Hey dudes,

The Reckless Dice crew has posted our second live play session, An Eye for an Eye: Session 1, at http://RecklessDice.Rorschach.net.

We send the surviving adventurerers from our first session, A Day Late, a Shiling Short off to Grunwald Lodge to do some investigatin'. Session 2, of 3 of this adventure will be available in the coming days and weeks.

We hope you enjoy.

We look forward to posting additional adventures and play sessions in the near future. We will be looking for new players to join our next adventures, if you are interested in playing remotely and trying out MapTools, let us know.

email us at: [email protected]

Game on!

Gitzman and the RDP crew

**note** This session still suffers from the glaring mistake to take toughness into account when mitigating damage. Session 2 and beyond will take it into account more accurately. Thanks for the feedback guys! Hopefully you enjoy the game despite the rules "adjustments". =)

Downloading the session now.

I actually thought I'd ask if I could join. So yeah, I'm interested but I think there's a "slight" time difference as I'm located in Sweden (UTC +01:00). Maybe we can work something out with the time, as I'd love to play with you.

I'll send you an e-mail.

Hey guys,

I have no problem playing with folks in different time zones (our crew is in GMT -8 (PST)), we've run a successful game with 3 Americans, 1 guy from England, 1 from France and another from further east. We just do our best to find a common time, usually on weekends, and have fun.

I am looking to collect a roster of folks who would like to participate over the next few weeks. We still have one session to wrap up this adventure with the current group before we go starting a new adventure.

Our criteria to join are pretty simple, but critical:

• Have a quality headset/mic
• Be able to play in a reasonably quiet area
• Be vocal and an enjoyable person to play with
• Skype Installed
• MapTools Installed (we are currently using v1.3b81 though this may change from time to time as new versions are released, check www.rptools.net)

What we do NOT require:

• Previous knowledge of using MapTools (i have no problem teaching)
• Previous knowledge of WFRP3 (i have no problem teaching)
• You do not need to download any of the campaign MapTools files from GitzmansGallery.com to play, only the GM needs those.
• You do not need a premade character though you can have one if you like and we'll make a token for you when you join up.

Thats about it =)

New players welcome, we just want to have some fun with a wicked cool game system.

Gitzman and the RDP crew.

Listened to session 1 and it was fun but in my oppinion the sound quality was lower than in session 1. For example when you (Gitzman) talked it came from the left earpice while the others came from the right. Maybe this was intended but in my oppinion it was harder to hear what people said when listening.

As for the criteria to join. I might have to go shopping for a better headset. But we could try my old one first (feels stupid to buy a new one if the old one is good enough). Allt the other criteria should not be a problem but I could use some MapTools teaching I guess.

Hey Gitzman

First of all you weren't lying when you called that super huge detailed map of the old world the super huge detailed map of the old world. It sure is super huge and detailed. Wow.

Second of all great podcast, I like the format of regular episodes and then played sessions. It's a good way of breaking up it up and discussing the mechanics and lore one week and then demonstrating them in play the next. The fact that it's third edition exclusive is even better (as it's the only one I own)

Third. I don't think you guys are dealing damage correctly. When someone is hit the damage is deducted from the targets toughness plus soak, not soak alone. This would explain the high mortality rate of both pc and baddies and your near party wipe last session. Suddenly those beastman don't seem so frail anymore as though they have poor soak they have better than most toughness.

You guys should post some screenshots.

jh

Thanks. As I felt my group's session of 'An Eye for an Eye' went a little... strangely, I'm looking foward to hearing this!

My group just wrapped up "An Eye for an Eye" so I finally go to listen to this session - another great podcast. I really enjoy learning how other players tackle WFRP adventures, especially those with an investigative bent, and how different GMs roleplay their NPCs and interact with the characters. Please keep it up!

Oh, one small thing... Because it's "German", I believe Sister's Sonja's name is pronounced "Sonya", with the "J" sounding like a "Y" in English.

Yipe,

You are probably right about the German stuff. I tend to have a problem remembering to pronounce things that way, and usually dont remember to until long afterwards lol.

I'm glad you guys are enjoying the sessions. Our Eye for and Eye seems to be turning out quite interesting so far (check Session 2) which is live on iTunes and http://recklessdice.rorschach.net. We should be wrapping up that adventure in the next session, which we will likely record this coming weekend.

Thanks again for all the great support and feedback.

