In the thread that tries to absolve some game systems from all blame, the main example is "the 15-minute workday". Party, including wizard, enters dungeon; wizard blows all his spells as quickly as possible; party goes home to recuperate.

But there's a problem with that example, since although it's cited as a WotC D&D 3.5 example, really it can happen in any edition, although it's probably much less extreme in 4e. It's not really a rules issue, in contrast to what that thread is talking about. It's a logic issue: if you have a limited amount of something, then using it all up as quickly as possible means you have to restock. The exact rules used to determine when something is used up and when it is replenished are irrelevant.

So the problem is not with the rules. It's not even really a problem with the way the players are playing; a lot of old school players think it's just fine to go back and forth between an adventure locale and a home base. The real problem is mismatched desires. Some people want constant, high-level action. If they play a wizard, it's because they want to cast lots of spells -- and they can't quite come to grips with the fact that eventually, they will run out of spells. If they aren't playing a wizard, but the wizard blows all his spells, they don't want a break in the action to return to camp. They want a continuous adventure, not a series of logistic puzzles.

Or, to put it another way, they see the selection of Wizard, Fighter, Thief, or Cleric as a choice of their primary activity, what they will do almost all the time. This puts them in conflict with people who see these as exceptional activity, what they do in unusual situations so that they can continue their primary activity, which is to explore.

So for some people, character class abilities are the exception, while for other people, they are the rule. And if you try to mix the two groups, you will not be happy.

Quote from: talysman;613046In the thread that tries to absolve some game systems from all blame, the main example is "the 15-minute workday". Party, including wizard, enters dungeon; wizard blows all his spells as quickly as possible; party goes home to recuperate.

But there's a problem with that example, since although it's cited as a WotC D&D 3.5 example, really it can happen in any edition, although it's probably much less extreme in 4e. It's not really a rules issue, in contrast to what that thread is talking about. It's a logic issue: if you have a limited amount of something, then using it all up as quickly as possible means you have to restock. The exact rules used to determine when something is used up and when it is replenished are irrelevant.

So the problem is not with the rules. It's not even really a problem with the way the players are playing; a lot of old school players think it's just fine to go back and forth between an adventure locale and a home base. The real problem is mismatched desires. Some people want constant, high-level action. If they play a wizard, it's because they want to cast lots of spells -- and they can't quite come to grips with the fact that eventually, they will run out of spells. If they aren't playing a wizard, but the wizard blows all his spells, they don't want a break in the action to return to camp. They want a continuous adventure, not a series of logistic puzzles.

Or, to put it another way, they see the selection of Wizard, Fighter, Thief, or Cleric as a choice of their primary activity, what they will do almost all the time. This puts them in conflict with people who see these as exceptional activity, what they do in unusual situations so that they can continue their primary activity, which is to explore.

So for some people, character class abilities are the exception, while for other people, they are the rule. And if you try to mix the two groups, you will not be happy.

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I was talking about.

In your example the disfunction is still coming from the group, with some payers wanting to play one way and some another.

If they all played the same way there would be no problem, and in fact blaming the system and switching to a less 'broken' one is unlikely to solve the problem.

I suppose you could run to a game so narrowly conceived that it drives off half the players but again, not really solving the problem.

Also, why isn't this in the original thread?

I don't see the 15 minute adventuring day as so much of a problem with players ("we're going to rest after every fight!") since there are so many ways to counter that but rather that if you have combat rules in which it takes a long time to play through each individual combat you MUST either have few fights per session (i.e. 15 minute adventuring days) or spend all session killing things. Make combat faster and you can keep on hitting people with wandering monsters and whatnot and problem solved.

Quote from: Daztur;613114I don't see the 15 minute adventuring day as so much of a problem with players ("we're going to rest after every fight!") since there are so many ways to counter that but rather that if you have combat rules in which it takes a long time to play through each individual combat you MUST either have few fights per session (i.e. 15 minute adventuring days) or spend all session killing things. Make combat faster and you can keep on hitting people with wandering monsters and whatnot and problem solved.

