I'm down for a Friday as well.

Friday will work fine for this kid.

So....do we get a recap of the last session prior to Saturday morning?

Have fun Saturday, guys. Sorry i havent posted up. My schedule got a little crazier now that I am working back in Denver and have an entirely new schdule. It has been... an adjustment to say the least. Once I get my ducks back in a row, I will be back into gaming again. As it stands now, my mind is on other things. I am hoping this vacation away from all the shit will help clear up my thoughts and such.

If you all decide to game on a Friday, the earliest I will be there is after 7pm. Just plan it and do it, please. If I can be there, I will. I am not trying to be a smart ass or anything.

have a good trip Jay. Hope things smooth out for you soon.

To everyone else, check the dinner thread.

Updated time. I really hope Yeti can join us by the time we settle down and start playing. If not, I propose we find another time even if I can't make it. I think Par can handle using a pixie to piss off the rest of the party quite nicely.

I don't know, you have quite a unique knack for it that I'm not sure I could replicate.

Characters believe the pixie disagreed, lost a vote, went with the party, and managed to get 100kgp out of it.

The players... you know that awful feeling when you get scammed? Even if insurance covers your losses, you still have this deep anger that there's someone who got the best of you, and there's nothing you can do about it. The losses to you are intangible, but it's still there... yeah... I should have the decency to not be so blatant about it.

Do you like my new robe?

No, your new robe is threadbare and gaudy and makes you look like a jackanape.

I realize the distinction between what the characters know and what they players know, and I heard you or John say that scenario should've happened in private. Here's what I was upset about - because it DIDN'T happen in private, I couldn't take the action of going to the museum and asking them what they gave you for the paintings. I couldn't do that because it would've looked like I was retaliating with knowledge my character wouldn't have had. But I can absolutely say that, had the scenario ended (in my character's view) with Rigby flying out the window with the paintings, Morgrim's first action would've been to go to the noble's house, and then not seeing Rigby there, going to the museum.

Well, what's done is done.

True, but even had that actually happened, your character would have had no reason to doubt me. You know I play a dishonest shithead, but my bluff checks against the party have never let me down. As far as your character knows, you have absolutely no reason to doubt me whatsoever. Sure, I wanted more money for them and I steal from the world at large, but my dishonesty with the party has always been covered by a bluff.

In other words, to your character's eyes, I am absolutely loyal to the party in all regards. What possible reason would you have to double check my selling price?

It would be like if we agreed we would split a super manly table with dragons for legs for the nerd room, I picked it up, and told all of you how your share was. Would you ask to check the receipt? I'm a bit ornery, but you don't think I'd really lie to you, do you? Would it surprise you to learn I'm actually a master thief and my "job" is just a clever ruse?

So yes, I should have taken it into private and you could have tried to figure out who did the purchasing, asked him, attempted to get him to tell you (it was a different guy than the ones we spoke to earlier), and then made a sense motive against my bluff check when I told you he was lying so he could hype the value both for publicity and so he could sell them for more later if that came up. Same result. It could have happened that way, but it still wouldn't have made a difference.

I don't agree with that. It's overusing the Bluff/Sense Motive relationship. In my mind, those opposing skills are to be used when a PC/NPC is trying to convince a different PC/NPC of something when one or both of those parties has out-of-game reason to believe otherwise.

Let's say the exchange had happened exactly the same, except it ended when Rigby flew out of the window. Then, after a private exchange with John, you come back with 100k for the party. At that point, I and my character have the exact same doubts, and can choose to act on them accordingly. Using a Bluff/Sense Motive check is the wrong thing to do there, because it forces the square peg of a character's thought process into the round hole of the rules. To devolve a player's thoughts into a Sense Motive is ridiculous in that situation. In our actual situation, though (where the players knew something was amiss), a Bluff/Sense Motive is absolutely appropriate. But you can't expect to play the character you do without garnering the suspicion of party members, allies, or otherwise.

Also, your gaming table analogy is flawed. A more realistic situation might be, you want to steal us a gaming table, and none of us agree. We all argue, and you throw up your hands, leave, and come back with a gaming table, telling us our share. That might give one or more of us reason to be suspicious of how you acquired the table.

