Heroica RPG General Discussion

[Scubacarrot]

I would suggest an action but my character is knocked out, so I'm not going to interfere with the battle until that is concluded. The QMs made a call.

[Kintobor]

Also, my internet seems to be working again, so yeah!

[Waterbrick Down]

I'm CERTAIN that there is a rule which states that the party leader is supposed to decide a hero's action if they do not post, the hero does not automatically do nothing.

There is no set rule and is slightly dependent on QM. Generally a player will designate another player (most of the time the Party Leader) to act for them should they think they will be inactive. A note was posted in one of the earlier rounds that rounds would be run every 24 hrs and for players to designate someone to decide on actions for their character if they thought they would be unable to post in that allotted time.

[Sandy]

If a player doesn't post and has not given control of their character to someone else, I usually make them either repeat their previous action, or, if seems unfair in the current situation, just have them do nothing.

I don't like to give the Party Leader an automatic say over everyone's actions because that could lead into quests where the PL is the only active player and the others just coast along.

[Endgame]

...Welp, I mispelled Heroica in the title of 97.

Would a mod be able to help me out here, please?

[Capt.JohnPaul]

Apparently Endgame types words as fast as he writes them in that notebook of his. Oh wait, I thought Endgame was a computer?

[Kintobor]

Apparently Endgame types words as fast as he writes them in that notebook of his. Oh wait, I thought Endgame was a computer?

I thought we came to the consensus that Endgame had managed to manifest himself into the physical world. He's like Skynet, but instead of wanting to take over the world and kill all of humanity, he wants to take over the Heroica forum and kill, or seriously mentally scar all the heroes.

[Cutcobra]

Endgame, or as his people The Computers liked to call him, "01000101 01101110 01100100 01100111 01100001 01101101 01100101".

I think Endgames purpose in this world is to destroy all humanity... by making boss fights.

[Endgame]

You're starting to sound like my real-life group of friends, except they say I'm from the future/past/an android.

Seriously, though, I'm baffled how I made such a huge mistake - the only other mishap i can recall is Dannylonglegs spelling Brendenton wrong.

[Brickdoctor]

...Welp, I mispelled Heroica in the title of 97.

Would a mod be able to help me out here, please?

Got it.

[JimBee]

If a player doesn't post and has not given control of their character to someone else, I usually make them either repeat their previous action, or, if seems unfair in the current situation, just have them do nothing.

I don't like to give the Party Leader an automatic say over everyone's actions because that could lead into quests where the PL is the only active player and the others just coast along.

What happened to the good old days of booting a player for inactivity? Maybe it sounds harsh but as QM I'd be pretty peeved if half of my party was consistently absent without warning.

[Zepher]

Sometimes it is too late in the quest. I've actually never booted a player, but I did in the previous battle threaten to not give them experience, and that seemed to work well, actually. It is certainly the "warning" method I will use from now on! And, of course, I understand life getting in the way - if a player gives control of a character to the PL with an explanation, that should never be penalized!

[JimBee]

if a player gives control of a character to the PL with an explanation, that should never be penalized!

Of course, I totally agree. But if a player just disappears for an extended period of time without warning... I dunno, I think that's probably reason enough to find a replacement. People's lives get busy unexpectedly, but if they're too busy to check in regularly or even just say that they'll be out for a while, it'd be worse to have a party member just along for the ride. Let them join another quest when they find the time to.

I don't mean that to be directed at anyone in particular or to sound mean, I just think it's the fairest thing to do. I do like the compromise you made in your quest, Zeph, I'm just saying that if that's what it takes to get people to play the game, that it'd be better for them to just take some time off rather than struggle to participate and hold up progress of the quest in the long run.

[Chromeknight]

I think the more crucial thing with player absences is not the battles but the role-play.

It doesn't take five brains to figure a good use of skills, items and actions during combat.

But a back and forth between characters only works if players are present and engaged.

(Engaged beyond 'I repeat' actions in battle).

[Sandy]

What happened to the good old days of booting a player for inactivity?

I've had to do that once or twice as well, but I'd like to reserve that as a last resort if the inactivity continues.

