TheRPGSite

New monte article on Vancian casting. I have to say I am dissapointed on two counts, one it looks like Vancian might not be restored as the primary default system (though it will likely be in there as one among many possibilitities). and two I think it is a mistake for them to give some much weight to poll results on the wizards site itself (which still seems primarily composed of 4e fans). My guess is most people want the classic spell list with the vancian mechanic brought back. Would hate to see them bring it back but reduced and changed to make room for other spell casting options (i just think D&D has never done spell points well and the whole way they did wizards in 4e i have no interest in):

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd%2F4ll%2F20120227 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd%2F4ll%2F20120227)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;517348New monte article on Vancian casting. I have to say I am dissapointed on two counts, one it looks like Vancian might not be restored as the primary default system (though it will likely be in there as one among many possibilitities). and two I think it is a mistake for them to give some much weight to poll results on the wizards site itself (which still seems primarily composed of 4e fans). My guess is most people want the classic spell list with the vancian mechanic brought back. Would hate to see them bring it back but reduced and changed to make room for other spell casting options (i just think D&D has never done spell points well and the whole way they did wizards in 4e i have no interest in):

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd%2F4ll%2F20120227 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd%2F4ll%2F20120227)

I agree on both counts. It also sounds like Monte is talking about feats as really "feats", in the 3rd edition sense, to be included in the very base core of the game. And that is a no-no to me. If I can't turn that shit off, I'm out.

I've changed my mind. I think they're shooting in the dark at this point.

Quote from: Benoist;517351I agree on both counts. It also sounds like Monte is talking about feats as really "feats", in the 3rd edition sense, to be included in the very base core of the game. And that is a no-no to me. If I can't turn that shit off, I'm out.

I've changed my mind. I think they're shooting in the dark at this point.

Feats are a mess, but I can live with those (since so many people seem to love them) but without the classic vancian spell lists it just isn't D&D to me. Maybe I just didn't understand the article or monte was not being clear, but it really sounds like they are going in a more progressive direction to please 4e fans. I dont think they understand how much of a problem 4e magic was for people who left for pathfinder and old school.

Something tells me the toolbox will only be a toolbox i the sense that stuff they decide not to add may eventually be added as an option down the line(and probably in a similarly bad way to how psionics is handled in most editions), not exactly sure why feats are sticking around as a primary rule since if anything they are part of the reason the game got so damn difficult post 2e.

Well, all he says is that the 5e core book is like this: imagine the 3.x PHB with the wizard and the sorcerer class (same spell list, one class is Vancian the other is not), and plus Reserve feats from Complete Mage. Then Vancian magic is 'optional' in that not every party has to contain a wizard.

Reserve feats worked roughly like this: as long as you didn't consume a higher level spell slot, you could use a lower level spell at-will.

Take 'not consuming a higher level spell slot' out of the equation, that's what Monte is talking about. Low-level, relatively harmless stuff that magic users can spam at-will.

Apparently that's what people want in D&D and not Vancian magic.

Or it's just that WotC doesn't know how to handle poll results, because these are phrased poorly, or whatever. I mean, as recent as August 2011 on the Tome (http://thetome.podbean.com/2011/08/11/tome-gencon-special-7-exclusive-interview-with-mike-mearls/) podcast, Mearls praises the DDI platform as the tool to give them 'data' to understand what people really want in D&D, and then he says this  (transcribed from tBP):

"Q: Have you noticed a big disparity between what the forums say and the CB [Character Builder] data suggests?
A: Yes. Example: The vampire isn't liked much on the forums but there are a lot of them built with the CB, and are advancing them instead of just making them as a test."

So if there's 5% more people who build vampires on DDI than those who fiddle round and 'advance' their half-orcs, take a wild guess which of the two is in if there's space for one. That's 5e in a nutshell.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;517352I dont think they understand how much of a problem 4e magic was for people who left for pathfinder and old school.

At this point I don't think they understand the core experience of the D&D game at all, to be honest. Which totally baffles me considering Monte Cook (whom I know for interacting with him for years now) actually is a pretty smart guy and is (was?) a brilliant game designer. It's just not computing with me how they could have seemingly become these ignoramuses in such a short amount of time.

I see several possibilities that would explain it:

(1) I changed, not them. My appreciation of the D&D game is different than it was when I was playing 3rd ed and Arcana Evolved and Ptolus and all that. -- I think it's true to some extent, but not nearly as true as it might seem on the surface.

(2) All the L&L columns are total PR bullshit and it really doesn't matter what the polls say in the end. There's a "master plan" behind the scenes, and that's what it's really about. -- I honestly don't think WotC is smart enough to come up with that one.

(3) The "D&D Next" Playtest rules are really just a draft of a draft of a draft that already ceased to exist in the minds of Monte and Co. They're already past that stage and the ideas have gone wrong ever since. -- I think this might be somewhat true.

(4) The D&D brand is in such trouble that what they actually believe or think about the game is neither here nor there. Basically the brand is fucked and they are attempting the impossible to make everyone happy by organizing the biggest design by committee clusterfuck ever done in D&D's history. -- I think this is the most likely possibility.

I put my bet on (4), and the reprinting of AD&D and (maybe, if rumors are true) 3.5 are here to provide some cashflow for the D&D department while the next move is being decided.

I'm starting to believe that D&D is truly fucked this time.

Doesn't matter to my hobby: I have my OGL games and the old editions of the game to back that up. I'll be cool and be able to share my stuff if I want to. But still... it's a bummer to see the D&D brand end like this, potentially.

Quote from: Windjammer;517360Well, all he says is that the 5e core book is like this: imagine the 3.x PHB with the wizard and the sorcerer class (same spell list, one class is Vancian the other is not), and plus Reserve feats from Complete Mage. Then Vancian magic is 'optional' in that not every party has to contain a wizard.

Reserve feats worked roughly like this: as long as you didn't consume a higher level spell slot, you could use a lower level spell at-will.

Take 'not consuming a higher level spell slot' out of the equation, that's what Monte is talking about. Low-level, relatively harmless stuff that magic users can spam at-will.

Apparently that's what people want in D&D and not Vancian magic.

Or it's just that WotC doesn't know how to handle poll results, because these are phrased poorly, or whatever. I mean, as recent as August 2011 on the Tome (http://thetome.podbean.com/2011/08/11/tome-gencon-special-7-exclusive-interview-with-mike-mearls/) podcast, Mearls praises the DDI platform as the tool to give them 'data' to understand what people really want in D&D, and then he says this  (transcribed from tBP):

"Q: Have you noticed a big disparity between what the forums say and the CB [Character Builder] data suggests?
A: Yes. Example: The vampire isn't liked much on the forums but there are a lot of them built with the CB, and are advancing them instead of just making them as a test."

So if there's 5% more people who build vampires on DDI than those who fiddle round and 'advance' their half-orcs, take a wild guess which of the two is in if there's space for one. That's 5e in a nutshell.

To me it reads like he is contemplating putting in this feat magic as a way of getting some 4e style casting. I just dont see vancian and 4e powers co existing well (especially through feats) in the core system. I also wonder howmuch of the classic spell list will be lost or changed after reading this.

On the polling data, i dont get why they are leaning so heavy on ddi and their website polls. Not that those arent getting useful data, but the pool is pretty much limited to 4e players. If their aim is to bring back the people who left because of 4e, then that seems like a bad way to gather information.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;517365I just dont see vancian and 4e powers co existing well (especially through feats) in the core system.

As I said, this has been tried and tested before, and lots of 3.5 groups played with Reserve Feats. I really don't get why that's particularly hard to wrap one's head around it.

Mechanically it's fine. The issue is rather that Vancian magic and at-will spamming are not design decisions in a vacuum - these respectively belong to different understandings of what constitutes a conflict, an encounter, etc. in D&D. The guy with 3 spells a day and the guy with 3 spells to fire every 18 seconds are looking for different things.

Strangely enough, once we replace 'spells to fire' with 'arrows to attempt' it seems fine. But that's for good reasons. 4E should have shown WotC that people expect more out of magic than non-magical arrows with magic theme songs tacked on.

Quote from: Benoist;517364At this point I don't think they understand the core experience of the D&D game at all, to be honest. Which totally baffles me considering Monte Cook (whom I know for interacting with him for years now) actually is a pretty smart guy and is (was?) a brilliant game designer. It's just not computing with me how they could have seemingly become these ignoramuses in such a short amount of time.

One thing to consider is this: he has been hired by WOTC as the design lead, but Mearls is his boss and Mearls himself has bosses. So we don't know what kind of instructions they are being given. i can only use my limited knowledge from runnning bedrock games (and what work I have done as a freelancer) as a point of reference. But when I hire someone, they are brought in to complete Bedrock Game's vision of a good RPG not their own. Cook probably has parameters he isnworking inside of.

Quote from: Windjammer;517368As I said, this has been tried and tested before, and lots of 3.5 groups played with Reserve Feats. I really don't get why that's particularly hard to wrap one's head around it.

Mechanically it's fine. The issue is rather that Vancian magic and at-will spamming are not design decisions in a vacuum - these respectively belong to different understandings of what constitutes a conflict, an encounter, etc. in D&D. The guy with 3 spells a day and the guy with 3 spells to fire every 18 seconds are looking for different things.

Strangely enough, once we replace 'spells to fire' with 'arrows to attempt' it seems fine. But that's for good reasons. 4E should have shown WotC that people expect more out of magic than non-magical arrows with magic theme songs tacked on.

But reserve feats , at least in my opinion, are enormously problematic in terms of balance. I also found them strange to stack ontop of vacnian in terms of flavor (to me it creates too much of a hodge podge ofwizard styles). The vancian system requires the mage be careful with his resources and the GM can balance things around what happens in a day. Was never a fan of these (splat books are another thing I would like to see dissapear in 5e).

I think the real problem isn't that they're trying to appeal to all the audiences of D&D, I didn't word my previous post correctly I think. The real problem to me is that they seem to want to make everyone happy with the core-sans-modules, from the get-go, rather than the core+this-or-that-module. That's the mistake I'm seeing. I hope I misunderstand Monte's post here.

Feats should be part of a module. Non-Vancian magic should be part of a module. Etc. Only the core of the D&D game should be the core of the system sans modules.

Quote from: Benoist;517377I think the real problem isn't that they're trying to appeal to all the audiences of D&D, I didn't word my previous post correctly I think. The real problem to me is that they seem to want to make everyone happy with the core-sans-modules, from the get-go, rather than the core+this-or-that-module. That's the mistake I'm seeing. I hope I misunderstand Monte's post here.

I think you hit it on the head.

Yeah. And if I'm right this is what Monte is saying here, then we're fucked. If these guys can't figure out what is the truest, simplest expression of the D&D game for the core-sans-modules, all the rest will suck. It is "the" component of the game they should not botch.

Quote from: Benoist;517382Yeah. And if I'm right this is what Monte is saying here, then we're fucked. If these guys can't figure out what is the truest, simplest expression of the D&D game for the core-sans-modules, all the rest will suck. It is "the" component of the game they should not botch.

This is also the only way I can see them building a modular system that would unite te base".

Ultimately, this article is the third or fourth time we've seen a clear indication of the prisoner's dilemma WotC is in:

(1) Make the game more like pre-2008 D&D? Win back a slightly higher percentage of the 3.5 and Pathfinder gamers you lost.

(2) Make the game less like 4th Edition? Lose a higher percentage of your existing 4th Edition gamers.

But there's really no clear way to determine what percentage of each you're talking about. And no way to win the game. WotC will almost certainly end up trying to hit a "sweet spot" in the middle... which will actually just alienate both sides and quite possibly leave them with an even smaller slice of the pie.

(I'm not including the OSR grognards in here because I don't see any way for WotC to appeal to any significant percentage of them except by reprinting whatever their favorite edition happens to be. Very little of the OSR is actually driven by any interest in actual principle: Most of it remains nostalgia and conservatism.)

In Pathfinder, cantrips are at-will but all the rest of the spells are standard Vancian.  Except a bonded item can be used to cast any known spell once a day.  The cantrips are non-Vancian, the bonded item is semi-Vancian (limited uses but no memorization), the rest is Vancian.  It all works together without a problem because the Vancian part is more powerful than the cantrips and the bonded item it 1/day.
 
If you look at what Monte actually  says, he probably has something along these lines in mind.  Having mage hand at will or the use of a floating disc doesn't invalidate choices in Vancian spell lists.  It merely means that you aren't reduced to a poor quality fighter once your spell list is burned through.  It also might allow mages to be magical in ways not worth a spell slot.
 
Right now, I'm not convinced but I'm interested and not willing to write them off based on a slanted reading of blog posts.

Quote from: Benoist;517382Yeah. And if I'm right this is what Monte is saying here, then we're fucked. If these guys can't figure out what is the truest, simplest expression of the D&D game for the core-sans-modules, all the rest will suck. It is "the" component of the game they should not botch.

I don't know why Monte write columns like this. The playtest doesn't come off like the way he writes in these columns.

The basic issue isn't necessarily what he write about. It is that he writes without pointing at specific examples. I don't care what game you are talking about. Without specific examples people can read a dozen different ways X can be done.

The current playtest would be considered a retro clone if was published by the OSR. More like Adventurer Conqueror King or my own Majestic Wilderlands than a emulation like OSRIC or Swords & Wizardry. It D&D NOT D&D In Name Only.

The 4e people have more to scream about that this point than the OSR or 3rd edition fans and probably the main reason why they are not doing this publicly until they have some of the options fleshed out.

How useful this will be to the OSR and 3rd edition gamers will be all in the presentation. If you have to pare away all the options to get at the game we are seeing in the playtest then older edition/3.x fans are not going to be won over. If however they are clearly presented in separate sections then I can see Wizards achieving it goals.

Quote from: estar;517392I don't know why Monte write columns like this. The playtest doesn't come off like the way he writes in these columns.

The basic issue isn't necessarily what he write about. It is that he writes without pointing at specific examples. I don't care what game you are talking about. Without specific examples people can read a dozen different ways X can be done.

You raise a good point. On Enworld peoples are wondering if the column meant that non combat spells would be handled by feats and combats by casting (which never occured to me reading the article). Examples might help.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;517387(I'm not including the OSR grognards in here because I don't see any way for WotC to appeal to any significant percentage of them except by reprinting whatever their favorite edition happens to be. Very little of the OSR is actually driven by any interest in actual principle: Most of it remains nostalgia and conservatism.)

While you are right about the core rules, if their adventure look and work like the Cave of Chaos playtest adventure then the OSR will be customers for their supplements and settings.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;517387Very little of the OSR is actually driven by any interest in actual principle: Most of it remains nostalgia and conservatism.)

I think that many of the most vocal bloggers and what not fit your profile; however, there are many, many more OSR bloggers who really do not. There can be no real argument though, that the bloggers who are this way certainly get the most attention. Simply put, if you write some misty eyed, backward looking post about how D&D went wrong the second hobbits became halflings then you will reap many, many comments and link backs because every one has opinion and most of them cannot wait to share, even if they have shared it 1000 times before. Sometimes, this leads to chain reaction, bandwagon blogging, and several bloggers will post on the same topic, generating a buzz, which leads to more conversation. OSR Bloggers, who post content, however, may be well regarded but their efforts result, in most cases, in a whole hell of a lot less noise.

Whatever, though, I think your larger point regarding WoTC and the grogs stands.