Side Note: We are recording episode 4 of The Reckless Dice Podcast tomorrow evening. Submit any questions or comments you would like to have discussed on the show to: [email protected]

Gitzman.

Emirikol said:

another great idea from Emirikol (maybe on the reckless podcast's blog ?).

I think we will be playing again this weekend so i'll take a few shots during the session and post them here on the forums.

Gitz

Thanks, Great GMing Gitzman. That must be hard to create a RP mood through internet and skype. I like how you interpreted more and more your NPCs (I'm a First person guy ).

I dont dare pretend to be an expert GM, but i am trying and experimenting with new styles. It seems to really be one of those things you get better at the more you do it and the more interaction you get from your players.

Gitz

Its been sometime since I was last a player in a game and hence my apprehension with first person rpging. I'm super glad that I got a chance to play a bit, thanks for that Gitzman!, and in the future I'll try my best to "put the character on" as it were. You know Ham it up a wee bit.

Can't wait for further episodes!

Gitzman said:

I just finished listening to session 2 of Eye for an Eye. I have to say I was a bit surprised at the sheer number of misfortune and challenge dice applied to PC rolls in the stable encounter.

In one instance, you asked for the player to roll two challenge dice and three misfortune dice on a roll to talk Albrecht and Hans out of a fight. I could see 2 challenge because the argument is heated and maybe 1 misfortune because their focus was on eachother, but I didn't understand why add 3 misfortune instead of just 1. Going forward, could you explain during the podcast the reason for additional misfortune dice beyond one (Did Hans or Albrecht have a willpower higher than the bright mage's? Was the bright wizard's willpower in distress?) I guess a little more information would help to explain this to the listeners who can't see what's going on.

There was a similar issue when the Bright Mage cast Fiery Passion to intimidate Hans and Albrecht into stopping their argument. When she cast the spell you added 2 challenge dice and 3 misfortune dice on a roll I'm not sure was even necessary to see if the stable burned down. Does the description of the spell indicate nearby flammable items have a chance of catching fire? (sorry, don't have my cards handy while writing this.)

I also have a suggestion for instances where one of the players attempts to tackle the fleeing Albrecht. I think the perform a stunt action would have been good there instead of winging the roll. You could have used the character's strength or agility pitted against the strength or agility of the target.

Just some suggestions for thought. I may be wrong on some of these since I currently don't have my book handy to reference.

Please just take these as helpful suggestions as I really do enjoy the podcast and hope you guys keep it up.

Thanks very much for putting your time and effort into entertaining the rest of us!

Nice suggestions.

I will try to give a little more detail into why i choose certain numbers of Challenge and Misfortune dice going forward. But to be honest, as a GM i dont always want my players to know where some of these infuences are coming from. There can be times when there are a variety of obvious influences which give white and black dice, but there are plot driven things that have not come to light, like motivations, mutations, etc. which could additionally influence the foll and players will just have to 'take it'.

But then again, on the other hand, i do like to just wing it a bit for the gerneral feeling of how the encounter is going and how hard i want to make the roll. In the particular instance in the barn, I was faced with a scenario where as a GM, i was feeling the PCs were having a hard time getting the adventure conflicts going so i wanted to weight the rolls a bit to make sure something dramatic would happen.

Regarding the fire spells igniting nearby debris, i think you are correct in that the card does not say anything about lighting stuff on fire, i just thought it would add some potential conflict or comic releif if somethign were to happen lol =).

Love the feedback!

We just recorded Reckless Dice: Episode 4 last night, should be going live tonight. Keep an eye out.

Game on!

Gitzman

You where adding misfortune dice based on the opposing characteristic I think, so in the talks you added 3 black for intelligence of 3 on the opposing charecter. This is not a real rule so was guessing it was a house rule? Opposed checks are meant to only add purple dice foe the difficulty, of course black dice can always be added for many different reasons.

I was going at it from a similar but different approach, which may just be an unofficial house rule in my head lol.

I approached it from the perspective you outlined (1 purple and a few black), but also took into account the added difficulty of the task beyond 'all things being equal'. So if a task was normal, or easy you might use 0 or 1 Challenge Dice; hard, 2 Challenge Dice, very hard, 3 Challenge Dice, etc. So taking both of those concepts into account i came at it as a hard opposed check, not a normal opposed check.

May not be right, but made sense in my head and worked well in the flow of things. =)

Gitz

This podcast is outstanding. I recommend it for anyone who's interested in the game.