The Two Barons (OOC)

So the mayor asked us to 'talk' to the barons. But also is planning on kidnapping her. (Daughter of the Baron possibly)
This kinda gets in the way of each other.

Unless we let the resistance take 'her'
And we bring 'her' back, that should give us some credit. And maybe a way to convince the baron to burry the hatchet.


Or am I misreading anything?

After edit. I should have used ' in cahoots' somewhere. Always wanted to use that word.😁

Probably. But that is not your fault, everyone is acting as though they all know what everyone else is up to, so there are not many explanations going round. It does sound like all these things will get in each other's way.

While it is not clear, you don't really get the impression of 'kidnap' when Olaf says 'go in and get her', but that is still possibly what they have planned. Let's add that idea as a more concrete reality.

The mayor did not seem to care how you went about resolving the barons problem. 'Talking' was your plan.

You could also interpret it as the baron having kidnapped someone (Or something? ;) Some refer to cars as 'her') and they are taking 'her' back.

Thanks!
I'll add more if I feel the need to.

Alea iacta est.

Since the mayor instigated the attack, he cannot blame us if things go south (in dealing with the baron)
I say we join the attack and pick up the pieces afterwards in a diplomatic way.

Anyone a better suggestion?

excusatio non petita accusatio manifesta?
Nope. :)

What do these peasants have as weapons and armor? Any makeshift shields and such?

Hunting bows and farming hoes? Pitchforks and torches? Some might say 'nothing'.
Thick clothing? Leather aprons?
Sure, clumsy boards and wagon wheels? Bales of hay?

@fossball
This post looks like something you'd need to roll for.
The way I usually do it is, if it's something that I think would require a roll. I would word it with "tries to..." and "hoping...".
To use your action as an example:
Something like that explains what you want to do, but it doesn't make it a fact. So based on your roll it can still go both ways.

I'm not sure which stat I'd assign to this action though. But since most of your stats have a +1, and I'm pretty sure it's not +STR, any stat will do ;)

It's a balancing act, don't worry about pushing it too far, that is the best way to find the boundaries. We can always dial it back next time, or, if it comes to it, go back and edit the post to remove anything too out there.

There was a lot in that post. It is not a problem, but I might have broken it up a bit to allow time to see how each step went. For instance:
Upon reading that convincing argument I was inclined to have the guard run away. Now, with them injured in the arm, they are definitely going to get out of here, so you achieved that goal, but you did also make an enemy in the process, so... swings and roundabouts? Rolling the dice on this may have given you better or worse outcomes, so it balances out.
I won't ever (never say 'ever', there might be extreme circumstances where anything can happen) take you Pet away, it is part of your character, but the more you use it as a weapon, the more you risk it getting hurt. You might lose the use of the dog for a bit, but that creates cool stories, which can be fun.

Is there some kind of "thinking" roll? To get a better read on what's going on. As a player I'm a bit stumped, but it's more about my character's brain being able to understand.

Can we get a bit of a map on this situation? A rough drawing with the immediate area would do. I'm not sure which gate has been breached. At first I thought it was a gate to a meadow, but then there was mention of guards above the gate. So is it a castle?

Your characters did not do anything to try to work out what was going on. In fact they deliberately played along with the resistance's assumption that they were 'in the know', thus confirming their involvement.

Therefore, your characters are even more confused than you are, so they probably can not do any roll to work out what is happening until you take serious action to do so. They do definitely know that something is not right, that there is confusion within the resistance about what is happening, and that this attack might be... let's say 'ill considered'.

Either this farmer is lying to you --and you can see no reason why he would-- or they are confused about what is going on here.
Obviously ask any OOC questions to get the players clear about the situation. But currently the situation is that your characters are confused. I can clarify what they know, but if they want to clear up their confusion they will need to work for it.

---

You only know about your gate, the other (front) gate is on the other side of the buildings, so you can not know how things fair over there.
Exactly.
Single guard, gone now.
The palisade fence looks new and makeshift, similar to what the village had. The gate looks similar too. It looks like these were built a little before the village did their's, but it is still just a wooden fence around the manor house (some might say that that is how castles are born?).

The guard was sitting on nothing more than a platform that let them look over the fence to the outside. You know for sure that there they left since you can see the whole platform.

There is no one on this side that is threatening you. All the action (and attention) is focused on the other side.

---

Sorry it is confusing, but the characters actively avoided learning anything, so things have spiraled around them.

Hope that helps. Ask as many questions as you all need.

No worries :) I know it's not deliberate. The info about the palisade makes things much clearer now :)
That's definitely true. That's mostly due to the fact that it didn't seem like a situation where we are in a position to come across as clueless. We are trying to get the resistance on our side, which it looks like they already are right now.

I did try to ask more info about the attack in a "I'm not clueless" kind of way. But the answers to that just raised even more questions :P

And then the attack started, so the time for questions is now gone. Then again, I don't think we could have changed the course of action. It was too late for that already.

That's why I thought, maybe Albert can take some time to reflect on the different pieces of info he's gotten and get a clearer view of what's likely going on.

You have a moment of quiet now. This courtyard is a place you could use for contemplating... but events will progress without you.

Sounds good. I might do that. ty :)

Thank you for all the advise. I often feel uncertain when it is "my turn" to add to the story. I will keep my posts shorter and will try to get a feel for when a roll is needed.

Norbert will go trough hell for his dog. I as a player would be OK with losing the dog, I don't mind my character becoming weaker. Especially if it were my own fault, not if he were hit by lightning :)

I really enjoy the game, the plottwist that is unfolding is great. The comment from the man who got hit by the bolt gave me goosebumps. Keep it up guys.

Good to know. We would discuss it first and make sure everyone is alright with such things.
Agreed. "Rocks fall, you die" is seldom fun for anyone.
Since it is part of the character's fundamental makeup, I would usually have some way to regain that 'strength'. Pets can be replaced with other pets, but that would require time and effort.

Mechanically the Pet has no HP or anything like that, so any 'damage' would be handled in the fiction. If Norbert takes HP damage, you can always narrate some of that as being from the dog if it makes sense, or we can just assume the dog is about as hurt as Norbert is, or we can leave the dog out of such things if people are squeamish about seeing animals get hurt. The player can choose on a case by case basis.
I figured as much. I would be more inclined towards creating a situation where Norbert and the dog can get to roleplay some trauma rather than simply hurting the dog for mechanical reasons. Your putting your pet at risk could result in her becoming timid or scared, or ceasing to trust you, then you would need to spend some time rebuilding that relationship. Albert has his god which has similar story-prospects, the player and their actions/choices would shape how much these things come into play.

I got invited to use DALL-E, and generated some images of the 3 of us:I tried to add a palisade, but that didn't turn out well. :)

This is not DnD. Splitting parties is mainly a problem there due to the way encounters are 'balanced' based on the assumption of party size, and the clumsy mechanics around hit point attrition and sudden death.

Any fighting here is optional, and you don't need to engage in combat unless you choose to. There is very little resistance to The Resistance.

Who specifically is Roald talking about here? Who does he term 'the one in charge' and which 'other two'?