POLL: Do you want to have a PLAYER ONLY session 0 for introductions? If all goes as planned, i dont want you talking about or looking at each others characters until right before kick off.
RESULTS = 5 of 7/71% said yes.
– There will be a player session 0. In side conversations there have been no definitive assertion that it should be sooner to resolve any issues beforehand rather than just before campaign launch.
POLL: Because you are all grabasstic non-committal players (you know, normal ones), i’ll just do a poll for PLAYER session 0 timing for you. Timing for PLAYER ONLY session 0. Soon – To finalize backstory options; Right before campaign start; Both – Resolve key issues, answer GM issue right before.
RESULTS = BOTH (4 votes of 6, 67%)
FYI – STARTING POINT CHECK: 1 = East, the party will start off the east shore of Lake Caolite, rowing in a boat.
ONLINE: Someone click the link, open the meeting and make sure everyone at the table can be heard by everyone else: https://discord.gg/GBP6GdE5?event=1392627654703972402
“They’ll be enough shared trauma to justify cohesion. Role-playing going forward is really what’s going to determine cohesion. The last group frankly kind of sucked at cohesion. If it’s something you guys want to meet about, maybe you should start a separate thread and put a meeting together. You could use discord conferencing to find an hour where everybody could at least connect to a shared voice chat. If you guys want to do that, let me know and I will phrase the issue in a way that I as a game master need an answer for. Or just wait until player session zero?”
Proposed Group Oath: CAN YOU ABIDE BY GROUP LOYALTY OATH?
= “Together we are stronger than the sum of our parts.”
All must state their Alignment chosen from: https://imgur.com/gallery/palladium-alignments-DmKvb and make sure there will be no conflicts. Discuss and inform the GM of any changes to make sure group cohesion will not suffer. Even if your alignment actions don’t apply to “the group”, taking actions on those outside the group may trigger other players to respond – make sure this wont happen or agree to non lethal levels of addressing differences – as a GM, I will force inconsistencies to collide.
Quartermaster: Is there going to be a policy on collected treasure? If so, document it. Take into account the eventual cost of the Baggage Train. Shared Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13JTV9JOrvPFDpKuHT2uVPdxNdZ91Fl0gaRm6kSSmo7s/edit?tab=t.0
Kelly Berger’s Gaming Contract for Players, under “NEW GAME GROUP OPTIONS” – SPEND THE GROUP POINTS > scroll down to GROUP POINT PURCHASES..; Due to the selections made as a group, you will have 20 group points to spend on starting “things” (extra character weaves, better weapon each, etc.) to give you an edge. I am considering just having you spend them on a MAJOR Baggage Train (all 20 points). This would solve a few issues that face some of your characters – selective digestion, the need to process prisoners humanely, some portable healing each short rest, etc.My feedback is that the overall approach of a player only session zero may be too much (first time i ever tried it) – at least its not a universal approach. Without a figure of authority to end on time and keep focused, it can too easily get distracting. Here is what i understand was decided: All alignments picked (and noted exceptions as i posted on character sheets), stand (no one sent me changes). Group leadership is some sort of round robin endeavor – there is no real or consistent command authority. In some situations, the person with the most knowledge steps in to try to make a decision. That’s it, those were the decisions. “The basics” of the bullet point oath i put forward is ok… to me, that’s not a ringing endorsement so i’m not going to use it. If you want to abide by it, it’s up to you, but I won’t count it as a sworn oath. That would be an oath you make and you swear to later. I believe it was the right decision not to ask you guys to decide on a central theme.
As a group, you can come up with a main theme or plot thread if you can come up with a unanimous one. As long as it does not conflict with some of the already laid out campaign notes, I’ll implement it. Having an alternative one (also unanimous) as a fallback in case the first one does conflict is good. Maybe get creative with the water association in some way. Otherwise, I have a couple of secondary plot threads I have written, and if you cannot come up with one, or just prefer me to do it, I’ll implement the first large starting plot thread.
EXAMPLE: The theme is JUSTICE; Each character will be seeking out injustice and working to rectify it in the way they see fit. The group will be expected to support each other in this over-arching goal, regardless of personal qualms, it becomes a main point of alignment/code definition. For each major Justice issue resolved, the group will receive CP = avg Proficiency Bonus, to save/distribute as they see fit.
Outcome: I have a central theme and we will be using that. That theme is INSANITY.
Alignments: It was generally agreed that loyalty to the group is part of everyone’s personal code and supersedes other personal desires. Most of the group seems like they will not have immediate or drastic conflicts, and those who have the most contrary viewpoints/motivations did not balk at mitigating the worst of it through their roleplay rather than being antagonistic.
Disputes/Leadership: There was no central leader or chain of command declared. Most of the group wanted to have whoever was the most “Expert” in a given situation settle any disputes and make decisions. In the case of there not being a clear expert, conflict of interest or other reason for heavy dispute then it will be resolved by group vote. In the case of a tie vote there will be a designated ‘tiebreaker’ for the session that will rotate every session so everyone has their opportunity. Being absent from a session eliminates you from any voting that session and if it was your turn as the tie breaker you are skipped until the next rotation.
Inventory: Management and tracking handled by ben. The initial proposition that was loosely agreed upon was that 50% of all wealth (Coin, jewelry, trade goods, etc….) will be divided with 50% going into a group pool and 50% being divided into equal shares amongst party members. Adventuring gear, weapons, armor and magical equipment will be distributed based on who can put it to best use for the group.
Group oath: retaining the proposed group oath inherited from Asil was agreed upon. Most agreed that it was likely the group would be changing and adapting as time moved on and we encountered the world without our deceased captain. It was understood that if the oath was changed in the future it would most likely be the alteration of the first point: “Duty to brotherhood, faith, nobility, guild, and law… but loyalty to The Foundlings first and always”. The other three, “In battle and beyond, back your companions move – later is the time to question and remand”, “Make no plans that do not involve informing the group for their approval”, “My loyalty is my honor”, no one felt it was likely we would ever abandon or change.
I (Arabus) currently do not recall any other points that were agreed upon. Please point them out if I’m missing anything.
I will be running the next session Zero and resolving issues.