I think the more crucial thing with player absences is not the battles but the role-play.

That's true, but from a QM's perspective activity in battles gets more emphasis.

[CMP]

That's true, but from a QM's perspective activity in battles gets more emphasis.

Not in my own opinion. I bring heroes usually for their character, not their build.

[UsernameMDM]

Not in my own opinion. I bring heroes usually for their character, not their build.

I think Sandy means quick responses in battle that do not hold up the quest are ideal to QMs.

[CMP]

I think Sandy means quick responses in battle that do not hold up the quest are ideal to QMs.

I think he meant that he considers responses in battle more important than just the party interacting with themselves/NPCs. While I've observed battles do tend to give a shot in the arm to relatively inactive PCs, I personally would prefer heroes who consider roleplaying just as important as keeping up with battles.

[Flipz]

I think the more crucial thing with player absences is not the battles but the role-play.

It doesn't take five brains to figure a good use of skills, items and actions during combat.

But a back and forth between characters only works if players are present and engaged.

(Engaged beyond 'I repeat' actions in battle).

I do think part of that has to do with the way battles tend to drag out these days--not to excuse or condone the player absences, of course, I just think it's a factor. Those and battles that get too complex ("I follow [player]'s plan") seem to be big triggers for lack of engagement.

I think he meant that he considers responses in battle more important than just the party interacting with themselves/NPCs. While I've observed battles do tend to give a shot in the arm to relatively inactive PCs, I personally would prefer heroes who consider roleplaying just as important as keeping up with battles.

Agreed, but I think it's both, really. When you get to the point that all of your activity is "I repeat" or "I follow [player]'s orders", you're engaging in grind rather than gameplay. Contrary to what it may seem, roleplay does not mean "four pages of single-spaced paragraphs"--a simple, relevant in-character comment or gesture along with your battle action tells both the QM and your fellow players that yes, you are paying attention to the Quest, and yes, you are engaged with the Quest. I think that's why Tensi, for example, remains one of the more well-defined personalities in Heroica in spite of Pep M not having a lot of time to post.

[Flare]

I agree with what Flipz has to say and in addition - seriously, battles are too drawn out nowadays. It should not take weeks or even more than a month for a battle to drag out. It is challenging for the patience and discouraging for the roleplay. What is needed is more short but quality battles, where creative thinking is needed but the battle doesn't need to last for so many rounds. Does anyone remember the days when an average battle was two-three rounds (read two-three days), and boss battles took less time than your normal "easy" battles in nowadays quests?? This issue really irritates me even though there is not much to be done about it.

[Kintobor]

The Count Von Zarovitch Battle was designed with that in mind. It only lasted six rounds, and I meant it to be tough, but still doable. Enemies with lower health but higher attack power seems to work for me.

[Endgame]

I've been downsizing, as well. Most of my non-climatic battles are now planned to be 6-8 rounds, max.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Endgame

[Flipz]

I just noticed, there doesn't seem to be much decent backwear out there--the vast majority is suited only to Mages and Clerics. Hybros' Red Assassin cloak and my own Cloak of Deception are pretty much the only non-Ether-based backwears out there. I mean, there was the Cobweb Cloak that Elphaba sold, but there's no guarantee it'll be back again, and it's kind of niche anyway--actually, come to think of it, all of the backwear artifacts are.

[Waterbrick Down]

I just noticed, there doesn't seem to be much decent backwear out there--the vast majority is suited only to Mages and Clerics. Hybros' Red Assassin cloak and my own Cloak of Deception are pretty much the only non-Ether-based backwears out there. I mean, there was the Cobweb Cloak that Elphaba sold, but there's no guarantee it'll be back again, and it's kind of niche anyway--actually, come to think of it, all of the backwear artifacts are.

Quivers are backwear as are the travelling cloaks.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Waterbrick Down

[Brickdoctor]

I mean, there was the Cobweb Cloak that Elphaba sold, but there's no guarantee it'll be back again, and it's kind of niche anyway[...]

It was also kind of overpriced, I think. A thousand Gold for something you'll only use against some bosses, and which you probably wouldn't leave constantly equipped until a pretty high Level.