Quote from: obrynWow, so every adventure should be like that?

My Wilderlands game is largely one of exploration - going to remote locations, finding long-lost dungeons, and exploring them.  If every dungeon has a time limit, that's ... well, frankly crazy.  It's an artificial constraint.

Every campaign has to have time in it. You want to let your player characters go and explore half an hour out of every day? Fine, but most likely they'll find out that someone else go to the big discoveries/interesting places and looted the treasure/met the oracle/slew the dragon first. Not every adventure should be against the clock, but no adventure should be based around blowing all of your resources in ten minutes then resting.

QuoteOr they don't take the bag of holding, or they hide it, etc...  

Then they'll discover soon enough that they're not the only creatures in the world who have an interest in discovering things. Hide your bag of holding, leaving it unguarded? It'll work maybe 90% of the time. Only has to be stolen once and you've lost a lot. Don't take it? They'll regret that when they find loads of heavy loot.

QuoteI've never noticed you posting before, so a quick question...  Should I pretty much expect most of your posts to be "Less is more!  If you want more or different it's because you're dumb!  RC uber alles!"?

Hand on heart, if I had only one rule book I'd have the RC. But I don't always think that 'less is more' in D&D. I do think, however, that in this context less certainly is more. Keep it simple, keep it flowing, and keep the game well paced. I've made the mistake of allowing particular character classes to dictate the pace of my games, and it is my experience that a story driven game is more fun for all of the players and me too. The trick is balancing challenge against time.

I also think that having too much baggage in a game can stifle flow and creativity; the example alluded to in this duscission, the sheer scale of spell lists in AD&D, is in my opinion a good one. That doesn't mean that a game with loads of options can't be excellent, but I do think that you can overcomplicate things to the detriment of the gaming experience. Do you not agree?

Quote from: Cab

Hand on heart, if I had only one rule book I'd have the RC. But I don't always think that 'less is more' in D&D. I do think, however, that in this context less certainly is more. Keep it simple, keep it flowing, and keep the game well paced. I've made the mistake of allowing particular character classes to dictate the pace of my games, and it is my experience that a story driven game is more fun for all of the players and me too. The trick is balancing challenge against time.

I also think that having too much baggage in a game can stifle flow and creativity; the example alluded to in this duscission, the sheer scale of spell lists in AD&D, is in my opinion a good one. That doesn't mean that a game with loads of options can't be excellent, but I do think that you can overcomplicate things to the detriment of the gaming experience. Do you not agree?

OK  I was just checking.  Story-driven and grognard.  This should be interesting.

As far as overcomplicating a game... It depends what I'm going for.  Largely I would agree, but I would probably not agree with you on where that line is drawn, exactly.  I enjoy rules-light games such as FATE for certain games, but I also enjoy 3.5 quite a bit.  I'm one of the folks who actually enjoys the game portion of RPGs like 3.5.  I like the little character creation sub-game, and I love mechanical customization of characters.  Games like RC D&D and Castles & Crusades leave me a bit cold.  They're lighter in rules, certainly, but less readily customizable than FATE/Risus/Whatever.

What I will say is that I like most of my complexity to be front-loaded.  I want it to be largely taken care of during character creation or during levelling.  While the game is in play, I want lookup times to be reduced...  I'm not saying zero, just short & long between.  Hence, my excitement over a possible spell revision in 4e.

-O

Quote from: obrynOK  I was just checking.  Story-driven and grognard.  This should be interesting.

I wouldn't call myself a grog. I'm most partial to BECMI D&D for a number of reasons, but I can pick things in all three and a half versions of AD&D that I think are done very well.  

QuoteAs far as overcomplicating a game... It depends what I'm going for.  Largely I would agree, but I would probably not agree with you on where that line is drawn, exactly.

Good, I kind of left that open ended. It does rather come down to where you want the detail.

QuoteI enjoy rules-light games such as FATE for certain games, but I also enjoy 3.5 quite a bit.  I'm one of the folks who actually enjoys the game portion of RPGs like 3.5.  I like the little character creation sub-game, and I love mechanical customization of characters.  Games like RC D&D and Castles & Crusades leave me a bit cold.  They're lighter in rules, certainly, but less readily customizable than FATE/Risus/Whatever.

I think that RC D&D being less customisable than 3.5 is a misconception; it doesn't have so many customisations built in, but for the most part that means you've got a greater scope. Every rule telling you what you can do also excludes a great deal, and RC D&D doesn't exclude very much at all.

QuoteWhat I will say is that I like most of my complexity to be front-loaded.  I want it to be largely taken care of during character creation or during levelling.  While the game is in play, I want lookup times to be reduced...  I'm not saying zero, just short & long between.  Hence, my excitement over a possible spell revision in 4e.

