We've suffered through a bit of new-gm blues, as of late. Thanks to some hawk-eyed analysis by players I respect, I see that the TNs for several of the events so far are too damn high. It sucks struggling to try things that give small hope of success, and I apologize for putting you through that feeling.

We will be lowering the Tns going forward by about 5, perhaps more in certain instances.

We hope that will make things a little more tolerable.

Math is always a challenge! But it's a good sign for a GM to change things when needed. <3

You guys are doing a good job.

Great post! Changing a campaign as thoroughly planned as this is no easy task, and responding to feedback while running is difficulty! This sounds like an excellent step.

Very happy to have the chance to participate in Windrise

I'm been too discombobulated to notice

But the admission that maybe changes are good and can be implemented is a good and healthy sign, and trust me when I say, we see the hard work you guys are putting in.

Just want to second what the others said - the great amount of work put into the game clearly shows!

To recognise possible problems and try to correct course is a hard and brave decision, even more during a game with so much preparation work into it and A LOT of moving parts - but it's also a great of attention to players' feedback and very welcome

I do agree with the opinion that difficulty is somewhat higher than the existing XP budget allows for - especially in skills (and sometimes traits ans rings) unlikely to be central for PCs given the focus of the game. I also felt that in some events you may have expected a total number of active players somewhat higher than we actually have (could give more in-depth feedback in the PF if there's interest!), in case that might help course-correct later.

That said, I want to praise and thank the GM team again for all the hard work. There's a lot of very interesting stuff happening, and a large number of elements to enjoy in the game!

Terms and Expressions

This post is being made for clarification purposes. It is not an invitation to comment on other players, though those wishing to line up and call me a fool would be within their rights.

Some of you have noticed that there are a couple different ways that I have expressed that you have items for trade. That was so that the documents would read like someone wrote them, not a spreadsheet. Unfortunately, one of those has turned out to be misleading.

Ways to indicate the item is something you can give out [using kielbasa as the trade unit]
We have 15 kielbasa
We have a surplus of 15 kielbasa
We produce 15 kielbasa [when it is not followed by a "we consume more than 15 kielbasa," which takes some doing, but I have seen it done.]

Ways to indicate you need to acquire an item
We need 1 kielbasa
We have a deficit of 18 kielbasa
We require 13 kielbasa
We consume 20 kielbasa [when it is not followed by a "we produce more than 20 kielbasa"]