I am having to look at myself as a time traveler in this D&D experience.  I didn't have a big interest in Rome before the game and have to admit I don't really like it now that I'm living there.  It is brutal, conceited, and rude.  And it is kind of annoying having those who are enamored by it constantly telling me that my character WOULDN'T do this or that because that isn't how it is in ROME.  So, I'm having a difficult time, it seems, "with the moral codes of the ancient world."  I am learning a lot about Rome (or at least some peoples opinion of how Rome was), but I really just wanna play D&D. 


The last session was fun for me, however, even though I was the character on the receiving end of the mortal wounding.  It felt like the best D&D games I've played in since I first purchased the Blue Expert edition when I was in 5th grade.  I had fun because I took my character on an adventure of his own without regard for the boring boat trip the “party” was currently undertaking.  I'm a thief and a magic user who FINALLY got to go do something that had meaning to his elf self.  Namely, go steal something using magic and profit from the experience.  It was a success despite almost getting caught.  However, that all ended back at the boat.  

I was VERY shocked and appalled when a fellow Player chose to attack and attempt to kill, not subdue, my character and another (where we’ll pick back up the game next time we play).  I have to accept the fact that we are playing in a "sand box" game, however, his actions seem to place the success of this endeavor in jeopardy.  Now we are faced with the inevitable split of the party and the difficulty that it will give Carl, the DM.  Will he have to run the boat party for 2.5 hours then run the thieves for 2.5 hours?  Will he tell the minority players that they’ll need to roll up new characters to “fit in” with the majority players?  Either way it isn’t fair to him or the players.

I've always played by the unwritten rule that "PLAYER SHALL NOT KILL PLAYER".  Beat up, subdue, cast non-physical spells at, etc., just not KILL.  I’ve played in many campaigns where there has been PC vs. PC strife, but generally it was handled with brawling fists or weapon attacks for subdual damage.  Anyone else have a comment on the UNWRITTEN rule that's always been a part of every other D&D (or roleplaying) experience I've had until now?



                

                I think this adds a little bit of the unknown in the game.  Many times in D&D we have just looked the other way when our character would have completely disagreed with the action.  Maybe our party is just such an odd group of characters that we are just bound to kill each other or split apart.

You see this kind of plot in movies.  I think watching something like the 7 Samurai would be a good example how a party can act.  I think if we can find a common goal we will work together.  Also any extra ciricular activities may have to be hidden from the rest of the party (this does happen in real life to). 

I'm hoping to find myself in the next session.  As for my character he is more interested in making a living and not being a farmer.  He doesn't mind bending the rules, but he does have some scruples.  My reasoning about attacking Thoms' character when I was playing was to make some money on catching a thief.  Once I figured out that I wasn't going to get anything out of it I decided maybe I could team up (or even use) the thief to make some money.  As long as I can make some money most work is a gray area.  I probably won't assasinate someone, but I would rough up someone if it's required.
                

                That was a lot of angry from Thom.  He has since decided to play one more session and see how things go.  So, we'll see how that goes.

There are a few issues I'd like to address in Thom's post.  Normally, I'd jump right in with my own observations (I'm not a shy person) but I wanted to see how the other players were going to react.  I have my answer.  I've spoken with a few of the players privately, and there are some hurt feelings (including my own) but I think we're all prepared to move forward.  The other players do like the game and want to continue to play.  Thom isn't going to sabotage the game because he's unhappy.  So that's something.

My first issue is that this kind of communication comes from someone who is frustrated that they're not getting the fun they wanted out of the game they're playing.  They're frustrated with the other players and they're frustrated with the DM.  Why?  I think one of the main factors is lack of timely communication.  I rolled up a character, and I want him to be Consul of the Senate someday.  To do that,  I need a few things: money, a strategic marriage, property, a reputation, a purple stripe on my toga, and pretty much a 20-year adventuring/military career before I can put my name down on the rolls and take my seat in the Curia.  Then there's getting elected consul, but that's not material to the point I'm making.  To do all these marvelous things, I need the cooperation of my fellow players and to get that I need to understand what their goals are and help them to achieve them.  It's give-and-take.  I want this, you want that, if we do this other thing together, we both get what we want.  This communication is not happening around the table.  Instead, we've all been gaming together for so long that we take for granted that everyone else can read our minds and when we don't get what we wanted from the game experience, we opt to get all crazy.  Because damnit, they should have known.  I told them and everything.  The takeaway: talk about what you want both in-character and out, find out what your fellow party members want and make a plan, as a team, to achieve those things.  Be prepared to get some of what you want, but not everything and be prepared to wait for it.  That's how life is, and that's how any group effort is going to progress.

