Talk:Search for the lost Temple - Revision history

Stephen: Text replacement - "â€˜" to "'"

2024-02-08T19:53:04Z

Text replacement - "â€˜" to "'"

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:53, 8 February 2024
Line 38:		Line 38:
	I was misunderstanding that (Newtonian) was an indication of from the GM along these lines. <br>		I was misunderstanding that (Newtonian) was an indication of from the GM along these lines. <br>

	I was thinking before it was more an equally balanced force, leading to nothing, meaning you could do nothing to create a positive outcome (from players point of view). I also through it could mean that the world would be very forgiving not allowing you to ~~â€˜foolishly~~' hurt yourself. Such as NPCs always fixing mistakes, or bailing the party out of problems they have gotten themselves into - that sort of thing. <br>		I was thinking before it was more an equally balanced force, leading to nothing, meaning you could do nothing to create a positive outcome (from players point of view). I also through it could mean that the world would be very forgiving not allowing you to 'foolishly' hurt yourself. Such as NPCs always fixing mistakes, or bailing the party out of problems they have gotten themselves into - that sort of thing. <br>

	This is why I was asking. I now understand it to be something different.<br>		This is why I was asking. I now understand it to be something different.<br>

Stephen: Text replacement - "â€“" to "-"

2024-02-08T19:53:02Z

Text replacement - "â€“" to "-"

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:53, 8 February 2024
Line 38:		Line 38:
	I was misunderstanding that (Newtonian) was an indication of from the GM along these lines. <br>		I was misunderstanding that (Newtonian) was an indication of from the GM along these lines. <br>

	I was thinking before it was more an equally balanced force, leading to nothing, meaning you could do nothing to create a positive outcome (from players point of view). I also through it could mean that the world would be very forgiving not allowing you to â€˜foolishly' hurt yourself. Such as NPCs always fixing mistakes, or bailing the party out of problems they have gotten themselves into ~~â€“~~ that sort of thing. <br>		I was thinking before it was more an equally balanced force, leading to nothing, meaning you could do nothing to create a positive outcome (from players point of view). I also through it could mean that the world would be very forgiving not allowing you to â€˜foolishly' hurt yourself. Such as NPCs always fixing mistakes, or bailing the party out of problems they have gotten themselves into - that sort of thing. <br>

	This is why I was asking. I now understand it to be something different.<br>		This is why I was asking. I now understand it to be something different.<br>

Stephen: Text replacement - "â€™" to "'"

2024-02-08T18:46:32Z

Text replacement - "â€™" to "'"

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:46, 8 February 2024
Line 34:		Line 34:
	Please don't get me wrong I am asking as I at first did not understand what was meant but it.<br>		Please don't get me wrong I am asking as I at first did not understand what was meant but it.<br>

	Sort of but normally a level is an indication of what the GM thinks the game would be best suited too, and make for a fun game. So if you see a Low level you can/should generally take a low level character on it, so you ~~donâ€™t~~ spoil the game for others - IMHO. <br>		Sort of but normally a level is an indication of what the GM thinks the game would be best suited too, and make for a fun game. So if you see a Low level you can/should generally take a low level character on it, so you don't spoil the game for others - IMHO. <br>

	I was misunderstanding that (Newtonian) was an indication of from the GM along these lines. <br>		I was misunderstanding that (Newtonian) was an indication of from the GM along these lines. <br>

	I was thinking before it was more an equally balanced force, leading to nothing, meaning you could do nothing to create a positive outcome (from players point of view). I also through it could mean that the world would be very forgiving not allowing you to ~~â€˜foolishlyâ€™~~ hurt yourself. Such as NPCs always fixing mistakes, or bailing the party out of problems they have gotten themselves into â€“ that sort of thing. <br>		I was thinking before it was more an equally balanced force, leading to nothing, meaning you could do nothing to create a positive outcome (from players point of view). I also through it could mean that the world would be very forgiving not allowing you to â€˜foolishly' hurt yourself. Such as NPCs always fixing mistakes, or bailing the party out of problems they have gotten themselves into â€“ that sort of thing. <br>

	This is why I was asking. I now understand it to be something different.<br>		This is why I was asking. I now understand it to be something different.<br>

NeonGraal at 23:27, 10 June 2006

2006-06-10T23:27:23Z

New page

= Date change! =
As I'll be on my way to South Africa on the evening of the 12th, we'll start one week late.