My ultimate point is, I don't think a PC or NPC should be able to Bluff his way out of every situation he gets himself into. What if our group gathers enough evidence to give rise to the thought that the flower shop owner Nice Nancy is actually Black Betty, the notorious thieves’ guild leader. We confront her, and then John calls for a Sense Motive check against her Bluff, which she wins....game over and we skip away, blithely convinced? No way. We, the PCs, have come to that conclusion based on what has transpired up until then, and there’s no way a Bluff/Sense Motive should be able to override that. That’s what magic is for.

There's evidence, and then there's proof. Certainly I would have a penalty to my bluff check. And if one of you had hidden in shadows while the deal went down that penalty would be something like -40 (which means I'm not talking my way out of it). But a stranger's word against mine? Don't you trust me? That guy has a reason to lie!!! Why would I try to cheat you guys? I need you guys! I can't make it in this cruel world on my own! Did I mention my charisma is a goddamned 26?

If you managed to convince the guy to tell you how much you paid for it (I would consider this unlikely as you don't get to be museum curator or whatever he was by sharing such information), then I would refute his claim. This is evidence, but it is not proof. Sure, if over the campaign evidence stacks up against me then it's going to be pretty clear I'm a scumbag, but as of yet I have not been caught messing with any member of the party in the slightest (Orchid was never a member of the party). I have engaged in open and honest debate, and I have supported personal quests by the others. I have been a loyal friend. I have pulled a variety of asses out of precarious battle scenarios. One guy with a reason to lie impugns my honor and you would immediately believe him? I'm hurt. You have brought tears to a pixie's eyes.

Besides, let's say you have some suspicions. What are you going to do? You don't have proof. You don't have a running tally of my bank accounts so it's not like having some amount of money on me is going to give you further evidence. You may suspect me, but short of having a chaotic evil in the party, I don't think that's enough to act on.


Don't forget the astounding amounts of money I let Marchosias skim off the top of everything he found. We did a sleight of hand check, and then we were past it. In game, they had no proof you were ripping them off. Out of game, the probably suspected you were stealing almost half as much as you actually were.


So, sure, had I even considered skimming off the top I would have made it private. That approach didn't even occur to me until after he named a price. My first plan was simply to figure out a way of selling to the noble without having the rest of the party find out. Nothing came to mind to make that work, so I thought I'd take the high road. Then I saw a new low road I hadn't seen before through the trees and I went for it.




I am going to bring up another related topic, and it's the art thing. I honestly don't understand it. "Because the art was stolen, it belongs to everybody." What? We acquire stolen artifacts all the time. What makes art different from a finely made sword? We either use this stuff or get the most money we can for it, but suddenly it's art and we have to give it to a museum? This isn't a pixie talking, this is me. I do not understand why stolen art needs to be a special case from other stolen loot.

You can certainly make the claim that other people would enjoy seeing it. Sure, but other people would benefit if I donated a car to charity. Super, but I have no moral obligation to do so and I want the money from selling it. No one would insist that I donate it. I just don't see it.

I still disagree with your assessment of when Bluff/Sense Motive are used. You're letting game rules override a player's intution, perception, etc., and that's not the way it should be. Those skills should be used when a player is asking a DM if that innkeeper is lying, or more relevant to our situation, if I were to ask John "is Rigby telling the truth?". But for me to merely suspect that someone is stealing from us, and then to take action upon that? That does not provoke a Bluff/Sense Motive.

EDIT: The description of Sense Motive seems to support my theory.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/senseMotive.htm

Convincing the museum guy to tell me how much was paid would not have been a problem - I was there the first time as a representative of the party!

I completely realize that Marchosias was skimming off the top of the pot, and party members suspected it, but no one chose to do anything about it. And while it's irrelevant to this discussion, I'll note that, in our total duration of the previous campaign, I don't believe I came close to making off with what Rigby did in about 10 minutes. Plus, I bought quite a few things for party members over the duration of the campaign - I helped fund scrolls for the Eron, I bought healing potions for Signy, etc.

Regarding the art thing, it's not something I want to debate exhaustively. I'll give this example - the Mona Lisa is stolen from wherever it is housed. A "good-aligned" "adventuring party" recovers it from the thieves. You're suggesting that party would then sell it to the highest bidder? Fuck, I thought I was playing LN nicely by even accepting gold in return for those works. Had I been LG, I would have been pushing for donation to the museum.

Your letting your player's knowledge affect your character's "intuition." That's exactly why bluff/sense motive checks exist. It's hardly intuition to figure out I was stealing from you. I did it right in front of you.