The best thing they could do with 4e spells would be to give each one a short word limit, and reduce the number in the core rulebooks. Would make lookup faster, would make spell selection faster, and would make getting to the part of the spell description you need much easier. The best thing to do to the spell system is address how many spells you want a character of any level to cast; balancing things towards powers per encounter rings all sorts of alarm bells, I just can't find any way that isn't a mistake.

Oh, and one other thing... I'd certainly have extra spells in the campaign, but I'd bring those out in seperate products. Theres nothing at all wrong with having loads of spells about, but at the core of the game you don't need so very many. Keep the heart of the game simple, bring complexity in as an option.

Quote from: CabThen he's being played like a numbskull.

You're a wizard. Use a cantrip, a bit of flash or smoke powder, a few appropriate magical looking words and kobolds will run in fear. Can't beat your foe in a fair fight? Cheat, throw a bag of marbles on the floor.

Dude, what? So your answer is to treat all opponents like morons? Marbles? Listen to yourself, man! Someone who plays a wizard is signing up to be Merlin or Gandalf or (these days) Harry Potter, not Penn and fucking Teller.

And don't even start the whole "Gandalf was an 8th-level magic user" spiel. He beat up a Balrog by himself and was the Tolkien equivalent of a living god.

QuoteIn no edition of D&D has a low level mage started out as an equal combatant, but in every version thus far he's been worth playing if you're smart enough to realise that spellcasting is only part of being the mage character.

Yes. The other part is d4 hit points and a narrow skill selection. So the spellcasting part needs to be good.

QuoteSpells per encounter... Heck, its just dull. It'll require downpowering many of the spells and it will replace the creative roleplay you need to be a mage with the bang-bang-bang of each encounter having had a reset button pressed so you can do just the same thing again.

No one knows what the final shape of the 4e casting rules will be or what it will require. Not even you. So please, spare me the speeches on the impending tragic loss of majesty. I'm getting really sick of all the weepy internet soothsaying I hear around here. It's bone-headed, arrogant, and as likely to be wrong as right.

QuoteOh, dear. 80%? Really?

Sounds tedious to me. Really. D&D is not (and should not be) a combat game, if you want that then buy a miniatures combat boardgame... Oh, thats the direction they've been taking 3rd ed in, and its where they're going even more with 4th ed... Such a shame, because the basic engine of the game is good.

God, I know, I'm so fucking unenlightened. You forgot to say something about "role-playing not roll-playing" in your little prancefest.

Listen, I'm usually a lot more civil, but you're just fucking with me and my patience has limits.

Quote from: ghost ratAnd don't even start the whole "Gandalf was an 8th-level magic user" spiel. He beat up a Balrog by himself and was the Tolkien equivalent of a living god.

Gandalf was a 5th level magic-user, according to the classic Seligman article.  And balrogs only had 10d6 hit dice back in the day, so a single lightning bolt could potentially kill one.

Quote from: ghost ratDude, what? So your answer is to treat all opponents like morons? Marbles? Listen to yourself, man! Someone who plays a wizard is signing up to be Merlin or Gandalf or (these days) Harry Potter, not Penn and fucking Teller.

And live long enough you'll BE that great mage. But you don't start out that way like you don't start out as Conan if you're a barbarian, Alan a Dale if you're a bard or Aragorn if you're a ranger. The lower level characters of all classes need a few tricks to prosper; you're expecting too much if you think that the magic user should start out as an arch mage!

And it isn't just marbles, and it isn't just morons you're aiming to fool. Come on, a creative player should be able to rattle off dozens of tricks that will keep a low level mage a valuable member of the party whether or not he's got spells to spare. The thing to remember is that you're the only person who knows whats left in the magical arsenal, no one else does, and they don't know if what you're doing is magic, trickery, or just plain old bluffing.

Quote[SIZE]
Yes. The other part is d4 hit points and a narrow skill selection. So the spellcasting part needs to be good.

I dunno, I just see that as a rather uncreative way of keeping a mage alive. Besides, if you're primarily looking at this as a way of keeping mages going at low levels there are other ways other than throwing out a working magic system.

QuoteNo one knows what the final shape of the 4e casting rules will be or what it will require. Not even you. So please, spare me the speeches on the impending tragic loss of majesty. I'm getting really sick of all the weepy internet soothsaying I hear around here. It's bone-headed, arrogant, and as likely to be wrong as right.

Scanning through the info being dribbled out by Wizards, we do know a fair bit about the shape of the magic system, but we don't yet know about which abilities will be per encounter, per day, etc. It ain't arrogant to form an opinion on what the games developers have actually said.