[[User:NeonGraal|Struan]] 17:26, 9 Jun 2006 (NZST)
----
Level: Medium + (Newtonian)

What is this.
--[[User:Jono Bean|Jono Bean]] 14:07, 17 May 2006 (NZST)

----

see http://www.scienceaid.co.uk/forcesandmovement.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtons_laws though generally I mean the third law applies.

the world will push back with about as much force as the party applies

[[User:NeonGraal|Struan]] 15:31, 17 May 2006 (NZST)
----

Umm ok so I should stay at the guild then, and do nothing as no matter how fast I walk to Seagate it will allways be a 'walking distance away'? sort of like that then? 

--[[User:Jono Bean|Jono Bean]] 15:24, 18 May 2006 (NZST)

----

Don't adventures normally 'push back' with '''about''' the same 'force' as the party can potentially apply (using a wide definition of force)? That's the point, isn't it? If the party performs significantly below their potential, then they should fail (or 'succeed' while acquiring penalties).

--[[User:ErrolC|Errol]] 16:13, 18 May 2006 (NZST)

----

Please don't get me wrong I am asking as I at first did not understand what was meant but it. 

Sort of but normally a level is an indication of what the GM thinks the game would be best suited too, and make for a fun game. So if you see a Low level you can/should generally take a low level character on it, so you donâ€™t spoil the game for others - IMHO. 

I was misunderstanding that (Newtonian) was an indication of from the GM along these lines. 

I was thinking before it was more an equally balanced force, leading to nothing, meaning you could do nothing to create a positive outcome (from players point of view). I also through it could mean that the world would be very forgiving not allowing you to â€˜foolishlyâ€™ hurt yourself. Such as NPCs always fixing mistakes, or bailing the party out of problems they have gotten themselves into â€“ that sort of thing. 

This is why I was asking. I now understand it to be something different. 

--[[User:Jono Bean|Jono Bean]] 01:05, 19 May 2006 (NZST) 

----

Hi Jono,

I've used the ''Newtonian'' adv level as a descriptor before -- somewhat in jest, and somewhat seriously. I've generally used it when there are various approaches to a problem and depending on what the party wants to do (what their abilities are, and what approach they favour) the level may change.

Sneaking around and being subtle might only rate a ''medium'' on the standard scale, but if the party decide to kick in the front door the level could escalate badly.

[[User:Martin|Martin Dickson]] 13:29, 19 May 2006 (NZST)

----

=The Party=

=Party Numbers=

We appear to be 7 all of a sudden. I am not so keen on larger parties and I am aware that Jon will not play with 7 in a party. So I will drop out to make room.

[[User:Mandos|Mandos]] 10:07, 28 May 2006 (NZST)

----

Nope, I've talked to Jo and whilst she does want an adventure as she can't make it to the Meeting, she's happy to pull out.

[[User:NeonGraal|Struan]] 23:11, 28 May 2006 (NZST)
----

We'll put Jo back in as well as Mandos. Reason being we can decide who's in at the guild meeting since people may drop out before then due to work / other game commitments (but we hope not).

[[User:Chris|Chris]] 23:17, 28 May 2006 (NZST)
----
Chris,

Whilst numbers is a consideration for some of the players, my main concern (as GM :) ) is party spread. Whilst I know that Amber and Mortimer are very different wiccans, we also have Graaven as well, and he's your only dwarf :)

[[User:NeonGraal|Struan]] 11:45, 29 May 2006 (NZST)
----

I think we are better having a planned 6 and then recruiting an additional one or two should they be required. Far better than having a confirmed 7 and then kicking someone out.

[[User:Mandos|Mandos]] 11:49, 29 May 2006 (NZST)
----

I dont think I will be able to play in this game after all, as the Lunar Games, game is turning out to a huge amount of work. I will have to see how it goes. I expect this will also impact on Jon McSpadden also. 

--[[User:Jono Bean|Jono Bean]] 12:13, 30 May 2006 (NZST)

----

I am defecting to Dean's OZ game. Was keen to play in this one but OZ is much more Dramus's style :-)

[[User:Mandos|Mandos]] 22:18, 5 Jun 2006 (NZST)
----
I have removed Martin as I believe he is also planning on moving to Dean's game due to level considerations. While this needs to be clarified by Martin I noticed the game was advertised as full on the Guild meeting page and thought it best to correct ASAP.

If I am incorrect I apologise.

[[User:Mandos|Mandos]] 12:47, 9 Jun 2006 (NZST)

* Thanks Mandos. Yes, confirmed with Dean last night. -- [[User:Martin|Martin Dickson]] 17:29, 9 Jun 2006 (NZST)
----

Unfortunately Gordon is unable to Play on Monday nights, and it is my bad for having forgotten this.

[[User:NeonGraal|Struan]] 11:27, 11 Jun 2006 (NZST)
----