Quote from: Benoist;517377I think the real problem isn't that they're trying to appeal to all the audiences of D&D, I didn't word my previous post correctly I think. The real problem to me is that they seem to want to make everyone happy with the core-sans-modules, from the get-go, rather than the core+this-or-that-module. That's the mistake I'm seeing. I hope I misunderstand Monte's post here.

I'm not convinced that the meaning hopeful grognards have read into "modular" really has anything to do with what WotC ever meant when they said "modular".

Which is probably for the best. There will be no modular system that will "unite the fanbase". The only thing they'll produce is a modular system which is even more horrifically nightmarish for new players to pick up, further driving the hobby's gateway product into the ground.

In before the rage - I am not that much interested in 5e. I will probably not really buy it, as DnD was never my favourite RPG.

However.

Can we, for a brief moment, stop with the doomsayers and the panic? How about taking a step back, and giving them a chance?

First rumours not in line with the "5e will be AD&D reborn", and you people are panicking just like the 4vengers.

Let's all take a step back, and for a second, cheer for them perhaps? I understand - the sky got significantly darker. But it's always easier to naysay, then yaysay. If they produce a crappy game, we can stomp on them afterwards!

Quote from: Justin Alexander;517418I'm not convinced that the meaning hopeful grognards have read into "modular" really has anything to do with what WotC ever meant when they said "modular".

Which is probably for the best. There will be no modular system that will "unite the fanbase". The only thing they'll produce is a modular system which is even more horrifically nightmarish for new players to pick up, further driving the hobby's gateway product into the ground.

If that is the case, then good luck to them, I guess. That'll be without me.

Someone seriously needs to put a fucking muzzle on Cook. Every fucking time he opens his mouth 5e loses potential customers before it can even get its head out the door; and as far as I can see for fucking NOTHING.

Everything the guy has said, as Estar points out, bears no resemblance to anything I've seen of the rules so far. And yet he keeps going on, either utterly oblivious to or intentionally sabotaging the effort to sell 5e as a concept. I want to think its just that he's been so isolated for so long the brain-eater has got to him and he really doesn't know how the fuck to talk to gamers anymore; and yet despite my pleas it seems no one has actually told him what he's doing yet.

Unless we're all being completely dicked around and the rules we're all working on have fuck all to do with what they're actually going to do, which I can't completely discount as a possibility, I think old school gamers should just think of Monte as the redneck uncle who's off in his own little world talking gibberish because he actually doesn't know how offensive he is.  Let's just hope that no one at WoTC actually fucking listens to him.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;517421Someone seriously needs to put a fucking muzzle on Cook. Every fucking time he opens his mouth 5e loses potential customers before it can even get its head out the door; and as far as I can see for fucking NOTHING.

Everything the guy has said, as Estar points out, bears no resemblance to anything I've seen of the rules so far. And yet he keeps going on, either utterly oblivious to or intentionally sabotaging the effort to sell 5e as a concept. I want to think its just that he's been so isolated for so long the brain-eater has got to him and he really doesn't know how the fuck to talk to gamers anymore; and yet despite my pleas it seems no one has actually told him what he's doing yet.

RPGPundit

If anything, this was an ill - aimed shot at damage control towards the 4e/3e crowd.

Man, that just reads like half-assed blathering. Are they playing for time, or what? It is hard to take any of these messages seriously.

Quote from: RPGPundit;517421Someone seriously needs to put a fucking muzzle on Cook. Every fucking time he opens his mouth 5e loses potential customers before it can even get its head out the door; and as far as I can see for fucking NOTHING.

you gotta let mearls know that, you've got his ear, right?

Quote from: beeber;517424you gotta let mearls know that, you've got his ear, right?

Problem is, it was part of offering to Pundit. It now rests in a jar, being preserved in vinegar, ready to be gnawed upon if Foul Ole Ron ever picks his head up again.

;)

Quote from: beeber;517424you gotta let mearls know that, you've got his ear, right?

I think Pundit actually did. He said as much some time ago. So either what we're seeing here is indeed total damage control PR bullshit, or there's something fishy going on behind the scenes. Somebody's not telling it how it is, here, and I bet this ain't estar nor the Pundit.

Quote from: Rincewind1;517419In

Can we, for a brief moment, stop with the doomsayers and the panic? How about taking a step back, and giving them a chance?

First rumours not in line with the "5e will be AD&D reborn", and you people are panicking just like the 4vengers.

Let's all take a step back, and for a second, cheer for them perhaps? I understand - the sky got significantly darker. But it's always easier to naysay, then yaysay. If they produce a crappy game, we can stomp on them afterwards!

The issue is WOTC D&D isn't the be all end all of rpgs aymore. I have been playing rpgs just fine without D&D for years now and what D&D I do play is usually 2E or 3e. I have given them far more chances than any other gaming company out there. But when 3.5 came out (even before that) they started losing me. So I just have no interest in investing 90 dollars in an edition that isn't D&D enough to carry the label (if I am going to pay D&D, i want it to fell and play like D&D). Now maybe what estar and pundit say is basically the case. I trust their judgment on this and they have more first hand knowledge of the actual mechanics than I do. If that is the case, ,and cook is just being unclear, maybe when it comes out I will take a look and enjoy it. The problem is right now they are trying to generate early interest, but they are giving mixed signals. If this game is for the 4e crowd they should say so. If it is the classic spells are changing or they are going to silo combat and non combat spells, they should at least be clear about that (or clear that they havent yet made a decision). It just feels like one day they say they are making a game I would play, but the next they say they are making a game I want nothing t do with.

Quote from: Rincewind1;517422If anything, this was an ill - aimed shot at damage control towards the 4e/3e crowd.

It all highly premature at this point. What they got now covers only what the older basic sets (Holmes, Molvday, Mentzer) covered.  They said explicitly that they are building the foundation, the core on which they are building the rest on.

The nice old school system in the playtest could be lost in the presentation of options in the final books. It could be the initial section with a whole series of optional chapters. Could it wind up as AD&D 5.0 with 3e/4e fans highly dissatisfied. It is just too soon to tell.

Quote from: Benoist;517364I'm starting to believe that D&D is truly fucked this time.

Well... As you immediately go on to say...

QuoteDoesn't matter to my hobby: I have my OGL games and the old editions of the game to back that up. I'll be cool and be able to share my stuff if I want to. But still... it's a bummer to see the D&D brand end like this, potentially.

D&D is perfectly fine, and nothing WOTC can do will fuck it up. I only hope that the next iteration of the most popular and accessible (in terms of finding tables) fantasy RPG around is at least as enjoyable as the previous version. What would bum me out is if it was nothing more than a retread of what we've seen before.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;517428The issue is WOTC D&D isn't the be all end all of rpgs aymore. I have been playing rpgs just fine without D&D for years now and what D&D I do play is usually 2E or 3e. I have given them far more chances than any other gaming company out there. But when 3.5 came out (even before that) they started losing me. So I just have no interest in investing 90 dollars in an edition that isn't D&D enough to carry the label (if I am going to pay D&D, i want it to fell and play like D&D). Now maybe what estar and pundit say is basically the case. I trust their judgment on this and they have more first hand knowledge of the actual mechanics than I do. If that is the case, ,and cook is just being unclear, maybe when it comes out I will take a look and enjoy it. The problem is right now they are trying to generate early interest, but they are giving mixed signals. If this game is for the 4e crowd they should say so. If it is the classic spells are changing or they are going to silo combat and non combat spells, they should at least be clear about that (or clear that they havent yet made a decision). It just feels like one day they say they are making a game I would play, but the next they say they are making a game I want nothing t do with.

Quote from: estar;517429It all highly premature at this point. What they got now covers only what the older basic sets (Holmes, Molvday, Mentzer) covered.  They said explicitly that they are building the foundation, the core on which they are building the rest on.

The nice old school system in the playtest could be lost in the presentation of options in the final books. It could be the initial section with a whole series of optional chapters. Could it wind up as AD&D 5.0 with 3e/4e fans highly dissatisfied. It is just too soon to tell.

I think in a way you both circled around the truth (well, my take on it at least )rather well - they are trying to get as much of a ruckus/conversation/hype as possible. Hype sells RPGs.

Posting about this on that ENWorld thread as well:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/318938-l-l-putting-vance-vancian-5.html

Quote from: two_fishes;517430D&D is perfectly fine, and nothing WOTC can do will fuck it up.

Sure. I meant "D&D", the brand.

Quote from: Benoist;517435Sure. I meant "D&D", the brand.

I am surprised  that after 4e, you did not just give up caring about brand itself, and just started to love the bomb ;).

By which I mean - as much as I had liked New Trilogy (sort of), except for Jar Jar and the atrocious edits in the True Trilogy, I don't care about SW as a brand too much. I still love it, no matter where it goes, as it's stuff of my childhood. Just love the bomb man, I guess. Or work to get back the real deal.

Except Yuuzan Vongs. Good grief.

...all in all, I guess I am not better. I am butthurt over Yuuzan Vongs, and I am more then pissed off at Warhammer 3e. But at least, the old stuff is always to consolidate me. But if FFG'd declare that they'd be making Warhammer 4e (having fired the 3e crew...preferably out of a canon), I'd stay hopeful, rather then despair.

Quote from: Rincewind1;517433I think in a way you both circled around the truth (well, my take on it at least )rather well - they are trying to get as much of a ruckus/conversation/hype as possible. Hype sells RPGs.

I am under a NDA so I can't give any details about the rules.

Quote from: estar;517459I am under a NDA so I can't give any details about the rules.

Not asking you too, ester. I was rather pointing out that the 4e fans raised in a rage lately. So this column was either

1) Damage control
or
2) Hype raiser.
or
3) Complete WTF.

I think I just lost faith this can ever work.

I'm not a fan of "At Will" powers, I think some spell effects might work "per encounter" or better "every x encounters.." So you can save oomph for desparate times.

In general ideals I think Vancian is D&D, I loath it because Vance's spells were BIG things that blew the top out of D&D's power level. I think the best compromise though is allowing a player to cast any spell they know on the fly.

I actually love ACKS handling of it.

I'd love flexible spellcasting similar to the sorcerer to be the main option in the game. It's a best of both worlds kind of thing. I don't want 1e/2e style vancian magic back. It just made lots of spells never used, since there was always a combat spell that was needed.

I didn't come away with a good feeling after reading the article.  I voted to go with spell points. Not that it'll happen. I dislike both the ADEU and the classic vancian method. My hope is that they go with a model like Arcana Evolved or Book of Experimental Might. With the feat use for at-wills and how spells may scale this time around I may get something like the latter option as core.  I have small hope at least.

Quote from: danbuter;517474I'd love flexible spellcasting similar to the sorcerer to be the main option in the game. It's a best of both worlds kind of thing. I don't want 1e/2e style vancian magic back. It just made lots of spells never used, since there was always a combat spell that was needed.

I agree.

Although it makes me think that in the same way 3rd tried to give clerics flexibility by making healing less of a resource hog, you can simply do the same for wizards (or whatever arcane class you choose) by doing the same thing with simple damage.

Quote from: danbuter;517474I'd love flexible spellcasting similar to the sorcerer to be the main option in the game. It's a best of both worlds kind of thing. I don't want 1e/2e style vancian magic back. It just made lots of spells never used, since there was always a combat spell that was needed.

Perhaps I run a different style of campaign than you do, but casters in my TSR D&D games seldom picked all combat spells -- unless they thought combat was going to be the only thing they needed to do unless they next had a chance to memorize spells. And that was a rare situation -- even dungeon exploration normally required a wider variety of spells than all attack/defense.

And as they only had the spells they had been able to find in the game, they have to make do with the spells they had in their spell books -- even ones that don't immediately sound useful. Creative casting was the name of the game when you don't have the ability to cherry-pick the entire spell list for the most effective spells.

Finally, I don't understand what's wrong with some spells not being used very often. Some spells were only useful in specific circumstances that may or may not be common in a given campaign setting -- unless you get creative, of course.

BTW, I often run TSR D&D with a combination of Vancian memorization and spell points (aka hit points/fatigue points) Casters were limited in the number of spells they could memorize as per the normal spells per level chart, however, they could cast those memorized as often as they wanted, but each casting cost them hit points. Hit points (usually) regenerated with a night's rest, Body Points (equal to one's CON) healed much more slowly and BP damage reduced the number of HP you recovered from a night's rest.

Quote from: danbuter;517474I'd love flexible spellcasting similar to the sorcerer to be the main option in the game. It's a best of both worlds kind of thing. I don't want 1e/2e style vancian magic back. It just made lots of spells never used, since there was always a combat spell that was needed.

Rituals like in 4e and my Majestic Wilderlands are the answer to that issue in D&D. The limit on casting is the amount of gold you can convert to components. People wanting a lower level of magic can stick with Vancian only.

Quote from: Rincewind1;517461Not asking you too, ester. I was rather pointing out that the 4e fans raised in a rage lately. So this column was either

Do you have a link to one of the better thread with 4e fans raging?

Check the thread about this Vancian column on RPGnet, Rob.
Should give you an idea.

Quote from: Benoist;517491Check the thread about this Vancian column on RPGnet, Rob.
Should give you an idea.

(http://anabolicminds.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=51505&d=1327199456)

(The point where I start thinking in meme gifs is the point where I probably need to get off Reddit.)

Quote from: estar;517487Do you have a link to one of the better thread with 4e fans raging?

You need to only go as far as to Melan's compilation:

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=13639&page=37

Or pretty much any topic about the poll on 5e:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?616322-New-L-amp-L-Putting-the-Vance-in-Advanced

Now, I consider 4e a terrible DnD (and a mediocre RPG if it was not DnD), and good grief, I actually had edition war on the line DnD 4e & Warhammer 3e vs AD&D and Warhammer 1e in my gaming club lately, so I am a bit weary. But the 4e crowd are still WotC's customers, so it'd seem only natural to me, that they are trying to issue a message of "Don't panic, we won't abandon you entirely".

Of course, by doing so in such a way like Monte did, they basically alienate everyone.

Quote from: estar;517487Do you have a link to one of the better thread with 4e fans raging?

In the comments thread of the original Cook column, one of the posters is hoping that Jack Vance himself will "rot in hell", complete with ample misspellings. :D

Quote from: The_Shadow;517509In the comments thread of the original Cook column, one of the posters is hoping that Jack Vance himself will "rot in hell" . . .

:banghead:

Quote from: The_Shadow;517509In the comments thread of the original Cook column, one of the posters is hoping that Jack Vance himself will "rot in hell", complete with ample misspellings. :D

Ugh. Sad, sad state of the internet.

Quote from: Silverlion;517516Ugh. Sad, sad state of the internet.

Pretty sure that if the Internet did not exist, and we had exchanged all this by means of letters to a gaming magazine, someone'd send an exactly similar letter, which'd be printed, because drama sells magazines.

That letter'd probably also include the bad spelling.

Dude, Cook's articles sound like someone phoning it in, making hay to look busy. I've fluffed essays before, and we've all dug deep into our sphincters and smeared out a "controversy" for the weekly/monthly meeting/writing circle/water cooler. The guy is totally phoning it in and stirring shit up just to keep his intra-office cred.

If he had any decency he'd stop doing a shit PR job (his shit stirring is self-sabotaging. seriously!), graciously hand off the article to someone who cared (but was out of the current design loop), and put an actual end date on his resumé when he was involved in writing such articles. But he won't. And things will continue merrily along in this dysfunctional carousel of modern business practices.

Seriously, whatevah! :hand:

This is a bad situation for WotC. Their older customers like Vancian magic. Their newer customers like the WoW-style ability magic. One group is going to be disappointed.