Next issue: the insults to my setting.  I can forgive this, and I have.  Thom and I have made peace over it.  However, if the setting is this big an issue to anyone else, I politely suggest that you post here with something along the lines of, "Thanks for the chance to try this out, but it's really not for me."  You're not doing me any favors by playing in a game you don't want to be in.  I have people sitting in the wings waiting for a chair at my game table, so don't fret that I won't have anyone playing in the game if you leave.  There are way more players than DMs in the world.

Next issue: character on character violence.  This isn't first time it's ever happened in a game we've played, so there's no need to be all shocked and apalled.  I've never maintained a policy that killing the other characters was off-limits.  Hell, I'll play alignments before I try to put restrictions on a player's actions with his or her character, even if it means someone else loses a character in the process.  That's D&D.  If this is especially troubling to you, thank you for giving my game a try.  I would caution that this not be your standard method of interaction with other players or you're going to really piss someone off.  Let's make sure that no matter what happens, the action stays at the table, and there will be no LARP'ing.

Next issue: side-adventures, and party-splitting.  This is normal and natural and I will not discourage it from my position as Dungeon Master.  Every player has a right to explore on their own, to pursue their own destiny.  I would no more put a limit on this than I would on character-on-character violence.  However, like the former, this can really piss off the people who aren't going along on your junket.  They have their reasons for not doing so, just as you have your reasons for going.  I will not host additional sessions, and I will not break out the hourglass so that everyone gets equal time.  What I suggest is that everyone communicates what they want and then together you form a plan to get it.  Then, I think you'll find that the need for taking off on your own becomes much less urgent.

Next issue: stories versus sandbox.  I thought I had said all I need to around this, and maybe I have.  However, for those of you who are still not clear: I write no stories.  There are no rails.  There aren't any "quests" waiting for you if you talk to NPCs.  I'm not introducing stories or any of that shit because it's boring, it's a lot of work for me the DM (of which 90% is wasted and never used) and the best part about a story-driven game for advanced players is seeing how far you can take the DM off the rails.  You have a character in a well-detailed, interesting and fantastic setting.  You can do anything you want.  There's no need for a storyline.  If you find that you prefer a story-driven game over what I'm offering, thank you for giving mine a try.

Lastly, I'm really enjoying this game.  I would like to continue to play this for the forseeable future.  I would like to see multiple generations of player characters in this campaign.  This is the first campaign I think I've ever had where I saw the potential for any sort of longevity in terms of characters aging more than a few months over the duration of the campaign and doing something other than rescuing the princess.  I think this is incredibly fun, and really the best way to play D&D.  I know that we're experiencing some growing pains.  I expect that this will not be the last time someone gets really mad.

Here's what I expect to see the next time we game.  I would really prefer that the five hours we get together be spent gaming.  That said, I think everyone should take some time to think about what they're trying to do, have a rough idea of where they want to go with their character and how the group, as a group, can get what they want individually from the game.
                

                I am enjoying the game.  That being said, I felt guilt at Bogarting the DM for what turned out to be an hour or two.  The way I see it, I knew this was a sandbox style game and decided to make a move furthering my characters goals, goals that are mercenary at best. I came up with a cover story, got what I thought was permission to leave for the night from the man in charge of the boat, executed the plan, and came back ready to go back to work as a man-at-arms. 

The man in charge of the boat was awake and waiting for the away-party.  He said anything we were going to bring on the boat belongs to his employer.  The away team was like "We'll take the next boat, thanks". Then things got all stabby.

So I find myself a participant in a blade fight on the docks with another PC. I don't see a good way out of that, I have just been attacked, a failed attack, and that is the moment in time we left the session at. I can't see backing down to a postion of servitude to this guy who cuts his crew and companions down in front of all. 

Staying in the sandbox mentality I am ready to bring in another character if Borborygmus bites it. I give the fight about even odds.

