General OoC discussion

I much prefer seeing the avatars, but agree that means more work.it could be something you do for reoccurring NPCs or important ones. If we just meet a turnip farmer and move on, he doesn't need a character sheet, but the class trainers make sense. Of course the downside is that an avatar then signifies an important NPC that maybe you don't want us to know is important. So in the end do what is easier for you.

I'll put in a counter-vote that I find the NPC thing a little confusing sometimes -- since I expect to see NPCs run through the GM portrait. But I don't care enough to have a strong opinion. :)

I don't have a strong opinion. If you want to put the effort in, go for it.

In my games I use NPC portraits only for NPCs that travel with the party (as it helps remind everyone periodically that they do have a 'follower' or 'guide' NPC in the group to be aware of and interact with).

I think what I'll do is a combination: I'll put the picture in the post when you first meet them (as I've already done). If, in the course of adventuring, you meet the NPC again, then I'll make a sheet and post as the character.

I should have added to what I said above that though I like post-as-NPC, I like in-post images even more! The avatars are sometimes too small to see and even if the character sheet is in the library it doesn't show the portrait anyway.

Personally I always try to make my first post in any game thread an introduction post with a PC portrait. My co-players will probably know my PC's background from character creation but anyone reading along will know nothing.

So yeah, awesome call, Spaceseeker! :-)

So, as we get closer to getting equipped and heading off on the expedition, I wonder how you each feel about side quests.

There are some mini-dungeons and side encounters that I have; I can easily provide hooks to them in this adventure, to provide opportunities for faster adventuring and/or easier XP. But I don't want to do so without checking in with you all first: how do you feel about additional quest material being added?

There's two reasons I like the idea:
1) they're fun, and
2) I've run several parties through this adventure, and none of them have completed it yet. I feel like anything that can help get to level 2 faster greatly improves chances of survival.

But I presented this as "module N1," not "N1 and a variety of other stuff." What do you think?

I'm up for anything. Honestly, not having read any of these modules (and forcing myself not to peek), it will all feel like one big campaign.

I'm totally fine with side quests, they're a fun diversion that give a sense of progression and accomplishment outside the main story

Yeah I'm up for anything! :-)

I'm fine with deviation from the module. I wouldn't even know it wasn't part of the core story if you didn't say anything.

Ibid!

Likewise. I'm happy with whatever.

OK, another logistics question: it's been more than a week since Biscuitfiend has posted on the site (that I've seen). I've been running his character, Morgran, as a particularly passive NPC.

Should I continue to run the one healer (not to discount our paladin) as an NPC until he returns (which might be a while, or could be never), or should I phase out the character and invite another player to join the game?

Biscuitfiend hasn't given direction or notice about vacation or anything that I've seen - have any of you read anything about it?
If I knew with certainty that he was coming back, I'd run Morgran as an NPC in the meantime without hesitation. But if he's not coming back, or if his absence will be extended...how long should I wait before I give another player a slot in the game?

His avatar hasn't got the "ZZZ" icon, although I can't recall if that's caused by a week w/o logging in or a week without posting.

In any case, I too have noticed his absence (I'm in one of his games, and he's in one of mine!). My approach has been to wait until a player goes "ZZZ" and then to recruit a replacement (and, if that player returns, I will just run a slightly bigger game and be more lax about temporary absences. In fact, I usually recruit 1 more player than I actually desire for a PbF game on the expectation that one player, on average, will be absent for a given arbitrary interval).

Maybe we could temporarily have him passed out on the floor.

Too much ale? Sure, that works.

Fascinating! I'd never noticed the "ZZZ" icon; I'd only seen people profiles that show a person as "Inactive," which shows up after a month of not logging in (I believe). I learn something new every day!

I think I may probe to see if there are still people interested in playing in a D&D5 game; I know Szemely expressed interest. I'll check with him first, before I open it up to the wider user base.

"Inactive" and "ZZZ" are the same - the "ZZZ" turns up beside the users avatar (but not in their profile, so you have to look at forum posts to see it). I think it might be 2 weeks... there's a thread about the feature in the news somewhere.

It might be worth it just to have an extra character floating around (as I said, I find it useful to have +1 character so that if someone drifts we don't have to stall).

Man, I'm so glad I as a player don't have a monk's vow of teetotalism. My dice will be the death of my liver at this rate.

Here's the post about the sleep ('zzz') icon.

My apologies - I'll be back in a day or two. GP kinda got forgotten about