Fair, I never meant to imply that there can't be problems with rules sets just that some "problems" are of the self inflicted variety and that those "problems" shouldn't be held against the game when a little discretion would solve the issue.

Quote from: Piestrio;613108I'm not sure what that has to do with what I was talking about.

In your example the disfunction is still coming from the group, with some payers wanting to play one way and some another.

If they all played the same way there would be no problem, and in fact blaming the system and switching to a less 'broken' one is unlikely to solve the problem.

I suppose you could run to a game so narrowly conceived that it drives off half the players but again, not really solving the problem.

Also, why isn't this in the original thread?

It's not in the original thread because I feel that specific example you offered does not fit with what you were talking about, since fixing the fifteen-minute workday is not a matter of dropping rules, but of either playing the game as if powers/spells were secondary to general adventuring, or not playing D&D at all and switching to something that supports your desires. I separated it out so that your thread isn't messed up.

I know it's bad form on RPG forums to avoid derailing a thread, but I have a lot of peculiar ideas about manners.

I dunno. I think it's simply a case of players wanting to follow the safest course.

When I started playing D&D, you didn't want to stay in the dungeon because they were dangerous, scary, unknown places, full of wandering monsters and things you had to run from because they would kill you.

Every time the DM rolled for them you felt a bit of dread in your stomach. You try to sleep in the dungeon, you'd probably end up dead.

Rope Trick only worked for 20 minutes per level of the caster, so it wasn't exactly great for long term resting, considering the average levels you played were from 1 to 12 or so.

If you don't have to worry about wandering monsters, if you don't to worry about there being anything more powerful than you in the dungeon, and if you have a magical hidey hole, then I think most players will be more cautious and methodical.

Interesting, this ....

Some people do play according to rules, and also wants to get in on the action, of course, leaving the Mage in an utmost peculiar situation:
Either blowing off too many spells early, or wait patiently.
The question is:
Who wants to wait, perhaps a few fights even, without getting any action?

You tell me.

Now, do that mean that the game itself is broken?
Not neccesarily, it is more a question of a playstyle that really doesn't fit the rules.

However, we are practically talking about a playstyle that is more or less enouraged in the said game.
Again i ask:
Who wants to wait, perhaps a few fights even, without getting any action?
People who choose to play as a mage do so because they want to use said magic, not because they want to wait, just to step in occasionally(rarely) and blast an enemy that is too tough for the others to handle.

Do that make the game broken?
I'd say perhaps, it is clearly not entirely thought through, or else it would be visible in all references to the mage, that the mage MUST be coolheaded, calculating and careful, and that being fiery-tempered, gung-ho and a show-off is not good at all for a mage.
But, face it, do that sound like a "typical" D&D-mage?

Quote from: Catelf;613180Interesting, this ....

Some people do play according to rules, and also wants to get in on the action, of course, leaving the Mage in an utmost peculiar situation:
Either blowing off too many spells early, or wait patiently.
The question is:
Who wants to wait, perhaps a few fights even, without getting any action?

You tell me.

Now, do that mean that the game itself is broken?
Not neccesarily, it is more a question of a playstyle that really doesn't fit the rules.

However, we are practically talking about a playstyle that is more or less enouraged in the said game.
Again i ask:
Who wants to wait, perhaps a few fights even, without getting any action?
People who choose to play as a mage do so because they want to use said magic, not because they want to wait, just to step in occasionally(rarely) and blast an enemy that is too tough for the others to handle.

Do that make the game broken?
I'd say perhaps, it is clearly not entirely thought through, or else it would be visible in all references to the mage, that the mage MUST be coolheaded, calculating and careful, and that being fiery-tempered, gung-ho and a show-off is not good at all for a mage.
But, face it, do that sound like a "typical" D&D-mage?