                

                This sounds familiar to a campaign that I ran last year. I was moving away from the rest of the people in the group, and I couldn't think of how to end the campaign. So I let the players end it themselves. Unfortunately, that meant falling directly into the headquarters of the "bad guys", then killing each other in desperation. It was a fantastic way to end the story, and it was much better than anything I had thought of. 
Now, fighting and/or killing in the *middle* of a campaign? That seems a bit more tricky...
                

                Carl, I think that followup comment was very insightful. Do you think that it's that players aren't communicating their character goals or that they haven't really thought about them? 

I guess it's mainly been that I've played in settings all of the players are part of a company or some sort of special group. Because we focused on that, I didn't really give my character more than some spur of the moment goals; I was mostly along for the ride. In our Traveller game, it seemed like there was usually just one character with larger goals driving the action.

Does everyone have a reason that they would want to work together for mutual benefit?

                

                Sorry for my book below ;-)

Does everyone have a reason that they would want to work together for mutual benefit?

I believe we do, this very interesting mystery of a ship that has befallen a terrible calamity that no-one knows why.  It could be actuall sea monsters in a very dangerous strait for anyone dare tred, or it is a rival gang at the docks that has stolen their enemies boat to hurt their business.

This mystery has polarized us together and it has given us a very good opportunity to create a business of finding out the weird for the people that cannot themselves. This has lent us to really great wealth already.  If this venture proves successful we will get crazy street cred.

The problem (which I find interesting because you see it in real life) has to do with that we are all still new at knowing eachother (character wise in a brutal time period in history) and appreciating (tolerating) one anothers demeanor. 

Just as in life most business's fail in the first 1-2 years.  

So The success of this voyage is definitly a good reason to gain the wealth, Fame and experience we all want to get.  What we should have done was to set the terms of our employment before we left, I still do not know what our employer intends on giving us for the job, besides the trickle down earnings we acrue along the way.

--------------------------

The crux of how it went down was this, Lybos was informed that Borbor was going to see his uncle *little did he know that was code for rob a villa* and he said ok but be back soon cuz this is only a stop off to the next town.

During this time a spell that Xenocrates had cast on lybos a few sessions ago wore off and he felt different. Lybos has observed xenocrates thiefing behavior up until the point that the spell wore off so his understanding of how your Xenocrates acts is on seeing how Xenocrates has pick pocketed the crew, Arellia, lybos and the old captain of the now missing ship.

Now to top things off, Lybos had a bout of Kidney stone attack, which is about the worst pain a guy can get sans giving birth and a kick in giggleberries. 

So with us being late getting back, kidney stone, arguing from a known thief in the party and the insult of just please kill me now then being thrown in Lybos's honor he went alittle insane.

I completely understand it from both a player and character stand point.  This also happends in real life and makes for an exciting evening. I am glad we have these physical trait quirks to try and overcome.

The trick now is to bring our focus away from tearing eachother apart to back ot the task at hand and I believe we can do this with very heavy negotiating and actually setting terms for what we keep and what we give to the boat master and designate what roles we are on the ship. 

Lybos is just as much a mercenary as the rest of us, it really should be for the emissary of the Potter familias to give ship orders and Lybos can use his military training in keeping the armed garrison in-line. as opposed to being ships leader then the burden of what befalls the ship will not rest on his shoulders and be too much that it will make him crazy when he is over-cometh.

                

                
Well, that was a sudden flurry of activity.

Nick -- I think the players have all thought about what they want for their characters.  Some have more detailed plans than others.  Thom, for instance, wrote up a bunch of biographical information for his character and has a pretty clear idea of what he wants to do.  The rest don't have quite that level of focus, but they all have some idea of where they want to take the characters in mind.  If they didn't have goals or some kind of idea of what they wanted, I'm pretty sure there would be a different kind of tension.  I doubt it would be this stabby, to take a term from Dave.

I have purposefully avoided any heavy-handed DM-level device for gathering the party.  I've used all sorts of these in the past to keep the players from spending several game sessions pursuing their own adventures and avoiding the rest of the party because they have no reason to hang out with them.  In my mind this is the first milestone on the way to a story-driven game.  I figured that this time I'd be a little more subtle.  Everyone has met, some have met previously.  At some point, they will have enough of a body of shared experiences to begin trusting each other, if not outright liking each other.  And if not, then it will be what it will be.

