemptions. My state, Michigan, exempts seniors and blind residents (I presume that they are groups considered less likely to need driver's licenses.) Anyone else is paying a poll tax. Traditional voter registration drive groups (think: the League of Women Voters) are being hampered by burdensome requirements in some states. These are not reasonable limitations, such as you cited. 1. I'm not contesting that voter ID laws by themselves will not work. That's pretty much a given. What I don't understand about your argument is how the issue is a smokescreen, and for what. As far as I can tell there are two extremes on the "control who votes/don't control who votes" argument: the "everyone can vote even if they don't even live in this country" side and the "only the 'elite' know what's best for this country" side. Personally, I'm of the belief that all law-abiding-citizens who are of age are eligible to cast their vote, and as far as I can tell, the majority of my party agrees with me. 2a. The point I was trying to get across is that saying that others cannot debate an issue or that the debate is over is almost the same as saying you're out of arguments and/or evidence. If I tried to pull a stunt like that during a debate tournament, any worthy opponents, intelligent varsity, and judges worth their salt would all jump down my throat at the same time. There is always a debate to be had. Fortunately, it seems you do have some good arguments to make. And yes, I'm a Republican on the side of democracy. Try not to have a heart attack now. 2b. If you're going to accuse someone (or in this case a large group of someones) of purposely lying, I'm going to have to invite you to prove it. Also, what exactly is the stated intent of voter ID laws, word for word? 3a. All parties have divisions within them. The only reason we have such large political parties is because smaller groups of people with different, but not opposing, political goals band together to get greater support (sort of a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" deal). Those groups do not necessarily see eye-to-eye on other issues. 3b. Have you ever actually watched Fox News? I don't mean just a few hours, but rather watched it over a longer period of time. I've heard others saying that main-stream media is nothing but lying super-liberals, but that does not mean I'm going to take it as fact (at least not without a very hefty dose of evidence to back up the claim). 4. So, I take it we agree on the proof of citizenship limitation then. It may be that voter ID laws are just an honest attempt to stop voter impersonation fraud with a bunch of unintended negative consequences attached (it does happen). I'd have to go find the arguments for and against it and look at the situations in context before forming an opinion though. (Well, that post only took over an hour to write )

Sigh *takes deep breath of clean air before plunging into discussion of politics* Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit Encouraging people to vote is where there is a sharp divide between left and right. Much of the the right operates out of fear, and wants to limit the numbers who vote. Voter impersonation fraud is a smoke screen used to cloud the issue. Okay, first of all I'm an admitted Republican, so that kind of hurt. I'll concede that both parties use fear to motivate their base; that's just the way politics is. However, if you're going to make the argument that voter fraud is a false issue I'm going to have to ask you to back that up. I did a little bit of digging (and I do mean little; it's 1:40 in the morning over here) and found a very interesting article that argues the opposite (note: the title of that article is not meant to be a be a slight against anyone, so please do not take it as such)(note2: I did find that article to be biased, but still found the argument to be valid). An interesting little factoid I found through that article is that in most states you don't even need to be a citizen of the United States of America to register to vote. Quote: The left is on the side of democracy, with little room for debate. In my modest experience, people who say that there's no debate on an issue are either so biased toward one side of the discussion that they do not want to hear the opposing side or are not educated enough to question what they have been told. I dearly hope you are neither. Quote: Universal suffrage, married to an informed electorate, is the goal. This is one of the goals of the Republican party as well. Quote: Limiting any of the following works against that goal: registration, access to polls, freedom of the press and freedom from censorship/control of communication, in general. There are such things as reasonable limitations for voter registration, such as requiring proof of citizenship (to prevent aliens from casting ballots they have no right to cast), requiring proof of residence (to prevent one state from influencing the democratic process of another state), and requiring a photo ID at a poll (which, IMHO, would help guard against voter impersonation). As for limitations of freedom of press and free speech, barring situations that cause significant harm to others, I agree with you.