This is a good example of what I'm talking about. There are many things to do in the dungeon: map it out, locate resources and traps, spy on denizens, steal stuff, negotiate, trick, play one faction against another... things every character can do. But there are a significant number of people who don't see any of that as "action". They see it all as "waiting for action". The "action" is fighting or zapping monsters.

This puts them in conflict with the people who see spells and mundane fighting as the last resort, not the real action.

There's a saying among old school people that if you have to roll the dice, you've lost. If the dungeon is set up for exploration instead of as scenery for an encounter, good play means trying to solve problems while triggering as few dice rolls as possible. I'd extend that to spells: if you're forced to cast a spell, you've lost, to some extent. Spells are basically "get out of jail free" cards, which you use when things go wrong and you can't solve your problems the way you're supposed to.

Quote from: talysman;613252This is a good example of what I'm talking about. There are many things to do in the dungeon: map it out, locate resources and traps, spy on denizens, steal stuff, negotiate, trick, play one faction against another... things every character can do. But there are a significant number of people who don't see any of that as "action". They see it all as "waiting for action". The "action" is fighting or zapping monsters.

This puts them in conflict with the people who see spells and mundane fighting as the last resort, not the real action.

There's a saying among old school people that if you have to roll the dice, you've lost. If the dungeon is set up for exploration instead of as scenery for an encounter, good play means trying to solve problems while triggering as few dice rolls as possible. I'd extend that to spells: if you're forced to cast a spell, you've lost, to some extent. Spells are basically "get out of jail free" cards, which you use when things go wrong and you can't solve your problems the way you're supposed to.

What "oldschool people"?
One, there are seveal "oldschoolers" that do not think it is a game unless you roll the dice.
Two, there are at least a few "youngschoolers" who like to plan ahead.
Essentially, it is a style of play, not "oldschool".

Now, i understand your sentiment, but you'd better understand that it is far from all who play like that.
Also, among those who do not play like you described, it may be due to the adventure, the GM ... DM, or the players, the fighting rounds, from my impression of it, often becomes very dominant, very fast.
And then we are back to my point.

One could ask if you consider the "planning way ahead" as a better style of play .... and one may say that it is better considering the rules, but then, how often is really dungeouncrawling a massively pre-planned affair?

Right, there is quite a few things that can potentially be done by anyone, but still, that is outside of fighting.
And some of the alternatives you gave is only working if the GM allows it, and if no player ruins it. I mean, how many do you think bothers with negotiating with the monsters?

So, you get back to my question, that you tried to avoid:
Who wants to remain inactive while all the others is fighting?

Quote from: Catelf;613283So, you get back to my question, that you tried to avoid:
Who wants to remain inactive while all the others is fighting?

I do, if fighting isn't the answer. Sometimes, running is the answer. Sometimes, hiding. Sometimes, bribery, or begging.

But you are ignoring the point of this thread: why is "fighting" the definition of "action"? Why is "unloading all your spells" the definition of "action"?

You automatically assume that it is, and you are thus baffled when you read what I write, because I'm telling you that for me and other people, that's not the real action.

Quote from: Catelf;613180Who wants to wait, perhaps a few fights even, without getting any action?

Someone who is roleplaying a character that understands he's not a front-line combatant or magical machinegun?  What's the word for that?..

Quote from: Catelf;613180Who wants to wait, perhaps a few fights even, without getting any action?

Oh yeah, an adult roleplayer.

Quote from: Catelf;613180But, face it, do that sound like a "typical" D&D-mage?

Prior to 3rd edition it did.  

Quote from: talysman;613252This is a good example of what I'm talking about. There are many things to do in the dungeon: map it out, locate resources and traps, spy on denizens, steal stuff, negotiate, trick, play one faction against another... things every character can do. But there are a significant number of people who don't see any of that as "action". They see it all as "waiting for action". The "action" is fighting or zapping monsters.

This puts them in conflict with the people who see spells and mundane fighting as the last resort, not the real action.