To directly answer your question about whether the party has a reason to work together toward their mutual benefit, Nick, I'd say no.  I'll also say that I don't think this is something that a DM should provide.  Characters should find their own reasons for accepting each other and adventuring together.  Otherwise it ends up kind of forced and artificial.  Why does anyone choose their friends?  Sometimes they have things in common, sometimes it's a body of shared experiences, sometimes it's just because they happen to be the only other people around.  There are many reasons to be friends or enemies with someone.  I'm sure the group will come up with something.  Or they won't.  Either way, it's D&D.

One further comment on party dynamics before I move on: I don't think I've ever had players proactively decide that their characters know each other.  No one has ever suggested familial relationships, past or current romantic involvements, childhood friends, or even recent drinking buddies.  This, in my memory, has always come from me, as the DM.

Sourire -- thanks for commenting.  Note that this isn't the middle of the campaign, but the beginning that this all going down.  There are  four basic stages of group development: forming, storming, norming and performing.  Cutesy, yes, but true.  This group blew through the forming phase and right on into storming, hence the stab-stabbyness.

Dave has a nice summary of events.  It's succinct.  I like that.  Also, thanks for the compliment, Dave.  I'm glad you're having a good time.  Here's hoping that Borbor and Lybos can resolve their issues.  I think you guys should hug it out.  ;-)  I kid, of course.  I think that no matter how you decide to resolve this is fine.  We haven't heard from Jason yet, but from speaking with him and now hearing from you, Dave (and having spoken with you after the session) I know you both have a good attitude, and I'm pleased that you're both playing.

Craig, your synopsis of what went down and why is pretty good from my point-of-view.  Your character is sort of caught in the middle of all this, being invested in the boat and having accompanied the others on their junket to Borbor's "uncle's" house.  I'm curious to see how it all turns out for Gnaeus Cenaeus.

Craig, you also bring up a good point about the length of time that the characters have known each other.  It's not very long -- less than two weeks.  Certainly not long enough to establish trust (except maybe for Xeno, but he's not a very wise elf).  For the serious roleplayers in our little band, this would pose a serious problem to group dynamics, but a fantastic opportunity for roleplaying.  You didn't say this directly, but I think that you're alluding to a reset of the expectations of the players for how well their characters are going to interact.
                

                Here are the Laws that pertain closest to our situation, they are from the Twelve Tables

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/12tables.html


Ancient History Sourcebook: 
The Twelve Tables, c. 450 BCE

Table III.

1. One who has confessed a debt, or against whom judgment has been pronounced, shall have thirty days to pay it in. After that forcible seizure of his person is allowed. The creditor shall bring him before the magistrate. Unless he pays the amount of the judgment or some one in the presence of the magistrate interferes in his behalf as protector the creditor so shall take him home and fasten him in stocks or fetters. He shall fasten him with not less than fifteen pounds of weight or, if he choose, with more. If the prisoner choose, he may furnish his own food. If he does not, the creditor must give him a pound of meal daily; if he choose he may give him more. 

2. On the third market day let them divide his body among them. If they cut more or less than each one's share it shall be no crime.

3. Against a foreigner the right in property shall be valid forever. 



Table VIII.

2. If one has maimed a limb and does not compromise with the injured person, let there be retaliation. If one has broken a bone of a freeman with his hand or with a cudgel, let him pay a penalty of three hundred coins If he has broken the bone of a slave, let him have one hundred and fifty coins. If one is guilty of insult, the penalty shall be twenty-five coins.

3. If one is slain while committing theft by night, he is rightly slain. 

4. If a patron shall have devised any deceit against his client, let him be accursed. 

5. If one shall permit himself to be summoned as a witness, or has been a weigher, if he does not give his testimony, let him be noted as dishonest and incapable of acting again as witness. 

12. If the theft has been done by night, if the owner kills the thief, the thief shall be held to be lawfully killed.

13. It is unlawful for a thief to be killed by day....unless he defends himself with a weapon; even though he has come with a weapon, unless he shall use the weapon and fight back, you shall not kill him. And even if he resists, first call out so that someone may hear and come up.

23. A person who had been found guilty of giving false witness shall be hurled down from the Tarpeian Rock.


Table IX.