Let me ask you this... Change the situation on it here. Let's say you're playing a character with a very high sense motive. And further, let's assume I'm playing a very unlikeable character. In this situation, I rip off the party huge, but I do it in such a way that the players do not suspect the first thing. Should you get to do a sense motive on my bluff? Or do we pretend that since out of game I did it well enough that you didn't suspect, then your character won't figure it out as well? This is the reverse of that situation. A very specific example takes us back to Marchosias. In the beginning I did roll some disguise checks against spot checks. I didn't keep it up for long because it got boring, but I made the effort. The non-John players had no idea. Should I not have done that because the players didn't suspect? What if one of them was a Demon Hunter? Should he get a clue then? The characters decide, and since we cannot truly separate what our characters know from what we know, the dice must be involved.

Using these abilities are how we separate our characters from the players. When our players are supposed to figure something out, we may roll an intelligence check. We don't solve logic problems in a certain amount of time to see if our players are clever enough to work out the puzzle in the game. In this game, my character is a conman, and your character lacks the ability to see that. If you think that knowing out of game what happened with nothing to suggest it in-game, then I clearly need to sneak off to dark rooms with John more often than I'd like.

The amount of the stealing really doesn't change things. Your character appraised the paintings at 98kgp. I got 100kgp out of a museum. That's what would matter. If I came back with 85kgp you might have a reason to investigate. I got the price you said I should get, and I got it out of the cheap-O place!

As I said before, I sold it to a different person than the person we met in the museum. We met Bob together. Later I came back and met with Bob's boss, Frank. You may have gotten through to them, but my point is that even if you did, it probably wouldn't matter.



Now, the Mona Lisa. That isn't a good parallel. We know the owner, and it was stolen from them. It's a matter of returning stolen property to the owner. The fact that it is art hardly matters. If the US government said "hey, er, we sort of lost one of those expensive jet thingies" and we found it, then we'd probably return it. We know who should have the Mona Lisa (well, technically I don't, but I'm guessing wikipedia would tell me whether it's the triangle glass museum or something in Italy or wherever).

A parallel would be some painting lost in 1548 from... we don't know from where it was taken. Presumably the unknown owner, his kids, and his grandkids are all dead. His house is probably gone. If it's a museum, it probably was burned to the ground or something. For all we know it was commissioned by a guy, put into his private collection, and stolen from that.

We're talking hundreds of years. Who digs up a Grecian urn and says "Well, I better find out who this belongs to..."? It's yours now. A shipwreck is a special case, but I think it is worth mentioning that when you find gold in the Caribbean, it's yours. Spain doesn't get to claim they stole it from the Aztecs first.

If we could find the proper owner I'd be listening to the morality of it, but after this long it's not going to happen. IF we could find the owner, then even donating it to a museum is clearly the wrong thing to do.

The owner is gone. It cannot be "returned" as we would the Mona Lisa or a jet thingy. So in this case, what is the moral difference between selling it to a private collector and selling it to a museum? The claim was "Art belongs to everybody," and I don't see that at all. It's as absurd to me as if you said "A jet thingy belongs to everybody!"

Edit: If the position is that we could find the "proper" owners because it was a famous painting, then so be it. We didn't make that effort, and I still don't see the difference between selling it to a museum and selling it to a collector.

You either missed what I wrote, or forgot it by the time you started writing your post. Did you see this? I'll even break it out into the two main points for you.



Remember how I started my initial post - I was upset because of how the situation unfolded, and how it made all of us unable to do anything about the 20k gold we lost because our players had prior knowledge of the situation, thereby forcing a Bluff/Sense Motive, which none of us had any more than a passing chance of making.

After a discussion about why the painting belonged in a museum, and a vote of the entire party against your character, your character behaved like a petulant child and abruptly ran off, coincidentally with the paintings. THAT'S not suspicious? THAT'S behaving within the party's best interests? Please.

Assuredly it's suspicious. However, the actual reason I did it right then had nothing to do with scamming. I was honestly concerned that we had let at least 2 people know we had a big treasure on us, and I wanted to unload it as quickly as possible. That's not a bluff, that's true. I expected an attack in the middle of the night, and platinum spread across 5 people is much harder to swipe than 4 paintings. If you don't believe me, remember I'm the one who picked a single large room and hid in the rafters (which, by the way, is hardly the desired living arrangement of a guy who wants to rob his friends).