Maybe these polls are helping to determine which direction to go in. If 80% of the respondents favor something, that means something. I suspect most of them are split more evenly, though, so they really won't help much.

Have you tried not giving a fuck? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wS5xOZ7Rq8)

Internet polls mean exactly jack shit. So no, don't put any faith that they'll be a positive factor in this at all. It's just another thing to condemn Cook for not manning up and walking away from this article. Jizzing all over your customer base and then asking, 'what would my lady prefer?' is self-serving wankery all around. He needs to grow up and the clientele needs to stop sitting down dumb with mouth agape.

Oh good heavens, I'm vulgar today... Look what you've people made me do! :nono:

Quote from: danbuter;517533This is a bad situation for WotC. Their older customers like Vancian magic. Their newer customers like the WoW-style ability magic. One group is going to be disappointed.

Dunno, its there seriously putting every editions core Book classes in the first book, you have at least Warlock, Wizard and Sorcerer as core arcane casters.

That's a WoW caster, Vancian caster and a something else Caster right there.

Monte Cook fumbles with words and talks out the side of his mouth; news at 11:00.

Quote from: danbuter;517533This is a bad situation for WotC. Their older customers like Vancian magic. Their newer customers like the WoW-style ability magic. One group is going to be disappointed.

Maybe these polls are helping to determine which direction to go in. If 80% of the respondents favor something, that means something. I suspect most of them are split more evenly, though, so they really won't help much.

The problem with these polls is they are being conducted on the WOTC site. That pretty much tells them what 4e fanswant, doesnt tell them anything in terms if unifying te base. I fact if the majority of people polled on the WOTC page are in favor of an option,there is a goodchance the folk they are trying to regain as customers feel differently.

Quote from: Opaopajr;517536Oh good heavens, I'm vulgar today... Look what you've people made me do! :nono:

Welcome to the adult swim.

Motherfucker.

How many more months of this before the playtest doc drops and there's something to really fight about?

:p

There is also the reverse. I was one of the people who cheered when 4E dumped Vancian magic for the most part. The issue for me is whether I can modularly remove or ignore Vancian magic. If I can't do that without removing core archetypes from my campaign(like the Wizard class) or using so many optional rules that the system devolves into a complicated 3E style mess, 5E loses me.

Folks, you cannot have any D&D setting were the baseline assumption is not D&D magic. And as D&D magic is established, it cannot be reimagined.

Spells, Magical Items, Monsters, Classes, these are in their specifity the building blocks of D&D.

This is the last time I say "Vancian", because that moniker is a ...drumroll... construction.

1000% of all fantasy rpgs did it differently than D&D magic. So D&D by its definition must have D&D magic, lest it cease to be D&D.

This has been scientifically proven!

Quote from: Settembrini;517599This has been scientifically proven!

Shut up, you 4venger! :D

Quote from: Settembrini;517599Spells, Magical Items, Monsters, Classes, these are in their specifity the building blocks of D&D.

Notice the exclusion of feats here. Once you add those it is no longer D&D, how can it be? Real D&D doesn't have feats.

Quote from: Aos;517604Notice the exclusion of feats here. Once you add those it is no longer D&D, how can it be? Real D&D doesn't have feats.

"Real D&D" may have feats, but it shouldn't be core IMO.

Quote from: Aos;517604Notice the exclusion of feats here. Once you add those it is no longer D&D, how can it be? Real D&D doesn't have feats.

No, Sett is only claiming that without these things it's not D&D. You may then add what you want, but

(a) declaring something else to be a 'building block' and/or

(b) removing stuff from that list into 'you can add this in if you want'

means you got a skewered understanding of what D&D at its core is.

That was also Benoist's point above. Benoist didn't object to feats per se in 5E but to making them part of the 'core-sans-modules' part of the 5E system (this is error 'a') while moving Vancian magic off the core-list (this is error 'b').

I'm not defending Sett's definition, just telling you how I understand it's intended.

Quote from: Windjammer;517606No, Sett is only claiming that without these things it's not D&D. You may then add what you want, but

(a) declaring something else to be a 'building block' and/or

(b) removing stuff from that list into 'you can add this in if you want'

means you got a skewered understanding of what D&D at its core is.

That was also Benoist's point above. Benoist didn't object to feats per se in 5E but to making them part of the 'core-sans-modules' part of the 5E system (this is error 'a') while moving Vancian magic off the core-list (this is error 'b').

I'm not defending Sett's definition, just telling you how I understand it's intended.

If you assume that I understood his intent as well as you do, it will probably give you greater insight into mine.

Quote from: Aos;517608If you assume that I understood his intent as well as you do, it will probably give you greater insight into mine.

Here's the thing though: who gives a shit what Sett or I may think about feats if you can add them to your D&D game as a module/add-on to the core? You play with your feats, and I don't. Everyone's happy; stated intent of the game fulfilled. Whereas if you make feats the core unit of the game, then you are happy, but I'm not. So the stated intent of the game's design fails.

Wonder if 5E will have a simple spellcaster class.

Something resembling the sorcerer elementalist class in the recent 4E Heroes of the Elemental Chaos (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/356170000) book.  The elementalist mainly has at-wills and utility powers, but no encounter and daily powers like other classes.

Quote from: ggroy;517614Wonder if 5E will have a simple spellcaster class.

Something resembling the sorcerer elementalist class in the recent 4E Heroes of the Elemental Chaos (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/356170000) book.  The elementalist mainly has at-wills and utility powers, but no encounter and daily powers like other classes.

You mean like the 3.5 Warlock?  I'm sure they will have something like that eventually.

Quote from: Benoist;517612Here's the thing though: who gives a shit what Sett or I may think about feats if you can add them to your D&D game as a module/add-on to the core? You play with your feats, and I don't. Everyone's happy; stated intent of the game fulfilled. Whereas if you make feats the core unit of the game, then you are happy, but I'm not. So the stated intent of the game's design fails.

I could say the same thing about a lot of D&D features fans of older editions consider essential, of which Vancian magic would be merely one example.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517631I could say the same thing about a lot of D&D features fans of older editions consider essential, of which Vancian magic would be merely one example.

It's okay if you don't like D&D. Just play another game.

Quote from: Benoist;517633It's okay if you don't like D&D. Just play another game.

I don't consider that stuff D&D, I consider it baggage that came with D&D.

Quote from: Benoist;517633It's okay if you don't like D&D. Just play another game.

I tend to agree here, D&D without vancian magic isn't D&D. It may be a great game using parts of D&D but it loses an essential element of the D&D experience imo if Vancian isnt there.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517635I don't consider that stuff D&D, I consider it baggage that came with D&D.

What do you consider D&D?

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517635I don't consider that stuff D&D, I consider it baggage that came with D&D.

Actually you're fighting a losing position on this one.  Because logically anything after the LBB's could be considered "baggage" to the ACTUAL DnD, not the reverse.:D

I'm fine with it. I actually hope Benoist gets his way on this because it it FAR easier to add things to a solid but simple and basic frame than the have something complex and take away.  Now I hope they do some kind of update to Vancian and not go with what has gone before but that's another issue.  Luckily it can be done in a way that would modernize it and still have the resource management minigame that Vancian fans love.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;517636I tend to agree here, D&D without vancian magic isn't D&D. It may be a great game using parts of D&D but it loses an essential element of the D&D experience imo if Vancian isnt there.

Vancian magic was something that was ignored, houseruled around or discarded in pretty much every game of D&D I was involved in since the mid 90s. Either people chose not to play those classes, memorization was ignored, or some sort of alternate system like spell points was used. I can't consider Vancian magic essential to D&D after spending my entire D&D life fighting against it.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517641Vancian magic was something that was ignored, houseruled around or discarded in pretty much every game of D&D I was involved in since the mid 90s. Either people chose not to play those classes, memorization was ignored, or some sort of alternate system like spell points was used.

So you pretty much never actually played D&D, and know fuck all of what you're talking about. Gottya.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517635I don't consider that stuff D&D, I consider it baggage that came with D&D.

That is silly in face of the game's past. Granted there are garbage rules like AD&D 1st's grappling, pummeling and overbearing system. But there are also constants that make D&D, D&D.

Pretty much the the game* that is presented in The Basic edition Holmes/Molvday/Mentzer is the core of D&D. Chop any of that out then it not D&D, rather it becomes Runequest, Rolemaster, Hackmaster 5e, or Palladium.

*The only concept that the basic sets have that is not universally considered esstential to D&D is race as class.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517641Vancian magic was something that was ignored, houseruled around or discarded in pretty much every game of D&D I was involved in since the mid 90s. Either people chose not to play those classes, memorization was ignored, or some sort of alternate system like spell points was used. I can't consider Vancian magic essential to D&D after spending my entire D&D life fighting against it.

But most people used it. In my groups psionics, magic points, skills and powers were all optional things people ignored. We all felt D&D just didn't do non vancian casting well. And taking it out produces such a different experience I wouldn't call that D&D.

But i think you hit on something. 4e is the game for people who had big issues witg standard D&D. But it failed. I am worried they are going down tge path of fixing it for the disatisfied, when tgey should be focusing on the folks who actually like the classic elements like vancian casting, but give options for those who dont.

Quote from: estar;517643Pretty much the game* that is presented in The Basic edition Holmes/Molvday/Mentzer is the core of D&D.

Basically yes. I would agree with that.

Quote from: Aos;517608If you assume that I understood his intent as well as you do, it will probably give you greater insight into mine.

Clever!

I'm now off cooking while I second guess the real motif of your post. It was either day dreaming about 90s page 3 models or brooding over an obscure post at TheRPGSite (I have to keep 50% of my brain occupied while cooking). I call it an even match.

All of this depends on what is "core"?  The PHB is going to have, what 20 frickin classes?  Pretty sure there will be room for Vancian Magic as well as Sorcery, Magic Points, Power of a Million Exploding Suns, No One Can Hear Me Over The Sound of How Awesome I Am, Pew-Pew-Pew, etc...

Now remove Vancian Magic entirely from any of the core mage classes? - Bad move, might as well stick with 4e.

Same thing with Feats.  Force everyone to pick Feats/Powers to fill out a class? - Bad move, might as well stick with 4e.

The "Core" PHB is going to have to include modules right off the bat.  Here's a bunch of classes, here are some modules to modify them in certain ways.

Right now people are bitching mainly about who is core and who is just a *sniff* module.

Oh and btw, TCO is a useless 4venging fucktard whose only purpose here is to stir the shit because he gets off of watching the fireworks.  Just in case anybody forgot.  :D

The old school orthodoxy is so strong here the shit stirs itself. All I have to do is state my gaming opinions in simple terms with no agenda and the rest happens all by itself. I only commented here because the rpg.net thread on this was boring.

Quote from: Windjammer;517647Clever!

I'm now off cooking while I second guess the real motif of your post. It was either day dreaming about 90s page 3 models or brooding over an obscure post at TheRPGSite (I have to keep 50% of my brain occupied while cooking). I call it an even match.

I'd go with the page 3 models, myself.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517650The old school orthodoxy is so strong here the shit stirs itself. All I have to do is state my gaming opinions in simple terms with no agenda and the rest happens all by itself. I only commented here because the rpg.net thread on this was boring.

This isn't old school orthodoxy. This is something most fans of 1e, 2e and 3e agree on. Vancian is pretty core to the game.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517650I only commented here because the rpg.net thread on this was boring.

I know. You're just here for the storm. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=330631&postcount=568)

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517650TEN THOUSAND BLACK COCKS ARE SIMULTANEOUSLY JAMMING THEMSELVES DOWN MY THROAT ALL AT ONCE

What the fuck does "old school orthodoxy" mean?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;517652This isn't old school orthodoxy. This is something most fans of 1e, 2e and 3e agree on. Vancian is pretty core to the game.

My experiences in real life and on other forums lead me to believe that it isn't as widely agreed upon as you are making it out to be.

Quote from: B.T.;517659What the fuck does "old school orthodoxy" mean?

It's when somebody disagrees with old school D&D and 14 people jump in to support the old school philosophy.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517663It's when somebody disagrees with old school D&D and 14 people jump in to support the old school philosophy.

Orthodoxy is all about bushy beards and bling.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517635I don't consider that stuff D&D, I consider it baggage that came with D&D.

Don't worry, your wife will change for the better once you've been married for a few years.

Wait, no.


Someone who doesn't want ketchup on their hamburger is unusual.
Someone who doesn't want hamburger on their hamburger should stop ordering hamburgers.

Quote from: One Horse Town;517666Orthodoxy is all about bushy beards and bling.

Are you talking about the Pope or something?;)

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517661My experiences in real life and on other forums lead me to believe that it isn't as widely agreed upon as you are making it out to be.

You should play actual D&D more.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517587There is also the reverse. I was one of the people who cheered when 4E dumped Vancian magic for the most part. The issue for me is whether I can modularly remove or ignore Vancian magic. If I can't do that without removing core archetypes from my campaign(like the Wizard class) or using so many optional rules that the system devolves into a complicated 3E style mess, 5E loses me.

Encapsulates the conundrum articulated by Justin above.
Put Vancian magic into 'core' (non-modular) = lose 4e fans.
Put Vancian magic out of 'core' (make it modular) = lose pre-4e fans.

And oh, this:

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=328904&postcount=180

Quote from: Windjammer;517685And oh, this:

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=328904&postcount=180

That's one mighty post. Especially from BT.

Quote from: Benoist;517684You should play actual D&D more.

Not liking to play actual D&D was apparently one of Rob Heinsoo's problems that lead to his design for 4e. When asked what he was looking to do when he designed 4e, he said (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4spot/20090313): "My goal designing 4th Edition was to make a game that played the way I thought D&D was going to play, back before I understood the rules."  He read a review of D&D in a 1974 magazine, ordered it, and was disappointed in the way it played.  So he apparently decided to make 4e play not like D&D, but like the game he thought D&D should have been before he read the rules. I don't understand why people wonder why so many D&D players said 4e did not feel like D&D to them when the designer admits he wanted to create the game he originally thought D&D should be instead a new edition of the game it actually was.

TCO is back, hide yo kids hide yo wife.

Quote from: RandallS;517692Not liking to play actual D&D was apparently one of Rob Heinsoo's problems that lead to his design for 4e. When asked what he was looking to do when he designed 4e, he said (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4spot/20090313): "My goal designing 4th Edition was to make a game that played the way I thought D&D was going to play, back before I understood the rules."  He read a review of D&D in a 1974 magazine, ordered it, and was disappointed in the way it played.  So he apparently decided to make 4e play not like D&D, but like the game he thought D&D should have been before he read the rules. I don't understand why people wonder why so many D&D players said 4e did not feel like D&D to them when the designer admits he wanted to create the game he originally thought D&D should be instead a new edition of the game it actually was.

Sort of like designing Age of Empires 4, when you only played the demo of Age of Empire 1 back in the day, and thought it was supposed to be an FPS, eh?

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517661My experiences in real life and on other forums lead me to believe that it isn't as widely agreed upon as you are making it out to be.

I think your experience is not typical.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;517697I think your experience is not typical.

I would say the same of yours. WotC says they're trying to make a game for everyone though.

Quote from: Marleycat;517680Are you talking about the Pope or something?;)

You are thinking of Archbishop of Constantinople.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;517697I think your experience is not typical.

Thou knows nay with what horror thee wishes to parlay, if you catch my drift.

Somebody's bound to be disappointed.