6. Putting to death of any man, whosoever he might be unconvicted is forbidden.


Table X.

1. None is to bury or burn a corpse in the city. 

3. The women shall not tear their faces nor wail on account of the funeral. 

5. If one obtains a crown himself, or if his chattel does so because of his honor and valor, if it is placed on his head, or the head of his parents, it shall be no crime.


Table XII.

2. If a slave shall have committed theft or done damage with his master"s knowledge, the action for damages is in the slave's name.

5. Whatever the people had last ordained should be held as binding by law.


-------------------------

By these laws, 

Xenocrates broke rule 2 of table 8 and owes 25 coins for unsulting Lybos

Lybos rightly slained Xenocrates with rule 3 and of table 8.

Lybos broke rule 6 of table 9.
(12 of table 8- does not exonerate Lybos because he was not the owner of the stolen item.) (yet rule 3 does.)

Lybos did not break rule 13 of table 8 because this was done at night.

Borbor broke rule 23 table 8. but being "found guilty" is for the magistrates to decide.  So technically not yet.

Borbor has rule 1 table 3 (30 days to pay the potter familias accordingly.)



                

                Gnaus Cinaus was lucky to be not born in rome.

The Twelve Tables

Table IV.

1. A dreadfully deformed child shall be quickly killed. 


                

                Ancient Roman Law
During the early days when Rome was a kingdom, the Kings set up an intricate religious system of gods and priests, elected from the noble Patrician class, to look after the cults. Given that law and order was in the hands of the King who acted with the gods it was a natural consequence that the priests and religious orders also doubled up as the first lawyers and judges of Rome.

It is easy to imagine that in the absence of written laws, legal judgments might lack transparency, especially if the case involved a plebeian versus a patrician. Any citizen would be hard pressed to know or understand what his or her rights were.

A number of written laws were indeed collected during the reign of the last king Tarquin the Proud by a man called Sextus Papirius. This rudimentary book of laws was called Jus Papirianum ("jus" means "law").

The Tyrannical attitude of the last king, Tarquin the Proud, led to his expulsion and the Kingdom became a Republic where government and law was managed by elected bureaucrats. The Republic was ruled through two elected Consuls who had to consult with one another in order to take decisions.

In times of danger the Consuls would be replaced by a single Dictator who was clearly in a position to take quick military decisions without consultation. Because of his absolute power the dictator was only allowed to hold power for six months. At first any free citizen could aspire to these and other positions of state although soon enough it became a privilege of the Patricians.

The ruling bureaucracy were called Magistrates. The "parliament" was called the Senate and the whole Roman State was headed up by the two Consuls.

With the fall of the last of the Kings of Rome the laws within the Jus Papirianum were abolished and replaced by laws based on custom and the judgement of the court. Given that the government of the Republic was soon taken over by the Patrician class it is not surprising that a new set of written laws were required to ensure a more transparent judicial system.

The first laws of the Republic were collected by a council of ten men who wrote them onto twelve tablets and published for all to see in the forum, amongst other places. All children learned the twelve tablets off by heart at school. Although this didn't lead to instantaneous justice it did at least divorce religious matters from legal ones and render legality a little more transparent. Cicero himself, many years later, declared his opinion that "the laws of the Twelve Tablets were to be preferred to the whole libraries of the philosophers".

The Twelve Tablets were subdivided into three areas of law:

Concerns of Religion 
Rights of the Public 
Private Persons 

This system of laws came to be known as "Jus Civile" - civil law. A number of sample cases and schemes were also assembled in order to guide legal proceedings. This was called the "Actiones Legis".

With time further centres of power were added alongside the Senate so that the assembly of the Tribunes (which represented the plebeians) reached enormous legislative and judicial power also. This may be loosely compared to the system of House of Commons and House of Lords in the UK.

The Assembly of the People could actually create new laws at the Comitia Tributa without requiring the authority of the Senate. Although they weren't actually called Leges, they held the full force of law.

In special circumstances the Assembly could by-pass the Senate and issue new laws but generally it was the Senate which would discuss and issue the laws whilst the Assembly had a power to listen and Veto if they didn't like what they heard.

Other legislative bodies were the supreme magistrates, particularly the Praetors, who could also issue laws called Jus Honorarium. Finally there were the Principalis Constitutio which were laws made on the spot by the dictator who might be given the job of ruling for six months in times of the greatest danger.