Now, let's assume I said "Let's go to a little room to make the sale, John." Doesn't that also raise suspicions? Less so, but you still know something is up. My point is if I had sat in front of all the players, made the deal as a lone character, and reported all the gold, then I'm a good guy. Anything else I do, even negotiating in private, raises suspicions of the players.

You're taking out of game knowledge and pretending your character knows it. You might have said "I feel bad. I thought the cute little guy was going to sell it to the duke despite our vote, but he did exactly as we said as soon as the vote was done, and he got the full appraised value out of a museum and split it fairly. Jolly good then!"

Instead, your character seems to know I'm a thief. The dice are not just for PC vs NPC. There is a conflict between PCs, so the dice are relevant. I won the bluff on the price by a lot. My character has a charisma of 26. We use that, not the player's charisma of 8.

That's not my point at all. At this point, my character suspects nothing, for the reason I mentioned above: I assumed a Bluff/Sense Motive check went the way statistics dictate it should've. With the prior knowledge out on the table, those opposed checks were relevant.

My point is that, had the events transpired as they should have, my character rightfully would have had suspicions, and therefore no Bluff/Sense Motive would have been necessary. That's it. That was the point of my original post. Bluff/Sense Motive is for when one of us is trying to overcome knowledge that a player has that a character does not (Sense Motive), or when one of us is trying to to convince one of John's NPCs of something (Bluff).

The bluff/sense motive that came up was that you asked me how much I got for it. I lied. You got a chance to see if your character knew I was lying, but it worked out that your character believes I was telling the truth when I said 100kgp. I don't see any situation where that doesn't happen. Even if you never knew the correct price, that should still have been rolled. I was literally bluffing.

I think what you're saying is this...
What you wanted: You don't know the price. You ask me how much I got. You hear the price. We do NOT roll bluff/sense motive. You verify the price, and call me a liar.

What happened: You know the price. You ask me how much I got. You hear the price. You know it's a lie so we roll sense motive/bluff. You get screwed because now you believe me.

Here's the problem. In the case that you wanted, if you suspect I'm lying, then we roll bluff/sense motive. If you don't suspect I'm lying, then we can skip it, but there's no need to verify the price. Since you were going to suspect I'm a liar whether you knew it or not because you're a jerkface dwarf, then the bluff check was definitely going to happen.

Properly speaking, even if you did not know the price, we could roll a bluff/sense motive check because I am bluffing you whether you know it or not. If we were to skip it, well... You're basically looking for a way around my conmanship. The knowledge of the players should not affect whether or not I am successful at conning, and it seems like you're looking for a backdoor based on how we might have played things out.




Look at it this way... if I hadn't taken 23kgp off the top, there's no way I could have afforded my new robe. Isn't it dashing? And it doesn't smell like moldy apples.

Sounds like I missed a whale of a time...

I will be there next Friday, but probably not until 6:30? It depends on the bus and such.

I'm split on this. In general, Bluff/Sense Motive are possible to call upon in ALL interactions- there's no special flag about the PC / NPC thing. We do, in fact, play things a bit differently- suspicious activity, such as what Rigby did, would in my mind be quite possible for a Sense Motive, or even flat out asking the museum archcurator the question straight up. The reason is this: Rigby disagreed with everyone else profoundly, then used his superior mobility and pixie trickery to suddenly dash out the window and do stuff. Sure, he came back with gold, and it was obviously sold to the museum, but that was still messed up. Hell, you guys were suspicious of being followed, and Rigby still went ahead and engaged in what could have been a dangerous activity.

So I'm mostly with PAR here, with the exception that the Bluff/Sense Motive is definitely NOT restricted to interactions involving an NPC.




Man, I'm so playing a ninja next time.

In seriousness, I thought everyone played well and in character, and I don't think the amount that he skimmed is worth the accusing eyes I saw a bit too much of. Yes, he broke faith with the party. But, he has also helped the group out a bunch with such things in the past. One thing to remember, out of character, is that if your loot split in a 5 member party is 60/10/10/10/10, that could actually be MORE helpful to the party- you are all there for the same goal, and unless someone starts with pvp, the way you split loot is largely not that important, unless some members are missing important powers (such as resistance bonus to saves). So him cheesing that, in character, doesn't reduce your total party power, and it's only really a dick move in character- out of character it's just fine.