The fans of 4e, with its uncompromising, absolute principles that inform its design itself, are the most likely to be in this case. Take rules balance as an example. Either the rules are super-uber-duper balanced like the 4vengers want them to be, or they aren't. If the game's rules are 90% balanced and that's 2% less than how balanced 4e seemed to be in the eyes of its fans, that's it, deal-breaker.

I think 4vengers will be mad, no matter what the game ends up being, since it won't be this 4e on steroids they want right out of the gate.

Me? I'm fine with AEDU. As a module for the game I can toggle on/off.
I'm fine with feats. As a module for the game I can toggle on/off.
I'm fine with skills. As a module of the game I can toggle on/off.
I'm fine with miniatures tactical combat. If I can toggle it on and off.
And so on. So forth.

The least compromising are the 4e gamers here, as far as I can tell.

You'd think one of them would have the initiative to make a 4e on steroids themselves, but then maybe none of them do.

Quote from: Imp;517705You'd think one of them would have the initiative to make a 4e on steroids themselves, but then maybe none of them do.

They're not a think outside the box kinda crowd.  The designers themselves claimed they were going for the ADHD-generation.  :D

Quote from: Benoist;517703Somebody's bound to be disappointed.

The fans of 4e, with its uncompromising, absolute principles that inform its design itself, are the most likely to be in this case. Take rules balance as an example. Either the rules are super-uber-duper balanced like the 4vengers want them to be, or they aren't. If the game's rules are 90% balanced and that's 2% less than how balanced 4e seemed to be in the eyes of its fans, that's it, deal-breaker.

I think 4vengers will be mad, no matter what the game ends up being, since it won't be this 4e on steroids they want right out of the gate.

Me? I'm fine with AEDU. As a module for the game I can toggle on/off.
I'm fine with feats. As a module for the game I can toggle on/off.
I'm fine with skills. As a module of the game I can toggle on/off.
I'm fine with miniatures tactical combat. If I can toggle it on and off.
And so on. So forth.

The least compromising are the 4e gamers here, as far as I can tell.

Vancian magic being a module I can turn on and off would be a compromise I can live with. I'm not quite the nazi on balance you describe, but it will need to be more balanced than AD&D was for me to switch.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517707Vancian magic being a module I can turn on and off would be a compromise I can live with. I'm not quite the nazi on balance you describe, but it will need to be more balanced than AD&D was for me to switch.

You don't care for anything. You're here for the storm.

Go play actual D&D for a change.

Quote from: Benoist;517709You don't care for anything. You're here for the storm.

Go play actual D&D for a change.

Play old, moldy D&D Benoist approves of, you mean.

Quote from: Imp;517705You'd think one of them would have the initiative to make a 4e on steroids themselves, but then maybe none of them do.

Someone may have. No one can legally publish it.

Quote from: danbuter;517711Someone may have. No one can legally publish it.

Most of us are ok with 4E as it stands now, and minor improvements aren't worth it if they aren't supported by the tools. I expect 4E holdouts will be just as happy to play the old game as holdouts from previous editions have been.

Quote from: danbuter;517711Someone may have. No one can legally publish it.

Eh, you can make a 4e on steroids without breaking copyright the same way you can make any other fantasy RPG. If the motivation is there someone with initiative can make it.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517710Play old, moldy D&D Benoist approves of, you mean.

Sure, since you don't know anything about it. How can we even begin to discuss if you barely played actual D&D at all? I would welcome you to play some games, provided you could actually behave yourself in the company of other people and play a game with them, instead of trolling for the sake of controversy as you like to do on the internet. Invitation is open dude, if you ever show up in BC.

Maybe we could just go ahead an retire the term 4venger, every time I see it I stop reading.

Quote from: danbuter;517711Someone may have. No one can legally publish it.

You can clone 4e through the OGL and SRD like any other edition of the game. The 4e STL just prohibits you from using both the STL AND the OGL at the same time. From there, you could emulate the mechanics of 4e itself via the OGL, but you would have to dodge copyright and trademarks issues, which means renaming everything bearing a made-up porte-manteaux name and so on. That'd be quite some work, but it's feasible, since 4e is d20 at its core.

Just a couple of points.

I think there is a danger of conflating Vancian casting with the classic spell lists.  The spell lists are fantastic they are what Dying Earth is actually about, the idea that you are casting Mordenkainen 's Most Excellent Force Sculpture some sort of link a chain with the traddition of the game. Also the idea that a spell has a physical real effect on the game world. Burning hands can set light to things, a Gust of Wind can blow papers of a table and all that.
Vancian magic, the way you store spells in your mind is in a sense I think less iconic (can somethign be less iconic? ) . I think bringing back the spell lists and effects even if they were cast using a spell point system or a mana mechanic woudl be recevied favourably by the general community. The 4e dislike comes because a Wizard's at will spell is pretty much indistinguishable from a warriors at will power.

As for a game mechanic I think it woudl be relatively easy to create a mix of at will powers and 'vancian magic' (whether they were mana based or spell slots.)
You simply divide Spells into levels, as existed in the past. When a wizard gains xp and levels up (say every 2 levels ?) they can either learn an at will power or be able to cast spells of the next level. As you progress and learn Xp you gain more spell slots int eh levels of spells you can cast based on when you picked casting spells of that level as a class ability.
The base default game gives you the standard D&D Magic user with roughly the same spell progression (surely even the hardest grognards won't bin 5e if they have to tweak exactly the spells and levels of spells a MU gets at 11th level ....) but you can delay picking up a spell level by picking up a power instead. so at 3rd maybe you opt not to get 2nd level spell but instead pick up a divination power you can use once per encounter/day/at will (whatever).
I think you would need some serious balance adjustments as a power you acquire at 9th level woudl ahve to be pretty effective, although it actual play it would be rivaling a single 5th level spell so .... shoudl be easy enough to work out.
Down at 1st level you would probably grant a power and 1st level spells after all the wizard can always cast "magic missile" for 1d4+1 damage at his base to hit apparently proved a popular 4e move and is probably more themic that the wizard carrying a bag of daggers on every trip. Although that could be repalced with a free at will read magic or a free at will wizard mark or a 'cantrip' power ala 1e UA.

That would certainly be my approach.

Quote from: Benoist;517718You can clone 4e through the OGL and SRD like any other edition of the game. The 4e STL just prohibits you from using both the STL AND the OGL at the same time. From there, you could emulate the mechanics of 4e itself via the OGL, but you would have to dodge copyright and trademarks issues, which means renaming everything bearing a made-up porte-manteaux name and so on. That'd be quite some work, but it's feasible, since 4e is d20 at its core.

Just to note: one of the real issues here is that many fans of 4e have actually no idea how the OGL and SRD actually work, legally, either because they came in late in 3rd ed or have not played it at all, or because they are victims of the anti-OGL propaganda propagated by some 4e fans themselves. The other issue is the systematic defense of WotC yanking the OGL that was taken by the 4e fans. The defense was that the OGL was bad evil period the end, Ia Ia Phn'glui R'lyeh d20 bloat and all, so embracing the OGL now to clone 4e would seem like a betrayal of this line of thought.

It's kind of ironic and hilarious at the same time, because the 4e fans fucked themselves all on their own on this one.

Quote from: Benoist;517654You're just here for the storm. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=330631&postcount=568)

Yeah, I don't know why anyone responds to that shitbird at all.

Quote from: Rincewind1;517693Sort of like designing Age of Empires 4, when you only played the demo of Age of Empire 1 back in the day, and thought it was supposed to be an FPS, eh?

I think it is actually worse than that. It sounds more like someone who read a review of Age of Empires I, thought it was a FPS from the review, and was very disappointed that the game when it arrived in his mail box was not a FPS as he mistakenly expected. Therefore when he was given the opportunity to make Age of Empires 4 he decided to make it the FPS he wanted the first game to be as he figured that's what fans of the first three games in the series really wanted all along because it's what he wanted all along.

Quote from: RandallS;517746I think it is actually worse than that. It sounds more like someone who read a review of Age of Empires I, thought it was a FPS from the review, and was very disappointed that the game when it arrived in his mail box was not a FPS as he mistakenly expected. Therefore when he was given the opportunity to make Age of Empires 4 he decided to make it the FPS he wanted the first game to be as he figured that's what fans of the first three games in the series really wanted all along because it's what he wanted all along.

Heh ;). You had put it much better indeed. But my point was, that this is exactly what's the problem with DnD 4e (or Warhammer 3e) - that it's not really "DnD", the same way why Age of Empires that's an FPS would not be Age of Empires. See what happened to X - Com series.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;517743Yeah, I don't know why anyone responds to that shitbird at all.

Sorry for interrupting the theRPGsite Old School Circle Jerk(again).

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517756Sorry for interrupting the theRPGsite Old School Circle Jerk(again).

Take your medal carved out of a potato on your way out.


Hey guys & gals, am I in the Circle Jerk yet?

I have to say I love B/X and 2e, but I get sick of all the grognards who say anything published after (1978/1983/1989/2000) is not D&D. They are all full of shit. I will say I do not like 4e at all, but it is still D&D. Whining on the internet won't change that.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517756Sorry for interrupting the theRPGsite Old School Circle Jerk(again).

Therpgsite is definitely not friendly to 4E, but its hardly an oldschool focused forum (unless you consider stuff like 3e old school). There is a good mix of old school and new school here. The common thread, if there is one, is probably immersion.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517756Sorry for interrupting the theRPGsite Old School Circle Jerk(again).

RPG.net is far more pro 4e than here but this site is just indifferent to it. So what do you expect when you come trolling the board, a red carpet welcome?

Quote from: danbuter;517762I have to say I love B/X and 2e, but I get sick of all the grognards who say anything published after (1978/1983/1989/2000) is not D&D. They are all full of shit. I will say I do not like 4e at all, but it is still D&D. Whining on the internet won't change that.

Don't talk nonsense, it's already been established in this thread that an rpg can either be D&D or have feats, not both. Post 2000 "D&D" has feats, therefore it is not D&D.

Quote from: danbuter;517762I have to say I love B/X and 2e, but I get sick of all the grognards who say anything published after (1978/1983/1989/2000) is not D&D. They are all full of shit. I will say I do not like 4e at all, but it is still D&D. Whining on the internet won't change that.

As much DnD as X-COM: Enforcer is X-COM. Or as much as Warhammer 3e is Warhammer (which is my horse in the whole Edition Wars race).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;517764Therpgsite is definitely not friendly to 4E, but its hardly an oldschool focused forum (unless you consider stuff like 3e old school). There is a good mix of old school and new school here. The common thread, if there is one, is probably immersion.

Word. And to be honest, I am much more tolerant of narrative resolution mechanics, then of complicated mechanics.

It's when the two merge that I vomit. Especially if there's a good spicing of RAW.

Quote from: Aos;517767Don't talk nonsense, it's already been established in this thread that an rpg can either be D&D or have feats, not both. Post 2000 "D&D" has feats, therefore it is not D&D.

I'd actually like to try something along the ideas of C&C, but with feats - just the less "broken" ones. And without the bajillion of "let's emulate every single piece" mechanics of 3e. Player's Handbook + Forgotten Realms feats are good  times ahead.

Quote from: danbuter;517762I have to say I love B/X and 2e, but I get sick of all the grognards who say anything published after (1978/1983/1989/2000) is not D&D. They are all full of shit. I will say I do not like 4e at all, but it is still D&D. Whining on the internet won't change that.

To me 4e just doesn't have that D&D taste. I can comfortably say basic, rc, ad&d, 2E, 3e and pathfinder all feel like D&D  (even though i dont play or enjoy all of them), but 4E has a unique flavor. It sn't D&D in the traditional sense. A D&D variant perhaps.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517699I would say the same of yours.

Fair enough, I suppose.

Important factoid, though: Every time TSR or WotC have tried to introduce a non-Vancian form of magic it has tanked and tanked hard in terms of actual sales.

Maybe it's just that all those various efforts by TSR and WotC have been horribly flawed efforts, but it suggests strongly that your contention that the majority of D&D players found ways to play without using Vancian magic systems is probably not true.

Which isn't to say that non-Vancian options shouldn't be supported in 5E. But if you're talking about the core experience of D&D, it's clearly the core gameplay of 1974-2008 and it's clearly Vancian.

Quote from: Aos;517767Don't talk nonsense, it's already been established in this thread that an rpg can either be D&D or have feats, not both. Post 2000 "D&D" has feats, therefore it is not D&D.

Feats are the Devil's work!

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;517769To me 4e just doesn't have that D&D taste. I can comfortably say basic, rc, ad&d, 2E, 3e and pathfinder all feel like D&D  (even though i dont play or enjoy all of them), but 4E has a unique flavor. It sn't D&D in the traditional sense. A D&D variant perhaps.

That is a good definition of it.  In the same vein of Fantasy Craft being a 1st cousin to 3e Dnd.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517756Sorry for interrupting the theRPGsite Old School Circle Jerk(again).

You are the dumbest troll.  Or perhaps the most brilliant, since you're getting me to respond to you.  But since when do we have an "Old School Circle Jerk" around here?  There are regular arguments about things like ascending vs. descending AC and how games ought to be played and the importance of balance.  The only thing that is regularly derided around here are Swine.

Quote from: Aos;517604Notice the exclusion of feats here. Once you add those it is no longer D&D, how can it be? Real D&D doesn't have feats.

Aos, you might as well be pulling my leg. But I am not calling for purity in any sense. I am very agnostic to feats or ACs or bonuses, skills etc.

Because all these concern the interaction structure of the building blocks.

A scientifically proven D&D may:

- change the interaction structure
- add (but not substract) building blocks, without changing the implied and developed prominence of the traditional building blocks

As you can see, by this rigorous definition D&D goes right up to include 3.x without any preference for what is more D&D than the others. 4e is right out as that was it's INTENDED design goal.

Does this say anything about 4e as being good or bad as a game? No. I have said enough about what I think about that. But it definitely is not D&D, as has been proven. And now is even picked up as an argument by those who like 4e.

I don't know. In a thread about Vancian magic I post an actual idea about Vancian magic to be met with absolute silence whilst the rest of the thread degenerates into childish name calling .....

Quote from: jibbajibba;517889I don't know. In a thread about Vancian magic I post an actual idea about Vancian magic to be met with absolute silence whilst the rest of the thread degenerates into childish name calling .....

LOL

Nerdrage...   LOL

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;517893LOL

Nerdrage...   LOL

:) I know I know

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517641Vancian magic was something that was ignored, houseruled around or discarded in pretty much every game of D&D I was involved in since the mid 90s. Either people chose not to play those classes, memorization was ignored, or some sort of alternate system like spell points was used. I can't consider Vancian magic essential to D&D after spending my entire D&D life fighting against it.

Unfortunately for you, your experiences seem to be not representative of the majority, seeing the only fact that matter: sales.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517661My experiences in real life and on other forums lead me to believe that it isn't as widely agreed upon as you are making it out to be.

It is widely enough agreed. That is why 4e has tanked and is being replaced.

Quote from: Imperator;517900It is widely enough agreed. That is why 4e has tanked and is being replaced.

This is the heart of it. If someone loves 4E that is fine, but it clearly isn't liked by a large segment of the fanbase. I can sympathize. I would love for 2E to be a well-liked edition and hope to see things like NWPs in the new edition. But it is just obvious most enthusiam is for 1e and 3e. So i expect (if wotc isn't confusing themselves with their own polls) that we will see an edition that caters to these tastes with options available for 4e fans.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;517901This is the heart of it. If someone loves 4E that is fine, but it clearly isn't liked by a large segment of the fanbase. I can sympathize. I would love for 2E to be a well-liked edition and hope to see things like NWPs in the new edition. But it is just obvious most enthusiam is for 1e and 3e. So i expect (if wotc isn't confusing themselves with their own polls) that we will see an edition that caters to these tastes with options available for 4e fans.