Suring the social struggles of the Republican age, the Patrician Gracchi brothers fought for the rights of the poor classes. By hook or by crook managed to establish a right to land reforms and cheap bread for the poor. Both brothers were murdered and their reforms more or less suppressed but they were picked up again and reapplied by Caesar.

By the end of the Empire the body of legal knowledge and laws had grown to something in the region of two thousand volumes. This made the legal system so unwieldy that emperor Justinian ordered them to be reorganised and simplified. The result was four tomes of Civil Law which formed the basis of the legal systems in all Christendom - "the West".


                

                I) Concerning the breaking of Rule II, Table VIII by Xenocrates in the form of an alleged insult to the person of Lybos:  As there has been no trial or guilty verdict by a local magistrate on the island of Capri, nor has there been one in Rome by the Praetor Urbanus (who would handle foreign matters), the question of whether this alleged insult did in fact occur is still in question.  If said alleged insult had in fact occurred, and had been ruled upon by a magistrate lawfully appointed to deal with such matters in either of those two places, it would be up to said magistrate to determine the possible fine of XXV coins, and to uphold aforementioned fine through the use of bailiffs.  If I were Xenocrates and was being tried for the previously alleged insult, I *might* argue that in fact I made no insult, or that I was first insulted and so then merely acted in defense of the impeachment of my personal dignitas.  I *might* also argue that it is in fact the opposite situation, and that Lybos broke a different aspect of this particular law by maiming Xenocrates (assuming he does not seek to compromise with Xenocrates in the form of accepting retaliation or providing compensation.)

II) Concerning the breaking of Rule III from Table VIII, the slaying of Xenocrates by Lybos:  As Xenocrates is still alive, this rule technically need not yet be applied.  If Xenocrates is slain, Lybos will open himself to prosecution on the grounds that Lybos himself was not the victim of the alleged theft, nor did he even witness the alleged theft.  Therefore, he has no just cause to kill someone, as the theft is merely alleged.

III) Concerning the breaking of Rule VI of Table IX by Lybos:  As Xenocrates is still alive, this rule technically need not yet be applied.  Again, if Xenocrates (or Borborygmus) is slain, Lybos will open himself to prosecution, this time on the grounds that he has unlawfully put to death a man who had not been convicted of an alleged crime.

IV) Concerning the breaking of Rule XXIII of Table VIII by Borborygmus:  As was said, he was not found guilty of this by a magistrate legally appointed to pass judgement upon this matter and so is not guilty of allegedly bearing false witness.  Even more pertinent, he did not technically (allegedly) bear false witness, as this applies only when bearing witness in a court of law after a person has sworn that they shall not in fact bear false witness.

V) Concerning Rule I, Table III:  As this alleged debt by Borborygmus to his employer (who is NOT his Paterfamilias, nor possibly even his Patron to our knowledge) has not been confessed to by Borborygmus in a court of law, nor has he had a judgement pronounced against him, and so he has not yet begun his XXX day repayment period for an alleged debt, of which we do not know the details (could have been a monetary debt or merely a debt of specific time or specific service).  We around him believe that he is under some sort of employment contract to repay his employer for the arms and armor provided him, though none of us have personally seen said contract.  Depending on the terms of the aforementioned contract, it may be possible that Borborygmus could remove his presence and leave behind said arms and armor without any further legal responsibility.  It may also be possible that he is legally responsible for the original cost of said arms and armor regardless of his actions regarding the continuation or termination of his employment.  It may also be possible that he is legally responsible for some form of monetary compensation to his employer were he to vacate said agreement of employment prior to the culmination of the trip, which may be based upon either the arrival of some future date, or the arrival of the ship at the city of Metropontum, or some other level of specific performance, regardless of the terms of his possession of the aforementioned arms and armor.  It will really all hinge on the terms of his personal contract.
                

                It all brings a whole new meaning to the term "Rules Lawyer" doesn't it?  :op

Did we ever establish how many experience points a 1st level player character is worth? ;o)
                

                Oh! How I love my sister the Accountant, for without her the rules would not be the same ;-)

Did we ever establish how many experience points a 1st level player character is worth? ;o)

I'd say as much as he can get without dieing!