Except sometimes I just have a puzzle to solve out of game- and I'm not alone with this, I've seen published modules that expect players to figure something out, and often have the ability to solve it with a (unreasonably high) skill check of some sort, sort of as an "out". In some cases, that is missing. In your example, Mark, of doing something cleverly out of game without the stats for it to occur in game- that roll might never happen. It would depend in part on DM judgment.

Remember also that I will sometimes deny NPCs certain rolls, or give them bonuses, or simply decide that an NPC/NPC interaction resolves in a certain way, based on "information known". Die rolls are often used to approximate information NOT known (such as whether a character would figure it out, or whether Figaro Fighter's training at slicing shit up gets through Barney Barbarian's training at not being sliced up shit).

Specifically:
-Rigby's behavior was legitimately suspicious. I could see going and asking the archcurator JUST based on that.
-Asking Rigby what he sold it for would trigger the Bluff check, which he will very likely win.
-Rigby's past behavior towards the party is in NO WAY suspicious. He has covered his few tweaks with bluff checks, and appears to be implicitly loyal to all characters involved.

The question becomes, at what point is it metagaming- and that's a hard line to draw. It's very possible to simply AVOID ever asking the pixie the question because of out of game information (I know my odds of piercing his lie are only 10%, not worth it), and instead making use of a time he is absens to think "oh, let me go check with the authorities".

One way to handle it might be to apply a penalty to the Bluff check, because of the suspicious OkThanksByeLetMeHeadOutTheWindowNow.



But moving as an armed party would maximize your chances of successful delivery. A group of armed 9th level characters on their guard would give even a 20th level rogue pause. While your reason was valid, going alone isn't that rational- though granted, the pixie is not that wise!



This is also true. In fact, the "correct" thing to do, would be to request fake numbers openly discussed in a note passed secretly, so the entire interaction played out fake- that would give everyone the correct opportunity to check stuff out, and provide the correct amount of metagame information. Mark is quite right here- there's no action he could have taken beyond the rather unorthodox suggestion I just made to successfully hide his actions from the rest of the group, and still give them the legitimate chance to check on him directly without being able to be accused of metagaming.



Bus bus bus bus bus bus

That's not entirely accurate. I was concerned of an attack from someone in the middle of the night. There was no indication of being followed until I was actually selling the painting.



And I've used puzzles before as well. I was sort of making a joke. "Do we know anything about the connection between the trading partnership and the prince?" "Let's find out. There are five houses in a row. Jim lives in the blue house and does not live next to someone who BBQs. Steve owns a dog and does not live in a white house..."

In this case, player knowledge is making things worse. We simply can't role play around such an issue when we all know the reality. Player knowledge is overwhelmingly clouding character knowledge. If the players can't role play it, then the dice should help out.



See, here's how I see it. As you said, I have not been suspicious in the past with the party. I have been honest and not tried to hide my thievery of others. I mean "Hey guys, check out what I stole from those schmucks!" certainly shouldn't make people think I would steal from them (suspect me more than a paladin, yeah, but I hardly have shifty eyes). I am not particularly friendly with them, but I have done my best to help them all out in the things that matter. I keep spending a lot of the money I stole from other people, in addition to shared wealth, on scrolls that end up being used for people who aren't me. My first first level spell was selected to get members of my party out of danger. There really isn't much reason to suspect me. So in the absence of player knowledge, I would think it would go like this...

Rigby is a mostly honest guy who has paintings and wants to sell them for the most money. The party has some ideas that he doesn't have in the slightest, and he gets upset with it. He decides to vote and finds out his party is against him. Fine. He is done talking with them since they aren't exactly waivering. In the interest of stealth and not sleeping with easily stolen items, he heads out the window and sells them to the museum in respect of the party's wishes. He is not happy about it, but sometimes in a democracy we elect George Bush and he gets to be president whether intelligent people like it or not. He negotiates a price and walks away with a hair over Kelly Blue Book value from the place where he probably shouldn't get that much. Meanwhile, thinking him a devious lout, two members teleport to the Duke's place and find that the pixie did not betray them. They should probably be feeling a little guilty for their assumptions. The other two members go to the museum, find the deal completed. They ask how much he got, and he tells them the good news about the great price he got. He then asks if they smell cinnamon and hear something like silk on stone. They do not. The pixie is now a little bit freaked out and says "I'll meet you at the inn. Stealth and altitude are my best chances right now." Everyone arrives back. The other two ask how much money he got. The pixie again tells them the good news on the great price. They see he's telling the truth. Feeling ashamed of themselves for doubting the honest pixie, the dwarf and the elf kick small stones at their feet.