What's more, 5e isn't only a bunch of core rules, it's also most likely going to be a 'full edition' with a lot of expansion material released for it. So even if the rules are no perfect fit for 2e and 4e DMs, maybe the expansion stuff (in particular, modules) would be interesting enough for these DMs. That'll of course depend how compatible 5e will be to 4e, because if it isn't then it's on a par with 4e DMs buying 1e to 3e stuff (i.e. 5e would have no particular appeal to 4e DMs other than being new).

Quote from: jibbajibba;517719The base default game gives you the standard D&D Magic user with roughly the same spell progression (surely even the hardest grognards won't bin 5e if they have to tweak exactly the spells and levels of spells a MU gets at 11th level ....) but you can delay picking up a spell level by picking up a power instead. so at 3rd maybe you opt not to get 2nd level spell but instead pick up a divination power you can use once per encounter/day/at will (whatever).

So long as the BASIC game does not have this swapout bit (or only has it if the GM approves its use), I would be okay with it. Other provisos: All the classic spells are available about at the level they have been and with about the power they always have had. No major changes to the classic spells to make the power swap bit work better/be more balanced.

And NO ENCOUNTER BASED POWERS in the basic game as to have encounter-based powers you have to bring in the "encounter-based" design from 4e. And that's one of the 4e things that "breaks" some styles of play that previous editions had no problem with. To be honest, if the basic game has encounter-based design, 5e will probably fail among most people who did not like 4e. Spells, powers and such need to last for units of time, not units of "story". Note that giving the GM the authority to save that certain short duration spells las at least the length of a combat encounter is fine, but all spells/powers/etc. need their duration defined in units of time just as was done pre-4e.

Quote from: RandallS;517911. To be honest, if the basic game has encounter-based design, 5e will probably fail among most people who did not like 4e.

Definitely think this is the case. And these are the customers they actually need to win back. 4E fans they need to retain. But there is a difference between not losing customers and regaining lapsed customers.

Quote from: Settembrini;517875Aos, you might as well be pulling my leg. But I am not calling for purity in any sense. I am very agnostic to feats or ACs or bonuses, skills etc.

Because all these concern the interaction structure of the building blocks.

A scientifically proven D&D may:

- change the interaction structure
- add (but not substract) building blocks, without changing the implied and developed prominence of the traditional building blocks

As you can see, by this rigorous definition D&D goes right up to include 3.x without any preference for what is more D&D than the others. 4e is right out as that was it's INTENDED design goal.

Does this say anything about 4e as being good or bad as a game? No. I have said enough about what I think about that. But it definitely is not D&D, as has been proven. And now is even picked up as an argument by those who like 4e.

Your science is flawed because it allows for feats in D&D. You shouldn't feel bad though, many otherwise decent people think 3e is D&D.

Quote from: jibbajibba;517889I don't know. In a thread about Vancian magic I post an actual idea about Vancian magic to be met with absolute silence whilst the rest of the thread degenerates into childish name calling .....

Sorry about that but I want to see if they are going with classic vancian or some variation before I discuss any mechanical ideas for the system.  I hope to God and Heaven above they do some variation.  As much as I love Dnd, vancian magic as implemented in the game borders on the silly and is one thing that gets houseruled about as fast as full hitpoints at first level.  Our typical favorite is "free casting" as described in Conqueror/King.

It works for us because like 1e or 2e spell aquisistion is tightly controlled.  I'm a big believer in splitting the wizard into specialist with wider focus than classic Dnd with the outright removal of the generalist or making the generalist have slower aquisistion of spells and a higher exp cost/chart.  I do something like Fantasy Craft or Castles/Chivalry. YMMV

Oriental Adventures vs the PHB. Regardless whether you think it was good or not, it shows how you can take the basic concepts of D&D and apply them to a different mileau. The same with the new classes in Dragonlance Adventures. I took the same idea and made my own adpatation of D&D for the Majestic Wilderlands. Took it even further as half of my magic using classes don't use Vancian Magic although I used the same spell list and spell levels.

Now all three are example of adapting D&D to a specific setting each with a unique mix of fantasy tropes. There is no reason why it couldn't done for say a style of play or a
specific sub-genre particularly one that has a large following like say 4e.

The fallacy that people think that their style of play can only be had at the expense of the other. I think that with the right presentation there can be two packages in the same core rulebook. One that is a classic style of play. The other oriented more towards the high fantasy of 4e. It could be implemented as two different sets of items (classes, racets, etc). Or the high fantasy option is implemented by having character start taking feats and powers that don't take in the classic option.

What encourages me the most and the one thing I return too after reading the various designer articles is the "D&D your way" slogan. I think they mean it. From my own experience from writing I think take it is easier to add complexity and power to a simple core rule system than vice versa. So what they are doing now in the playtest makes sense and it makes sense that it is not the end of the process.

My worry is not whether the rules will be but rather what the presentation will be. The heart of 4e is a simple game with a great deal of flexibility. But it's presentation is what landed 4e in the mess it found itself in.

Quote from: Aos;517914Your science is flawed because it allows for feats in D&D. You shouldn't feel bad though, many otherwise decent people think 3e is D&D.

Ok, so you were pulling my leg.

Quote from: Settembrini;517919Ok, so you were pulling my leg.

Only a little. Feats compromise one of the key aspects of TSR D&D- quick character creation and advancement.  Long form cg changes the way players view their characters and how they deal with character death. I believe this is significant enough change to make it another game entirely.

Aside from that, presenting one's opinions as facts is all the rage, I didn't want to be left out.

Quote from: estar;517918Oriental Adventures vs the PHB. Regardless whether you think it was good or not, it shows how you can take the basic concepts of D&D and apply them to a different mileau. The same with the new classes in Dragonlance Adventures. I took the same idea and made my own adpatation of D&D for the Majestic Wilderlands. Took it even further as half of my magic using classes don't use Vancian Magic although I used the same spell list and spell levels.

Now all three are example of adapting D&D to a specific setting each with a unique mix of fantasy tropes. There is no reason why it couldn't done for say a style of play or a
specific sub-genre particularly one that has a large following like say 4e.

The fallacy that people think that their style of play can only be had at the expense of the other. I think that with the right presentation there can be two packages in the same core rulebook. One that is a classic style of play. The other oriented more towards the high fantasy of 4e. It could be implemented as two different sets of items (classes, racets, etc). Or the high fantasy option is implemented by having character start taking feats and powers that don't take in the classic option.

What encourages me the most and the one thing I return too after reading the various designer articles is the "D&D your way" slogan. I think they mean it. From my own experience from writing I think take it is easier to add complexity and power to a simple core rule system than vice versa. So what they are doing now in the playtest makes sense and it makes sense that it is not the end of the process.

My worry is not whether the rules will be but rather what the presentation will be. The heart of 4e is a simple game with a great deal of flexibility. But it's presentation is what landed 4e in the mess it found itself in.

You're spot on in my book.  Dragonlance showed me it was possible to take the basic wizard in Dnd give it some flavor and lessen its power without gimping the class and still making it fun to play.  As to the presentation issue, that sir IS the most important issue they face, well that and getting rid of exception based crap and encounter based adventure design but I digress.....

while i like the whole vancian thing (and true, it doesn't seem like "d&d" without it) encounter-based powers etc. would be a dealbreaker for me, too.

i think full hp at first level should be standard as well.

One of the things that interesting from a presentation point of view. If they go through with putting every race in that has ever been core, and ever class in that has ever been core, there's going to be a limit to how complicated they can make things. Because if the classes have 4th edition style powers, the Player's Guide would have to be a monstrosity in terms of page count. So I am guessing classes are going to be either very simple, or have a lot of cross over of special mechanics.

heh, core should be 4 classes--fighter, thief, cleric, magic-user

Quote from: Aos;517920Feats compromise one of the key aspects of TSR D&D- quick character creation and advancement.  Long form cg changes the way players view their characters and how they deal with character death. I believe this is significant enough change to make it another game entirely.

Well, well, Aos-menides, shall we consider what you bringeth forth.

Truly, one cannot proclaim that the one is the same as the other, for if they were the same, they would be one and not two.

But is a change the same as an addition I ask you?

So as you just agreed change and addition are seperate things, you truthfully remark addition can be part of change. That is undisputed.

What lies at the heart of the difference between change and addition perpetrated on the one to become the other?

It is, Aos-menides, substraction! For if the one was truly changed to become the other, substracting anything will leave it changed. Whereas an addition can be substracted and the other will become the one again.

q.e.d.

Quote from: RandallS;517911So long as the BASIC game does not have this swapout bit (or only has it if the GM approves its use), I would be okay with it. Other provisos: All the classic spells are available about at the level they have been and with about the power they always have had. No major changes to the classic spells to make the power swap bit work better/be more balanced.

And NO ENCOUNTER BASED POWERS in the basic game as to have encounter-based powers you have to bring in the "encounter-based" design from 4e. And that's one of the 4e things that "breaks" some styles of play that previous editions had no problem with. To be honest, if the basic game has encounter-based design, 5e will probably fail among most people who did not like 4e. Spells, powers and such need to last for units of time, not units of "story". Note that giving the GM the authority to save that certain short duration spells las at least the length of a combat encounter is fine, but all spells/powers/etc. need their duration defined in units of time just as was done pre-4e.

I would present it as a core option that the DM could switch off (but the DM can switch off all options anyway so its moot).

At it's most basic level a per-encounter power is just a way to save bookkeeping.
If a speall lasts 10 rounds +2 rounds per level and you can use it again after 30 minutes its a per-encounter based power with extra bookkeeping.

From designing my own Card games I know that powers that either last forever (or until dispelled) or have an instant effect are our friends and spells that last for 2d6  + stat bouns + 2 rounds Per level are our enemy....

I will of course admit that it can lead to encounter based play though so I take your point entirely.

Quote from: Settembrini;517932Well, well, Aos-menides, shall we consider what you bringeth forth.

Truly, one cannot proclaim that the one is the same as the other, for if they were the same, they would be one and not two.

But is a change the same as an addition I ask you?

So as you just agreed change and addition are seperate things, you truthfully remark addition can be part of change. That is undisputed.

What lies at the heart of the difference between change and addition perpetrated on the one to become the other?

It is, Aos-menides, substraction! For if the one was truly changed to become the other, substracting anything will leave it changed. Whereas an addition can be substracted and the other will become the one again.

q.e.d.

Yes exactly, if one subtracts feats from (not) D&D 3.x one gets D&D. Really I couldn't have said it better myself, I am glad to see we are in agreement. This must be an exciting moment for you, coming to the truth now after so long in the desert.  You are welcome.

Quote from: Settembrini;517932It is, Aos-menides, substraction! For if the one was truly changed to become the other, substracting anything will leave it changed. Whereas an addition can be substracted and the other will become the one again.

Substraction?  Are you talking about a kind of angiography or do you really not know how to spell subtraction?

Quote from: misterguignol;517936Substraction?  Are you talking about a kind of angiography or do you really not know how to spell subtraction?

Do you really need to ask if a non-native speaker misspelled subtraction in a sentence that also contained the word 'addition'?

Yes, apparently you do.

Quote from: Windjammer;517938Do you really need to ask if a non-native speaker misspelled subtraction in a sentence that also contained the word 'addition'?

Yes, apparently you do.

I do when they have repeatedly called other people ignorant in the past over trivial matters, yes.  ;)

What is wrong with addition? I always get ad(d)ress wrong, so now you got me confused.

@Aos-menides.

The one that is just made into the other by addition is clearly more like the one as the one remains part of it and unchanged.
Whereas the third that was changed from the one into itself clearly is as different as if it was never related to the one, compared to the other.

Sett,
No soap, radio.

Back on Vancian, I do think Vancian is one of those things that quite a lot of players disliked over the years (there's a reason all of the fantasy heartbreakers try to use something else and why D&D itself has experimented with alternates).

That said, Vancian is up there with "AC makes you harder to hit" in the collection of "mechanics people dislike but find all alternatives worse". Vancian works to limit casters, the mechanic is easy, and there's not a lot of book-keeping.

I'm one of the mass of people who haven't particularly liked it since 1980, yet I too will admit that it does still work easier than the alternatives. My feelings towards AC are similar (though ascending AC is a huge improvement IMO). I think 5e should stick with using it, but present alternate options (I'm still waiting on that mythical set of rules that presents a fatigue mechanic for spellcasters that I actually like).

Quote from: estar;517918My worry is not whether the rules will be but rather what the presentation will be. The heart of 4e is a simple game with a great deal of flexibility. But it's presentation is what landed 4e in the mess it found itself in.

I agree it's a part of the issue. But I think that it goes much deeper than that. I think that elements such as the actual presentation of the game, the way it's written, exception-based game design, uber rules balance and all those things are symptomatic of a shift in the way gamers think about their own games, and how they see the moving parts of the game itself (the characters, the environment, the players, the DM, the make-believe itself and its function at the game table, etc.) working for them towards this or that varying purpose.

Things like this:

Is dying such a bad thing? (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/277380-dying-such-bad-thing.html)
What normally happens after a TPK? (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/277392-what-normally-happens-after-total-party-kill.html)
What is the PLAYER's job? (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/277246-if-its-dms-job-make-sure-players-have-fun-what-players-job.html)
It's not the DM's job to make sure people have fun (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/277224-its-not-gms-job-make-sure-people-have-fun.html)
Drohem's problem with no role playing in his group (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=366323&postcount=124)
4e grogs cry over 5e (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=517133&postcount=364)
Rose-coloured glasses/OD&D is a Ford T compilation (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=303369&postcount=103)

I could add more, but the point really is this: there has been an enormous shift in the way people think about the game and play the game in different ways towards different purposes that make them adverse to each other's play styles and inclinations.

This goes to the heart of the way the designers of 5e go about designing their game: if they go about it with exception-based, purely theoretically balanced rules, this will appeal to one section of the market, but not the other who wants more Ad Hoc subsystems to play with in an adjudication-based game. If you provide customization and rules-everything right out the gate, you are promoting a certain playstyle. If you are using a purely minimalist and "wing it as you play" approach, you are promoting a different play style. These things are hard-coded in the way the rules are designed and explained on paper.

So it's not just presentation. It's really about the way the designers understand and conceptualize the game, and how the audience comes to terms with it from there, whether they reshape the game, embrace it, or let it drop like it's nuclear material for their game table. It's not about whether or not the game uses feats. It's about what it means in the designer's head when he uses feats to conceptualize game play, and how that translates into a game that meshes with what I really want out of it, or not.

Ben, don't you muddy the waters with the culture of the game! This is about D&D magic, and one of the few things utterly fact-based and scientifically provable.

You know I am with you re culture of play, but why move away from a perfectly and 100% objective topic such as D&D magic?

Quote from: Benoist;517946I agree it's a part of the issue. But I think that it goes much deeper than that. I think that elements such as the actual presentation of the game, the way it's written, exception-based game design, uber rules balance and all those things are symptomatic of a shift in the way gamers think about their own games, and how they see the moving parts of the game itself (the characters, the environment, the players, the DM, the make-believe itself and its function at the game table, etc.) working for them towards this or that varying purpose.