There's a saying among old school people that if you have to roll the dice, you've lost. If the dungeon is set up for exploration instead of as scenery for an encounter, good play means trying to solve problems while triggering as few dice rolls as possible. I'd extend that to spells: if you're forced to cast a spell, you've lost, to some extent. Spells are basically "get out of jail free" cards, which you use when things go wrong and you can't solve your problems the way you're supposed to.

I think you've nailed exactly the difference between old school play and new school play. I think that transition happened somewhere round the release of 3rd edition but I couldn't put my finger on exactly why that would be. The change from expecting things to be resolved by fiat (and thus narration/exploration) to expecting things to be resolved by the detailed skill system (and thus a dice roll) maybe? Also coinciding with more detailed combat rules including action economy, opportunity attacks, power attack calculations, etc?

So the 3e rules bloat made combat in some ways more interesting by expanding on the systems that were there, but made noncombat less interesting by replacing the detailed narration/exploration system that was there previously with a simple dice roll. Combine that with all the optimisation stuff revolving around feats etc and maybe we have our answer. Maybe people are just responding to the system they're being presented with, doing the stuff that the game makes interesting. Hmm.

The concept of using your abilities as the rule as opposed to using your abilities as an exception is an interesting one.  When I think of anything close to reality, for example, Police, Firefighters, Soldiers, anyone with a real job involving deadly action, the majority of their day isn't action.  Even in a combat zone, a lot of engagements are short in length.  Do the riflemen in a squad complain because the only weapon that can hurt the enemy is the SAW or the grenade launcher?

This "always on powers" concept really only comes from videogames, where your mages don't have to rest, have to rest very rarely, can drink potions to get "mana" back, or can sleep whenever you want to.  Where did the 15-min adventuring day come from?  The gold box D&D videogames, not 3e.

Believe it or not, people did play for many years, some going on 30 now, playing mages who were in fact cool and calculating and found there were other things to do in combat besides Nova.

Quote from: soviet;613306The change from expecting things to be resolved by fiat (and thus narration/exploration) to expecting things to be resolved by the detailed skill system (and thus a dice roll) maybe? Also coinciding with more detailed combat rules including action economy, opportunity attacks, power attack calculations, etc?

So the 3e rules bloat made combat in some ways more interesting by expanding on the systems that were there, but made noncombat less interesting by replacing the detailed narration/exploration system that was there previously with a simple dice roll.

That's a useful observation. I don't think the switch to a skill system tells the whole story because there are other games like Runequest, Rolemaster, Harnmaster, GURPS, etc that have full-blown skill systems and yet don't seem to have this issue.  Add in the detailed tactical rules as you mentioned however, make combats longer, and yeah, the percentage of rules focused on the combat round versus the rules not focused on the combat round greatly increased in 3e and then even more in 4e.

That's one of Vreeg's Laws, make a game with 90% combat rules and the game will be 90% combat.

I think the length of combats themselves is also a big factor.  If me waiting a round or two for the right time to cast a spell is 2 minutes, that's different then 30 minutes.

Quote from: CRKrueger;613311That's a useful observation. I don't think the switch to a skill system tells the whole story because there are other games like Runequest, Rolemaster, Harnmaster, GURPS, etc that have full-blown skill systems and yet don't seem to have this issue.  Add in the detailed tactical rules as you mentioned however, make combats longer, and yeah, the percentage of rules focused on the combat round versus the rules not focused on the combat round greatly increased in 3e and then even more in 4e.

That's one of Vreeg's Laws, make a game with 90% combat rules and the game will be 90% combat.

I think the length of combats themselves is also a big factor.  If me waiting a round or two for the right time to cast a spell is 2 minutes, that's different then 30 minutes.

True.

When we play 4th edition we also feel a real pull towards getting into combat because fights are a lot of fun to play out. To the extent that when we have a session that doesn't have a fight in it, it's kind of disappointing. But it's also a mixed blessing because that combat takes so long that we don't have time to do much else afterwards.

I think 3e suffers less from this because combat is still very detailed and time consuming but it's also less fun. So the mechanics sort of point you in that direction but as a player you have less of an inclination to follow along.