So fundamentally, I'm asking what part of CHARACTER knowledge disputes any of that aside from the small stone bit? There is the tiniest reason for suspicion, but seeing as I did exactly what you wanted me to do, what's the point of checking up on me? Yes, a key component is that the appraisal came in low. If you suggested we should get 140,000gp, then this wouldn't have worked. But since you appraised them, we took it the cheap place, and then got a tiny bit more than you thought, I see no reason for suspicion on price.

There are other things I could have done, for example. Has anyone thought to see whether I tried to get in fake paintings? Maybe I sold them the original but then swiped them after the fact. Has anyone asked whether maybe I sold them to the Duke for 145,000gp with the agreement he would show them in the museum for 2 months? There are a lot of scams out there, but strangely the only one suspected right now is that I actually sold them for more than the appraised value and failed to report it. Isn't that a little odd?

There are many other ways we could have handled it, assuredly, and virtually all of them were better. Sadly, I wasn't so devious as to think of asking you to lie about the price. I wasn't even devious enough to suggest a private meeting until you named a price over Kelly Blue Book. I suppose I could spend more time planning how to steal from the party ahead of time, but I don't think you want that and I also have no interest in it either. This was a crime of opportunity. The problem is that this all affects player knowledge, not character knowledge. It feels like an awful lot of metagaming to me.



I suggested this a while ago. I figured a -2 or -4, and that wasn't going to make a difference.


As I said, my concern was for an attack at night. If someone is seriously waiting around the inn two hours after we made initial contact with a See Invis up and a Fly ready to go, well, then, I guess I lose. I consider that far less likely than a bunch of guys in pajamas busting in at 3am with See Invis up and a mission to "Grab the pixie's haversack." As for guards on the road, again, if that were a risk then someone would just have to watch for a particular group to exit the inn. They could pay a kid 5 cp to watch and then run ahead with notice. The baddies can just say "There they are, coming up the street. Let's get up See Invis and find that adorable little bastard." I'm far more likely to be spotted with them than without them.

It's your world and only you know the relative risks, but that's how I weighed it. Yes, I flew out the window because I was tired of talking to them when it was clear they were all nutty, but I still consider it the safest way to go as well.



This was a lot easier when I stole the door. Joe and I just dueled to the serious wounding and then got passed it. This is an awful lot of work for a robe that won't do a damn thing when someone criticals with some gay sword or I find myself in a sauna of dragon fire.

I agree with all of this wholeheartedly. That's why my initial post said I was upset about how the situation played out (turning legitimate suspicision and actions related to said suspicion into a Bluff/Sense Motive check), yet my character now, at this point, has no further suspicion of anything that happened.


We had a high end (123k) and a low end (72k or whatever it was). My plan was to go back and try to get more money out of the museum, based on what the private collector offered us. My initial appraisal has no bearing on what I'd accept as a final price. All my character knew was, you came back with more than what we were initially offered, but less than what we were offered by the second guy. Combine that with all of the whining and suspicious activity that Rigby engaged in, and it all points to legitimate suspicion from and subsequent actions by the rest of the group.

And back to John's previous post, I didn't mean to imply that Bluff/Sense Motive are restricted only to encounters with NPCs. In fact, without going back and finding what I wrote, I'm pretty sure I even said that Bluff/Sense Motive are very applicable in situations involving PCs where the players have knowledge beyond the game that their characters wouldn't. In this particular scenario in question, had the situation played out like it should have, that absolutely would NOT have been the case, and no Bluff/Sense Motive would have been necessary.

Any chance we get even an abbreviated synopsis from last session? It's still pretty fresh in my mind, but an update never hurts....

We have enough trouble getting a recap when he has 2 months and just his WoW.

Now he has 2 weeks, WoW, and this.


I wouldn't count on it.


Edit: Why does that guy have no rupees?

Given all of that, are we sure that John is even going to show up on Friday?

Good point. Maybe I won't show up either.

I even posted in this thread! Ofc I'll be there.

I can't wait for tomorrow. I have some fresh dice to break in.

Though this weekend may just kill me with all the fun stuff to do...

I'm here early!

The question on the table is Dec 27, from 10amish to 7pmish.