Things like this:

Is dying such a bad thing? (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/277380-dying-such-bad-thing.html)
What normally happens after a TPK? (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/277392-what-normally-happens-after-total-party-kill.html)
What is the PLAYER's job? (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/277246-if-its-dms-job-make-sure-players-have-fun-what-players-job.html)
It's not the DM's job to make sure people have fun (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/277224-its-not-gms-job-make-sure-people-have-fun.html)
Drohem's problem with no role playing in his group (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=366323&postcount=124)
4e grogs cry over 5e (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=517133&postcount=364)
Rose-coloured glasses/OD&D is a Ford T compilation (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=303369&postcount=103)

I could add more, but the point really is this: there has been an enormous shift in the way people think about the game and play the game in different ways towards different purposes that make them adverse to each other's play styles and inclinations.

This goes to the heart of the way the designers of 5e go about designing their game: if they go about it with exception-based, purely theoretically balanced rules, this will appeal to one section of the market, but not the other who wants more Ad Hoc subsystems to play with in an adjudication-based game. If you provide customization and rules-everything right out the gate, you are promoting a certain playstyle. If you are using a purely minimalist and "wing it as you play" approach, you are promoting a different play style. These things are hard-coded in the way the rules are designed and explained on paper.

So it's not just presentation. It's really about the way the designers understand and conceptualize the game, and how the audience comes to terms with it from there, whether they reshape the game, embrace it, or let it drop like it's nuclear material for their game table. It's not about whether or not the game uses feats. It's about what it means in the designer's head when he uses feats to conceptualize game play, and how that translates into a game that meshes with what I really want out of it, or not.

interesting point.

So if 5e has an option to dial it down to 1eD&D but that isn't presented as the standard default play style but rather one mode that the default game can be played (lets assume the others involved swaping out standard 1e class powers for other 'feat' like powers) then would that still be a deal breaker for you or would that be an acceptible compromise to get everyone back in the same church?

Of if it was decided that say the paladin is really a little unbalanced compared to the fighter so they gave the figther some extra welly, improved specialisation or combat stances to 'balance' it up then would that be a deal breaker?

Quote from: Settembrini;517949Ben, don't you muddy the waters with the culture of the game! This is about D&D magic, and one of the few things utterly fact-based and scientifically provable.

You know I am with you re culture of play, but why move away from a perfectly and 100% objective topic such as D&D magic?

Because I think all these things are interconnected and that it matters to have a look at the big picture to then consider what part each of its components plays in the structure (NB: I think this is a big problem with most conversations by the way, not just gaming but well, everything really, that there's a systematic failure to consider the big picture in favor of isolating each part of a debate to then deconstruct them in completely theoretical, unrealistic ways that bring nothing whatsoever to the overall debate).

Vancian magic is part of this.

Quote from: Settembrini;517949Ben, don't you muddy the waters with the culture of the game! This is about D&D magic, and one of the few things utterly fact-based and scientifically provable.

You know I am with you re culture of play, but why move away from a perfectly and 100% objective topic such as D&D magic?

As I nerdraged earlier :)

No one actually cares about the topic, 80% of posts have nothing to do with magic or ways in which 5e could satify the old school requirement for spells as physical effects as opposed to spells as gamist effects.

Surely you knew that before you agreed to take part :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;517950So if 5e has an option to dial it down to 1eD&D but that isn't presented as the standard default play style but rather one mode that the default game can be played (lets assume the others involved swaping out standard 1e class powers for other 'feat' like powers) then would that still be a deal breaker for you or would that be an acceptible compromise to get everyone back in the same church?

Well apparently it's a strong possibility, because when I talk about my own idea of a simple core a la OD&D on which you plug all sorts of modules like feats or miniatures combat or uber-balance even to recreate the play style you want out of it, with the overall idea that it's much simpler to ADD stuff to a simple core system rather than SUBTRACT stuff out of it (which seems like pure logic to me), I get a lot of resistance in parts like ENWorld (I can't even imagine what it'd be on RPGnet), so there's something deeper at play here than just practicality, and my guess is, is that people, each from their own corner of the woods (me included), want the perfect game right then and there sans modules, otherwise it's a deal-breaker.

But it goes deeper than that really. It's about how the rules are shaped. If you have say a 'feat' unit and that you build all classes using these 'feat' units, and that you have one single roll mechanic that is stretched throughout the game's design, this is a fundamentally different approach from a game like say, AD&D First Ed, where you have a bunch of separate, very different subsystems you consider from your spot as referee to use or not use in the game. It's a fundamentally different logic that informs the very base on the design, and it's not negligible. My guess is, for most people, it actually matters a lot towards their enjoyment of play.

Quote from: Benoist;517953Well apparently it's a strong possibility, because when I talk about my own idea of a simple core a la OD&D on which you plug all sorts of modules like feats or miniatures combat or uber-balance even to recreate the play style you want out of it, with the overall idea that it's much simpler to ADD stuff to a simple core system rather than SUBTRACT stuff out of it (which seems like pure logic to me), I get a lot of resistance in parts like ENWorld (I can't even imagine what it'd be on RPGnet), so there's something deeper at play here than just practicality, and my guess is, is that people, each from their own corner of the woods, wants the perfect game right then and there sans modules, otherwise it's a deal-breaker.

But it goes deeper than that really. It's about how the rules are shaped. If you have say a 'feat' unit and that you build all classes using these 'feat' units, and that you have one single roll mechanic that is stretched throughout the game's design, this is a fundamentally different approach from a game like say, AD&D First Ed, where you have a bunch of separate, very different subsystems you consider from your spot as referee to use or not use in the game. It's a fundamentally different logic that informs the very base on the design, and it's not negligible. My guess is, for most people, it actually matters a lot towards their enjoyment of play.

So for you how you get to the design is as important as the design itself?

I can't see 5e adding disparate sub-systems. It's neither practical, esthetic nor does it encourage new players. I suspect they might return to theives skills on % but would expect everything to be d20 v target.

You must realise though that 1e didn't add those subsystems deliberately. They didn't set out to give different parts of the game their own feel they just incorporated stuff that many different people had invented in isolation and which worked for that bit.

I guess to you 1e must be like a Jackson Pollock, created through randomness but forming a fortuitously perfect whole. :)

How you get to the design informs the design itself which then informs the way it is used at the game table is what I'm saying. If the underlying logic that sustains the whole thing is from the start biased or partisan towards this or that "school" of games, you have a serious problem when you want to appeal to all manners of uses of the game at different tables.

Looking at the history of the game itself and the way it evolved over time, I think it is possible to make it work along an axis that basically works from the simple core expression similar to OD&D/Swords & Wizardry to work your way up in time, so to speak, with different modules and add-ons to the game, included or not in the base game package itself, so that you can in effect recreate different inclinations and playstyles.

I do not see it working in reverse, where you'd start from 3rd edition D&D to then try to recreate 4e and pre-2000 D&Ds with this core. It does not make any logical sense to me.

Quote from: Benoist;517955I do not see it working in reverse, where you'd start from 3rd edition D&D to then try to recreate 4e and pre-2000 D&Ds with this core. It does not make any logical sense to me.

This is sensible and has a proper anti-feat subtext.

The argument for starting with a well defined game and letting people subtract from it is that it is more work to design something from scratch because it doesn't exist than to simply remove it. For example, it's more work to design the Dragonborn race from scratch than it is to say "Dragonborn won't be allowed in this campaign".

This argument is more about present/not-present within the core rulebooks as opposed to what is optional and what is core, as something present but optional wouldn't trigger the above option. The possible issue is whether the optional module would be designed to the same high standard or as well supported in the long run.

What I'm really wary of at this point is that when I read the L&L columns, Monte Cook comes off as a guy who's still thinking like a 3rd edition designer. Like he's plugged on the d20 matrix or something, and he can't fucking let go to look at the larger picture of the game.

If I wanted 3rd edition out of 5e I would read this and think "OK, oh wow, cool, I see, I could play a Warlock and have reserve feats à la PHB2 for my wizard, that'd be cool" but that's not what I want my D&D to be at this point. It no longer is.

So, and really this is important, if this is an edition to just get some Pathfinder and 3rd ed players back into the fold I'm completely cool with it. I have AD&D, I have OSRIC, I have a whole bunch of stuff to play with, and my hobby itself is far from being threatened by such a prospect. So I'm set. I'm cool. BUT if these guys really want to get all sorts of people from all editions under their "big tent", I think they should let go of d20 and look at the entire picture of the D&D game, not just its tail end for the basic building blocks of the game's design.

Quote from: Benoist;517955How you get to the design informs the design itself which then informs the way it is used at the game table is what I'm saying. If the underlying logic that sustains the whole thing is from the start biased or partisan towards this or that "school" of games, you have a serious problem when you want to appeal to all manners of uses of the game at different tables.

Looking at the history of the game itself and the way it evolved over time, I think it is possible to make it work along an axis that basically works from the simple core expression similar to OD&D/Swords & Wizardry to work your way up in time, so to speak, with different modules and add-ons to the game, included or not in the base game package itself, so that you can in effect recreate different inclinations and playstyles.

I do not see it working in reverse, where you'd start from 3rd edition D&D to then try to recreate 4e and pre-2000 D&Ds with this core. It does not make any logical sense to me.

I the approach you describe he is actually rather easy.

I think the aim of the 5e project is a little more ambitious. From the commentary it appears that their aim is to have the same base game allow different modes of play. with an option at the table to restrict certain options but with the proviso that a character from game A where they play '1e' can be ported to game B where they play '3e' and it will work as written and will be balanced to a character created for the '3e' game.
That won't work if you just take a OD&D core then add non-weapon proficiencies and kits, then add feats, multi-classing and prestige classes, then add At will and daily powers. With each addition a module.

Obviously the OD&D character will be much weaker than the 4e ubermenchen and therefore unbalanced.

I think you can do it using the 'feat' building block method but it sounds like even that design approach is anathema to you.

Interesting in how our conversations are focusing on characters and how they interact with the world. Very few of these discussions focus on world building or DMing advice and I think that is where the game is really forged. If you DM advice is plot hooks and 'story', you get an entirely different feel to hexcrawl or sandbox. I hope that 5e will include advice for each style and if they were cunning, like foxes, they would use advice from different versions of the game to highlight different play styles. A section from Gygax etc

Quote from: jibbajibba;517961Obviously the OD&D character will be much weaker than the 4e ubermenchen and therefore unbalanced.

See that's the key. I'm an O/AD&D player. Strict rules balance at all levels is contradictory to my play style at this point. It's not JUST that I don't give a fuck about the concept. It's that I simply don't want to see it creep its way into my  game AT ALL, while the 4e player HAS to have that basic concept as the base of the system for the whole thing to work in a satisfactory manner to him. Right there that's a fundamental idea that informs ALL the rest of the game's design. How do you manage that and please everyone? You can't.

Quote from: jibbajibba;517933At it's most basic level a per-encounter power is just a way to save bookkeeping.
If a speall lasts 10 rounds +2 rounds per level and you can use it again after 30 minutes its a per-encounter based power with extra bookkeeping.

The problem I have with powers and spells described as "lasts until the end of the encounter"  is how long do they last if you don't use them in an encounter? Give them a duration in time and put a star next to it to tell the GM that she can just have it last for the duration of the encounter if it is used in an encounter (and the GM chooses to use "an encounter" as a unit of game time.  That way everyone could be happy.

I realize that I'm probably just an asshole for running a pure sandbox game and for not having players who believe that everything outside outside of an encounter is boring and should be glossed over so you can get to the next set-piece encounter on the program in the pre-written adventure.

And don't even let me talk about how I hate "cooldown" nonsense (use it again after 30 minutes). That stuff belongs in a computer game where the damn computer can track it all without the humans playing needing to do it. All the fiddly conditions used in 4e combat are in the same category: only in a computer game please.  And I don't want to have to use a computer at my game table.

Quote from: RandallS;517965The problem I have with powers and spells described as "lasts until the end of the encounter"  is how long do they last if you don't use them in an encounter? Give them a duration in time and put a star next to it to tell the GM that she can just have it last for the duration of the encounter if it is used in an encounter (and the GM chooses to use "an encounter" as a unit of game time.  That way everyone could be happy.

Tbh, unless the actual characters are stood there counting the duration or using an egg-timer or something, saying things last 'a while' has always got me through.

Quote from: jadrax;517966Tbh, unless the actual characters are stood there counting the duration or using an egg-timer or something, saying things last 'a while' has always got me through.

That often doesn't work for me. For example, the time a cleric used a blade barrier to machete through dense undergrowth so they had a chance of getting from point A to point B fast enough. "A while" just wouldn't be very helpful.

The Encounter is a terrible unit of game design. It is the kryptonite of D&D play, as far as I'm concerned.

Bring back combat turns and exploration turns, I say.

Quote from: Benoist;517969The Encounter is a terrible unit of game design. It is the kryptonite of D&D play, as far as I'm concerned.

Bring back combat turns and exploration turns, I say.

Exploration turns may be an easy sell actually (especially since many new gamers might mistake them for an innovation rather than something from AD&D).

1 exploration turn = 10 combat turns.

Then have durations and uses expressed using days, exploration turns or combat turns.

Quote from: Benoist;517969The Encounter is a terrible unit of game design. It is the kryptonite of D&D play, as far as I'm concerned.

Bring back combat turns and exploration turns, I say.

The day as a unit of game design is just as bad if not worse, as the number of events that occur varies wildly from day to day, or the DM is forced to make sure each day has multiple events to make sure the game runs as it should. The game impact of per day resources varies in direct correlation with the number of events that occur in a given day.

Quote from: benoist;5179731 exploration turn = 10 combat turns.

Then have durations and uses expressed using days, exploration turns or combat turns.

all for it.

Quote from: Benoist;5179731 exploration turn = 10 combat turns.

Then have durations and uses expressed using days, exploration turns or combat turns.

This seems like a way to encourage the dreary minute-to-minute sort of role-playing that has ruined many of the tables at which I've had the misfortune to sit.

Duration effects aside, these seem more like units of adventure design than game design, really. And really this kind of stuff pales in comparison to real issues like gnome exclusion/inclusion.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517974The day as a unit of game design is just as bad if not worse, as the number of events that occur varies wildly from day to day, or the DM is forced to make sure each day has multiple events to make sure the game runs as it should. The game impact of per day resources varies in direct correlation with the number of events that occur in a given day.

The day is a consistent measure of meaningful passage of time. An encounter is less consistent and for lots of powers, recovering the ability to use them between makes no real sense to some people.

The problem you describe is one I have never encountered in all my years of D&D. Every day doesn't have to have multiple encounters. The balancing factor is the pcs dont know how many in a given day. This is why i never understood 4e, it offered me solutions to problems I never encountered.

Quote from: two_fishes;517977This seems like a way to encourage the dreary minute-to-minute sort of role-playing that has ruined many of the tables at which I've had the misfortune to sit.

Tell your DM not to suck.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;517979The day is a consistent measure of meaningful passage of time. An encounter is less consistent and for lots of powers, recovering the ability to use them between makes no real sense to some people.

The problem you describe is one I have never encountered in all my years of D&D. Every day doesn't have to have multiple encounters. The balancing factor is the pcs dont know how many in a given day. This is why i never understood 4e, it offered me solutions to problems I never encountered.

It depends on what you want. If game balance is more important than realism/simulation to you, the day isn't really a good unit to base resources around. Daily resources are also a worse mechanic if you want more consistent and predictable gameplay as opposed to randomness or variety.