QuoteGod, I know, I'm so fucking unenlightened. You forgot to say something about "role-playing not roll-playing" in your little prancefest.

Listen, I'm usually a lot more civil, but you're just fucking with me and my patience has limits.

You're usually more civil? I rather doubt that.

I think ghost rat would be better served by always playing gestalt charcters from level one. Dragon Gestalt characters in Montes WoD, it is.

Get real, ghost rat!
D&D in low levels is all about survival horror.

Go, play Rifts if you want it front-loaded.

Not that I don´t like Rifts, but Rifts is not D&D, and there´s no need to front load D&D EVEN MORE than 3.x did.

Quote from: CabAnd it isn't just marbles, and it isn't just morons you're aiming to fool. Come on, a creative player should be able to rattle off dozens of tricks that will keep a low level mage a valuable member of the party whether or not he's got spells to spare.

But what if I wanna just blast shit with arcane fire 'til it's dead, instead of figuring out alternative uses for household objects?

If zapping foes is all that you want to do, then the Warlock is the class for you.

Sounds good, but then aren't we doing away with Vancian magic? It also doesn't offer the abilities a wizard gets with his spells at a later date.

My point is that there are playstyles beyond "have one crappy spell per day then throw marbles at your opponents." When I play a wizard I want to be a wizard. Not a warlock with his handful of reusable tricks, and not some poor Vancian shmuck who winds up trying to figure out how to use a broom handle to convince the enemy goblins he deserves the title. I'm not asking for constantly reusable earth shaking power, just something that lets me contribute to the combats, and doesn't result in me wanting to take a nap at 9am to refill my excitement tank.

Quote from: SettembriniI think ghost rat would be better served by always playing gestalt charcters from level one. Dragon Gestalt characters in Montes WoD, it is.

That's me. Evil Powergamer Public Enemy #1. :rolleyes:

QuoteGet real, ghost rat!
D&D in low levels is all about survival horror.

Go, play Rifts if you want it front-loaded.

Not that I don´t like Rifts, but Rifts is not D&D, and there´s no need to front load D&D EVEN MORE than 3.x did.

I don't want front-loading. I don't want cosmic power. I can even take being a schmuck, if my wizard schmuck is still a wizard. I just want to consistently be able to do something magical.

You know what I was in my last D&D game? A bard. I was useless in combat, but I accomplished everything I needed to and I was fine with that. So cut me some slack.

Quote from: James McMurraySounds good, but then aren't we doing away with Vancian magic? It also doesn't offer the abilities a wizard gets with his spells at a later date.

My point is that there are playstyles beyond "have one crappy spell per day then throw marbles at your opponents." When I play a wizard I want to be a wizard. Not a warlock with his handful of reusable tricks, and not some poor Vancian shmuck who winds up trying to figure out how to use a broom handle to convince the enemy goblins he deserves the title. I'm not asking for constantly reusable earth shaking power, just something that lets me contribute to the combats, and doesn't result in me wanting to take a nap at 9am to refill my excitement tank.

This is exactly what I'm trying to say.

Did I ever mention that I think the Warlock sucks in actual play?
I mean I know people digging it. But it´s positively uninteresting.
Warlocks are balanced, can contribute every round.

But in a boring way.

Especially as the "greater invisibility-thief backstab-eldritch blast" combo is so popular with them.

It´s really a certain kind of artillery that I think of lowly in regards to rich tactical play. It´s boring and uncreative.

And a telltale of the "invisible chaotic thief sniper"-type character. You know those who never ever want to take responsibility, plan ahead or act in unison with the group. Boring & annoying.

Quote from: James McMurrayBut what if I wanna just blast shit with arcane fire 'til it's dead, instead of figuring out alternative uses for household objects?

Talk your DM into allowing you to generate high level characters, max out on combat spells, and go trawling for monsters to blat.

Quote from: James McMurrayMy point is that there are playstyles beyond "have one crappy spell per day then throw marbles at your opponents." When I play a wizard I want to be a wizard. Not a warlock with his handful of reusable tricks, and not some poor Vancian shmuck who winds up trying to figure out how to use a broom handle to convince the enemy goblins he deserves the title. I'm not asking for constantly reusable earth shaking power, just something that lets me contribute to the combats, and doesn't result in me wanting to take a nap at 9am to refill my excitement tank.

Then you're expecting a low level mage to have a capacity for doing things again and again in a way that no other low level character can reasonably expect. Take a low level rogue; sooner or later, if you expect to disarm a trap in every encounter, you'll die because you're not that good at it yet. Take the fighter, if you expect to survive encounter after encounter as a low level character you'll need to be more creative than just standing there at the front slugging it out with your foes. Why do you expect mages to suddenly be different?