In my experience, players aren't completely in the dark when it comes to not knowing how much they will face in the day, and can often make accurate predictions and behave accordingly. In addition, if there isn't some sort of DM enforced urgency, they can just burn through their resources at an accelerated pace and go home when they run out.

Quote from: Benoist;517980Tell your DM not to suck.

Or maybe some half way decent advice (in English even) on how to implement this sort of turn structure without turning it into an endless grind should be included in the game.

Quote from: Aos;517984Or maybe some half way decent advice (in English even) on how to implement this sort of turn structure without turning it into an endless grind should be included in the game.

Which is what I'm implying, yes.

Quote from: Aos;517984Or maybe some half way decent advice (in English even) on how to implement this sort of turn structure without turning it into an endless grind should be included in the game.

Seems like a capital idea to me.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517983It depends on what you want. If game balance is more important than realism/simulation to you, the day isn't really a good unit to base resources around. Daily resources are also a worse mechanic if you want more consistent and predictable gameplay as opposed to randomness or variety.

In my experience, players aren't completely in the dark when it comes to not knowing how much they will face in the day, and can often make accurate predictions and behave accordingly. In addition, if there isn't some sort of DM enforced urgency, they can just burn through their resources at an accelerated pace and go home when they run out.

Or maybe if the world and the creatures in it acted realistically.  You know instead of "kill them all and take their stuff" maybe negoiate or something, like the real world?

Like it isn't an accident that a wizard should know just about every typical language in the game.  It allows for that character to parlay even in the middle of combat while she is winding up the HAMMER and every intelligent creature in the area knows it.

Absolute balance makes no sense to me given it is not that way in the real world or in ANY story I have ever read.

Quote from: Benoist;517980Tell your DM not to suck.

You have failed to convince me that game structure does not influence play structure.

Quote from: Aos;517984Or maybe some half way decent advice (in English even) on how to implement this sort of turn structure without turning it into an endless grind should be included in the game.

Don't you know that when the rules provide procedural advice it makes some people mad?

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517983It depends on what you want. If game balance is more important than realism/simulation to you, the day isn't really a good unit to base resources around. Daily resources are also a worse mechanic if you want more consistent and predictable gameplay as opposed to randomness or variety.

Balance isnt a priority for me, but even so i never had much of an issue with imbalance in previous editions (except in 3e where the multiclassing allowed some unexpected results...but this was still very managable).

QuoteIn my experience, players aren't completely in the dark when it comes to not knowing how much they will face in the day, and can often make accurate predictions and behave accordingly. In addition, if there isn't some sort of DM enforced urgency, they can just burn through their resources at an accelerated pace and go home when they run out.

Never had this problem.

Yeah, I think the reason you had "dreary minute-to-minute sort of roleplaying" is because that is the sort of adventure the samples in AD&D etc. are like. Solution (you know, except for trying the minute-to-minute dungeon crawl once or twice and realizing it is boring) – show an example of an adventure that isn't handled like that, or one where the minutes are counted when it's important and when they aren't, it's not.

The reason you'd want things to be quantified in absolute time units is that sometimes survival depends on being in a place by a certain time.

Quote from: Marleycat;517990Or maybe if the world and the creatures in it acted realistically.  You know instead of "kill them all and take their stuff" maybe negoiate or something, like the real world?

Like it isn't an accident that a wizard should know just about every typical language in the game.  It allows for that character to parlay even in the middle of combat while she is winding up the HAMMER and every intelligent creature in the area knows it.

Absolute balance makes no sense to me given it is not that way in the real world or in ANY story I have ever read.

The world behaving realistically, particularly offstage isn't something that has any importance to me. My priority is the game being played at the table, and if the game as it is being played at the table can be improved by handwaving strict realism, so much the better.

Its not about absolute balance so much as having little to no tolerance for imbalance having a negative impact on the play at thhe table.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517983It depends on what you want. If game balance is more important than realism/simulation to you, the day isn't really a good unit to base resources around. Daily resources are also a worse mechanic if you want more consistent and predictable gameplay as opposed to randomness or variety.

I never care about game balance (at least not in this manner). "Realism/simulation" is almost always far more important than game balance in my book. 99% of RPGs that prioritize game balance over "realism"/simulation are RPGs I do not enjoy playing.  For D&D, I've never cared about "game balance in the rules" as I consider that the job of the GM when he designs a campaign/setting. The "game rules" can only be balanced if you are playing in the designer's setting with the designer's regular players with the designer GMing. The minute you are playing in a different setting or with players with different styles than the designer wanted/expected you discover the finely balanced rules aren't really so balanced after all.

QuoteIn my experience, players aren't completely in the dark when it comes to not knowing how much they will face in the day, and can often make accurate predictions and behave accordingly.

IMHO, there's nothing wrong with trying to predict the number of encounters likely during the day -- that good player skill in my book.

Of course, Making wandering monster rolls will prevent players from knowing how many encounters they will have in a day.  In my campaign, even on a day of wilderness travel that is just played through there are 1 to 3 chances for an encounter during the day (number depends on terrain and party movement speed) and 1 to 4 chances at night (again exact number varies by terrain).

QuoteIn addition, if there isn't some sort of DM enforced urgency, they can just burn through their resources at an accelerated pace and go home when they run out.

As for the "15 minute work day," I've never seen it. There's always a cost (like those wondering monster encounters on the way home) that generally makes going nova and going home a very poor choice.  This is especially true as I run TSR-style D&D where many of the spells that would allow the party to just zap themselves home bypassing any chance of an encounter are fairly dangerous to use. For example, I've noticed that even a 1% chance of teleporting into solid ground for instant death makes teleporting something that is only used when absolutely necessary.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;517993Balance isnt a priority for me, but even so i never had much of an issue with imbalance in previous editions (except in 3e where the multiclassing allowed some unexpected results...but this was still very managable).

3E is where balance became important to me, since 3E screwed it up so badly. After 3E, I can't look at AD&D with the same innocent eyes, so AD&D's much better balance(better than 3E) isn't enough for me after 3E hypersensitized me to it.

QuoteNever had this problem.

I don't really have it when I DM, but I have to work really hard to avoid it. I see it fairly often in games where I play.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517998I don't really have it when I DM, but I have to work really hard to avoid it.

Man, getting out the door in the morning must be a superhuman feat for you.

Quote from: Benoist;518002Man, getting out the door in the morning must be a superhuman feat for you.

When you focus your game more on plot than on exploration, you find that plot is a much easier thing to predict than unexplored territory, and you have to work that much harder to keep people in the dark.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518005When you focus your game more on plot than on exploration, you find that plot is a much easier thing to predict than unexplored territory, and you have to work that much harder to keep people in the dark.

Don't work with "plot".

Problem solved.

Quote from: jibbajibba;517961I think you can do it using the 'feat' building block method but it sounds like even that design approach is anathema to you.

As you and I have discussed previously on another thread, calling class abilities "feats" and using them as building blocks in class design is most likely the only way to achieve 5e's goal.

Unfortunately, Cook has been talking about the TSR-style arcane spell caster (let's call them Wizards) having Vancian magic AND Feats that allow them to cast at-wills.  These at-wills seem to be all non-combat spells (so that spell slots are not wasted for combat) and at least one mundane magic attack.

That doesn't reconcile with my personal view of how the Wizard should be designed and I must admit to have lost all interest in playing 5e.

I also think that these design principles (as you hinted at above) will ruin the most basic version of the 5e Fighter by saddling the class with a list of "options" to give the illusion of choice.

Quote from: Benoist;518006Don't work with "plot".

Problem solved.

I am not a fan of exploration-style play, and combat doesn't really work as the primary driving focus of the game in my opinion, so story/plot(and a loose one based more on characters and setting as oppossed to railroading) is where its at.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517996The world behaving realistically, particularly offstage isn't something that has any importance to me. My priority is the game being played at the table, and if the game as it is being played at the table can be improved by handwaving strict realism, so much the better.

Its not about absolute balance so much as having little to no tolerance for imbalance having a negative impact on the play at thhe table.

We definitely have different priorities as for realism then.  On the otherhand I don't like imbalance that affects the table either but that is the job of the GM not the game, and I have never had that issue in any game I've played or run, especially run because I am God at my table and if anything I would be the one that would be the imbalancer at the table, not the game rules.  You have to set up realistic situations for your players and know your players and the abilities they have.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518009I am not a fan of exploration-style play, and combat doesn't really work as the primary driving focus of the game in my opinion, so story/plot(and a loose one based more on characters and setting as oppossed to railroading) is where its at.

You are speaking of things you have virtually no knowledge of outside the illusions you've built in your mind about them. You don't have any experience with these things you are talking about, and it shows IMO in the way you are talking about them. I wish I could help you out with that, but distance plays against us (well that, and the fact you are making it up as you go because really, you are not here to have any meaningful exchange with anyone but rather to enjoy the show and jolt it back to life every once in a while).

QuoteI am not a fan of exploration-style play, and combat doesn't really work  as the primary driving focus of the game in my opinion, so  story/plot is where its at.

"I am not a fan fossil-fueled driving, and getting to other places really does not work as the primary focus for a vehicle in my opinion, so sitting comfortably to my favorite CD with a good sound equipment in the car is where its at."

Quote from: Benoist;518011You are speaking of things you have virtually no knowledge of outside the illusions you've built in your mind about them. You don't have any experience with these things you are talking about, and it shows IMO in the way you are talking about them. I wish I could help you out with that, but distance plays against us.

I have to go back to my 2E(and earlier) days for personal experiences, but you're wrong. I might not have been exposed to the play you describe on this forum in a pure form, or exposed to it with a DM that did it well, but I've seen it enough to draw the conclusion that I don't care for it.

As you've stated, the early D&D books gave very good advice on presenting that sort of game, and these are books I both possessed and read to the point of memorization. That stuff never really grabbed me, and my imagination went in the direction of using the D&D books for a more action-style game.

Two of my first 2E DM's were older guys who had been playing/DMing since the seventies, and while their games were generally in the 2E style they still contained vestiges of exploration-style or "Old School" play. Sometimes our games would go down that path, where we searched rooms for traps and secret areas, avoided monsters that were too dangerous for us, and such and I can clearly say that when the game was like that, I was tuning it out almost completely because I found it boring as dirt. I'd wander off to the comic book rack or bury my head in the PHB and when we started talking to NPCs or entered a fight, I'd return.

When I started DMing 2E, I had a few players who had gotten used to that style of play, and started going over rooms with a fine-tooth comb looking for hidden stuff, and behaving in the manner of exploration-style play, and I usually cut them off at the knees since that was not the game I was running, and move the game back towards the action.

I may not have the deep understanding and appreciation you have, but I don't care to. It isn't what I want out of the game. While I may not completely understand to your standards, I understand enough to know I want something different.

Quote from: Settembrini;518016"I am not a fan fossil-fueled driving, and getting to other places really does not work as the primary focus for a vehicle in my opinion, so sitting comfortably to my favorite CD with a good sound equipment in the car is where its at."

I reject your premise. You view D&D as primarily an exploration style game. I disagree, and draw different conclusions.

Quote from: Settembrini;518016"I am not a fan fossil-fueled driving, and getting to other places really does not work as the primary focus for a vehicle in my opinion, so sitting comfortably to my favorite CD with a good sound equipment in the car is where its at."

Precisely.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518017I have to go back to my 2E(and earlier) days for personal experiences, but you're wrong. I might not have been exposed to the play you describe on this forum in a pure form, or exposed to it with a DM that did it well, but I've seen it enough to draw the conclusion that I don't care for it.

How would you know? You've never even tried it for real.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518018I reject your premise. You view D&D as primarily an exploration style game. I disagree, and draw different conclusions.

D&D *is* an exploration game primarily. You don't like exploration, you don't like Vancian casting, you don't like any kind of imbalance in the game... you might as well cut through the chase and say you don't like D&D. Which is fine by me and all, but since I like D&D, I really don't see what else we might have to discuss on the topic of D&D. Go play some other game, like Exalted, Fiasco or whatnot. You'll find more satisfaction there.

Quote from: thecasualoblivionThe day as a unit of game design is just as bad if not worse, as the number of events that occur varies wildly from day to day, or the DM is forced to make sure each day has multiple events to make sure the game runs as it should. The game impact of per day resources varies in direct correlation with the number of events that occur in a given day.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;517979The day is a consistent measure of meaningful passage of time. An encounter is less consistent and for lots of powers, recovering the ability to use them between makes no real sense to some people.

The problem you describe is one I have never encountered in all my years of D&D. Every day doesn't have to have multiple encounters. The balancing factor is the pcs dont know how many in a given day.

I'm curious about this.  

In my D&D experience for all editions, it was fairly common to have a short adventuring day.  That is, I and the other PCs would push into a dungeon and deal with a monster or trap or two, but well before we ran low on hit points or spells we'd settle in a defensible spot (inside or outside the dungeon) and rest for the remainder of the day to recharge.  That just seemed like the most sensible thing for us to do.  In a minority of cases, we were constantly being attacked - but that just motivated us even more to find a defensive position and hunker down.  

Whether this is a feature or a bug is debatable, but the behavior is a tendency that I experienced.  Have you not experienced it, or did you experience the same thing and have no problem with it?

Quote from: Benoist;518023How would you know? You've never even tried it for real.



D&D *is* an exploration game primarily. You don't like exploration, you don't like Vancian casting, you don't like any kind of imbalance in the game... you might as well cut through the chase and say you don't like D&D. Which is fine by me and all, but since I like D&D, I really don't see what else we might have to discuss on the topic of D&D. Go play some other game, like Exalted, Fiasco or whatnot. You'll find more satisfaction there.

You have your definition of D&D, I have mine. I find it very condescending that you seem to believe that yours is the only true definition.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518025You have your definition of D&D, I have mine. I find it very condescending that you seem to believe that yours is the only true definition.

You're just a sucky player and you hate D&D.

Just come to terms with it, move on, and you'll be a much happier gamer from there.

Quote from: jhkim;518024I'm curious about this.  

In my D&D experience for all editions, it was fairly common to have a short adventuring day.  That is, I and the other PCs would push into a dungeon and deal with a monster or trap or two, but well before we ran low on hit points or spells we'd settle in a defensible spot (inside or outside the dungeon) and rest for the remainder of the day to recharge.  That just seemed like the most sensible thing for us to do.  In a minority of cases, we were constantly being attacked - but that just motivated us even more to find a defensive position and hunker down.  

Whether this is a feature or a bug is debatable, but the behavior is a tendency that I experienced.  Have you not experienced it, or did you experience the same thing and have no problem with it?

It has never really come up for the kinds of adventures I run and the kinds of campaigns I have been in (where things are generally pretty reactive). Generally pretty hard to camp out in the villain's lair for example (and retreating to rest just gives room for the foe to regroup).  But even if it had, I would take a fifteen minute adventuring day over 4e encounter powers.

Quote from: Benoist;518026You're just a sucky player and you hate D&D.

Just come to terms with it, move on, and you'll be a much happier gamer from there.

It baffles me how you can say things like this and act like you're somehow better than me. You are being exactly what you accuse me of being.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518028It baffles me how you can say things like this and act like you're somehow better than me. You are being exactly what you accuse me of being.

You reap what you sow.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;517996The world behaving realistically, particularly offstage isn't something that has any importance to me. My priority is the game being played at the table, and if the game as it is being played at the table can be improved by handwaving strict realism, so much the better.

Its not about absolute balance so much as having little to no tolerance for imbalance having a negative impact on the play at thhe table.

Immersion depends on the consistency of in-game logic.  I may be wrong for translating 'realistically' as 'with internal logic'.  

I also have written extensively on the earlier forms of D&D as being 'balanced and biased' for exploration, then adding more 'adventure' and with AD&D, this fulcrum widens and moves slightly towards adding in a more 'campaign' bias (as seen by the exp tables, strongholds, etc).

That does not mean that every version and edition is balanced that way; I believe the opposite. Does not make them bad or good, but you can look at the ruleset and see where the game is balanced.  

Now, this thread is about re-adding vancian stuff (which is biased towards the older rullsets and husbanding resources a certain way) to the newest edition.  And for some of us, this creates the story/plot we want.  

Maybe not you.

But in terms of plot and story; I am an adherent that the ability to create a setting with lots of 'in-game logic' used by the players creates a more immersed roleplay; thus, a deeper, shared experience game.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;518027It has never really come up for the kinds of adventures I run and the kinds of campaigns I have been in (where things are generally pretty reactive). Generally pretty hard to camp out in the villain's lair for example (and retreating to rest just gives room for the foe to regroup).  But even if it had, I would take a fifteen minute adventuring day over 4e encounter powers.

Can you say more about what are your adventures like?  It sounds like they are markedly different from, say, published D&D modules.  

My D&D play has tended to be either published modules or homemade adventures that resembled published modules.  Sometimes those were enemy lairs - but if so, we would tend to make successive commando strikes on the lair, rather than going in and staying until we or them were entirely defeated.  In this context, while retreating did give the enemy a chance to regroup, that didn't benefit them nearly as much as having a full load of resources benefited us.

Quote from: LordVreeg;518030Immersion depends on the consistency of in-game logic.  I may be wrong for translating 'realistically' as 'with internal logic'.  

Arguing with people over 'immersion' I find I have a more casual attitude towards it, and I find two schools of thought on it. Some people want to sit directly in their character's shoes, and some people experience the game through their character as a medium. The second group has a certain amount of distance between the player and the game, as its less about the player directly interacting with the game and more about the character directly interacting with the game and the player as an actor or author.

Quote from: LordVreeg;518030I also have written extensively on the earlier forms of D&D as being 'balanced and biased' for exploration, then adding more 'adventure' and with AD&D, this fulcrum widens and moves slightly towards adding in a more 'campaign' bias (as seen by the exp tables, strongholds, etc).

That does not mean that every version and edition is balanced that way; I believe the opposite. Does not make them bad or good, but you can look at the ruleset and see where the game is balanced.  

I can agree with this, but I'd also add that earlier forms of D&D were also very vague, particularly when it comes to mechanics. It was primarily designed around exploration, but that vagueness allowed the game to be retooled to do other things with minimal effort.

Quote from: LordVreeg;518030Now, this thread is about re-adding vancian stuff (which is biased towards the older rullsets and husbanding resources a certain way) to the newest edition.  And for some of us, this creates the story/plot we want.  

Maybe not you.

But in terms of plot and story; I am an adherent that the ability to create a setting with lots of 'in-game logic' used by the players creates a more immersed roleplay; thus, a deeper, shared experience game.

It also matters what sort of logic you are using. If you are using Naruto, Final Fantasy, or the movie 300 as the standard of "in-setting logic" you're going to get very different results..

Much like jhkim, my D&D experiences for the past 30 years have always included the 15 minute adventuring day, no matter who was in the group or functioning as the DM.

There simply weren't all that many times where you could artifically enforce PCs to keep on once they used up some of their resources (you can only have so many wandering monster encounters, so many missions where time is of the essence without it becoming railroady and stale, or so many cases where the enemies can quickly reinforce).

Note that I say artificial - because the methods a DM can employ to avoid a 15 minute workday are heavily metagamey, railroady, and generally not all that "realistic" or "immersive".

And now for something completely different. Number one. A metaphor.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7qe7y7EuFLw/TYcRRQ5O5CI/AAAAAAAAAKQ/GhrlD0tKIFs/s1600/net-troll.jpg)

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518037Arguing with people over 'immersion' I find I have a more casual attitude towards it, and I find two schools of thought on it. Some people want to sit directly in their character's shoes, and some people experience the game through their character as a medium. The second group has a certain amount of distance between the player and the game, as its less about the player directly interacting with the game and more about the character directly interacting with the game and the player as an actor or author.

Not making a value judgement, but I have dealt with both as well, but whether first-person or not, the in-game logic I mention still helps them avoid the metagaming and staying 'in-game;, whether first person or not.

.....

QuoteIt also matters what sort of logic you are using. If you are using Naruto, Final Fantasy, or the movie 300 as the standard of "in-setting logic" you're going to get very different results..

it does, but it all provides the ability to create a web of built-up in game logic, and if the internal logic continues to make sense, there is less jarring the players to look up and try to see what the GM is doing or to look for CR vs trying to work with the in-game reasons for a creature ot be in an area...

Quote from: jgants;518041Much like jhkim, my D&D experiences for the past 30 years have always included the 15 minute adventuring day, no matter who was in the group or functioning as the DM.

There simply weren't all that many times where you could artifically enforce PCs to keep on once they used up some of their resources (you can only have so many wandering monster encounters, so many missions where time is of the essence without it becoming railroady and stale, or so many cases where the enemies can quickly reinforce).

Note that I say artificial - because the methods a DM can employ to avoid a 15 minute workday are heavily metagamey, railroady, and generally not all that "realistic" or "immersive".

I find that the 15-minute workday can be as much a function of the DM as anything. As a player during the 3E-era in high-level campaigns, combat was generally so slow(between the system and as we played it) that the DMs we had only scheduled one per game session, and let us rest between game sessions. Given this, we learned to just blow through everything we had because we kneww there wasn't going to be a next fight, and on the rare occasion that this wasn't true it was completely obvious. I've also played in social/political focused D&D where combat is uncommon(often absent) and most of the action was purely DM-fiat, and in these games we effectively were under the 15-minute workday.

Quote from: jgants;518041Much like jhkim, my D&D experiences for the past 30 years have always included the 15 minute adventuring day, no matter who was in the group or functioning as the DM.

There simply weren't all that many times where you could artifically enforce PCs to keep on once they used up some of their resources (you can only have so many wandering monster encounters, so many missions where time is of the essence without it becoming railroady and stale, or so many cases where the enemies can quickly reinforce).

Note that I say artificial - because the methods a DM can employ to avoid a 15 minute workday are heavily metagamey, railroady, and generally not all that "realistic" or "immersive".

Disagree.
Probably why my groups end up looking like travelling circus', though,  my players don't adventure...they 'expedition'.  My pcs really have to try to be quiet and sneaky and careful becasue in most of my adventures, the idea of holing up just means they are becoming a cecile target.

Quote from: LordVreeg;518047Disagree.
Probably why my groups end up looking like travelling circus', though,  my players don't adventure...they 'expedition'.  My pcs really have to try to be quiet and sneaky and careful becasue in most of my adventures, the idea of holing up just means they are becoming a cecile target.

I'd like party in my campaign try to retreat and do the 8 hours rest needed for meditation & rest.

It's not like whatever monsters they fought in the dungeon will just sit and wait for them.

Quote from: Rincewind1;518049I'd like party in my campaign try to retreat and do the 8 hours rest needed for meditation & rest.

It's not like whatever monsters they fought in the dungeon will just sit and wait for them.

Well, the usual way it works IME is they kill everything they encounter, then decide to head back to town instead of continuing to explore then come back the next day.

If you are doing the realistic/immersive approach and not just using DM-fiat to punish the PCs, there's not a ton the monsters can do. Certainly unintelligent creatures in the dungeon wouldn't do anything in the meantime. And even intelligent ones would be hard-pressed to do too much in that amount of time (8 hours or so isn't a lot to get reinforcements or build traps / defenses), assuming they even managed to figure out what was going on by then.

There's also the problem of exactly what can the monsters do that will give you a different result from the PCs. Making the monsters harder next time tends to exacerbate the problem, IME. The PCs then just get even more paranoid and will both rest more often and refuse to adventure anywhere unless they feel they have overwhelming force.

Quote from: jgants;518058Well, the usual way it works IME is they kill everything they encounter, then decide to head back to town instead of continuing to explore then come back the next day.

If you are doing the realistic/immersive approach and not just using DM-fiat to punish the PCs, there's not a ton the monsters can do. Certainly unintelligent creatures in the dungeon wouldn't do anything in the meantime. And even intelligent ones would be hard-pressed to do too much in that amount of time (8 hours or so isn't a lot to get reinforcements or build traps / defenses), assuming they even managed to figure out what was going on by then.

I can assure you that if I had survived the early slaughter, in the 8 hours, I ( and I mean me as a person) would be more then capable of setting up at least a few traps, with rather basic elements such as wood, rope, stone. And I am not a soldier - just used to be a bit into survival.

Not to mention that in those 8 hours, if you have a race that is not made out of complete retards, they WILL analyse the tactics of the PCs (the survivors, at least), and I am pretty sure first thing I'd do, as a monster, if I know that that damn PC mage is there, would be to run to the lower level of the dungeon, to try and bargain with whatever power is there, if only in a hope that he is also a magic - user who will counter their magic.

I've never had this 15 minute day thing. Even recently, when I ran the first level of the Halls of the Hidden Prince (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=494817#post494817) for two PCs, they only stopped once.

Hells, when I was in Boy Scouts, we used to make a makeshift fence palisade and a simple gate (the one like here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Bundesarchiv_Bild_137-049278,_Anschluss_%C3%96sterreich.jpg/245px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_137-049278,_Anschluss_%C3%96sterreich.jpg)), and also a watchtower that could actually hold at least 4 - 5 people without risk of falling down, and had something that could serve as protection from arrows. And all in a working day, so basically 8 hours or probably even less.

And that was just a few (usually we, the oldest & strongest [I was always a strong fatty], built the gate), about 10 of us. And I will admit we sometimes took time to try and slack. Imagine how much you could get to make of makeshift defences, if you have 30 - 50 strong adult people, motivated by incoming slaughter, and with actual soldiering experience.

Quote from: Aos;518063I've never had this 15 minute day thing. Even recently, when I ran the first level of the Halls of the Hidden Prince (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=494817#post494817) for two PCs, they only stopped once.

I've had groups stop after being battered to retreat and set up camp and shit, sure, but likewise, I've never seen that "15 minutes day" thing become an issue at my game table.

TBH, I'm not even sure why it's a problem. Dies it drag the game down to have the party spike themselves in room or go back to town to recharge?  Imean what are we talking here like 5 minutes of play time?

Quote from: Aos;518074TBH, I'm not even sure why it's a problem. Dies it drag the game down to have the party spike themselves in room or go back to town to recharge?  Imean what are we talking here like 5 minutes of play time?

Yeah. It's like the whole thing about phasing out of the game and all that. What's up with that? It's like if you're not playing right now right this minute RIGHT FUCKING NOW I TELL YOU you're not doing anything and don't care what they other players are doing. Isn't that a collaborative game in the first place? I don't phase out when it's not my turn to play, personally, nor are any of the players I know. Sure, it shouldn't take forever to turn around the table, but if the action is entertaining, I don't know... everyone's in the zone together, you see what I mean?

Sounds like selfish whiner bullshit to me, to be honest.

My favourite moments of a typical Warhammer game are either

1) Just after combat when I am glad I survived
or
2) When we're just chilling and talking at the camp/tavern.

I'd say that campfire is generally a great RP occasion.

Quote from: Rincewind1;518076My favourite moments of a typical Warhammer game are either

1) Just after combat when I am glad I survived
or
2) When we're just chilling and talking at the camp/tavern.

I'd say that campfire is generally a great RP occasion.

I agree. Some of the best moment of RP happen when you're at the inn or whore house or whatnot and stuff just sort of happens, like that old NPC dude I talked about before that almost killed our 5th-level-or-so fighter at Rolemaster with an open-ended attack roll with a cane of 300-and-something after he pissed him off. LOL Good times.

I had never really seen or heard about it until 3E, and I still believe its mostly a 3E phenomena, specifically a phenomena among people who are playing 3E full on with all its warts and idiosyncracies, as opposed to something that a group using the 3E ruleset to play an AD&D style game.

It might have happened in earlier editions, but 3E was where it became a problem. In earlier editions, spellcasters had limits beyond running out of spells. 3E basically removed every limit spellcasters had except for running out of spells, and the 5-minute workday was bad because it removed the last limit on magic.

Quote from: Benoist;518068I've had groups stop after being battered to retreat and set up camp and shit, sure, but likewise, I've never seen that "15 minutes day" thing become an issue at my game table.

I'm curious about why this was different for your groups as for mine.  In other words, why didn't your PCs rest before they were thoroughly battered?  (This also to Aos.  I know Brendan said that his groups were always reactive - i.e. the enemy generally attacked them rather than them attacking the enemy, though I'd like to know more about what that looked like.)  

For example, was the enemy much more dangerous after they retreated from being battered?  Or did the PCs have particular reasons for that?  

From my character's point of view, it seemed pretty dumb to keep pushing until we were severely wounded and lacking spells before retreating.  Doing so seemed to me like a huge risk, given that we could be attacked as we retreated or at our camp.

Quote from: jhkim;518081I'm curious about why this was different for your groups as for mine.  In other words, why didn't your PCs rest before they were thoroughly battered?  (This also to Aos.  I know Brendan said that his groups were always reactive - i.e. the enemy generally attacked them rather than them attacking the enemy, though I'd like to know more about what that looked like.)  

For example, was the enemy much more dangerous after they retreated from being battered?  Or did the PCs have particular reasons for that?  

From my character's point of view, it seemed pretty dumb to keep pushing until we were severely wounded and lacking spells before retreating.  Doing so seemed to me like a huge risk, given that we could be attacked as we retreated or at our camp.

Except that giving time for the enemy to regroup and analyse your tactics, especially since there are so few of you and so many of him (usually), can be even worse.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518079I had never really seen or heard about it until 3E, and I still believe its mostly a 3E phenomena, specifically a phenomena among people who are playing 3E full on with all its warts and idiosyncracies, as opposed to something that a group using the 3E ruleset to play an AD&D style game.

It might have happened in earlier editions, but 3E was where it became a problem. In earlier editions, spellcasters had limits beyond running out of spells. 3E basically removed every limit spellcasters had except for running out of spells, and the 5-minute workday was bad because it removed the last limit on magic.

For me, this was a feature for all editions.  I don't think it was a major problem, but it was certainly a feature that we commented on.  

Also, I'm not sure what spellcaster limits you're referring to that 3E removed.  There are material components, which used to be more detailed.   However, those weren't used up by resting.  So I don't see how lack of detailed components would encourage longer pushes.

Quote from: jhkim;518083For me, this was a feature for all editions.  I don't think it was a major problem, but it was certainly a feature that we commented on.  

Also, I'm not sure what spellcaster limits you're referring to that 3E removed.  There are material components, which used to be more detailed.   However, those weren't used up by resting.  So I don't see how lack of detailed components would encourage longer pushes.

Low HP and AC, spells being interrupted(3E you can ignore this), memorization longer than 24hrs at higher levels, Spell Resistance(which in 3E you could ignore if smart), Save or Die/Suck spells getting less effective over time since saving throws only go up and the difficulty never changes like in 3E, ect.

In addition, in 3E you generally had more spells, both from bonus spells from high stats and the fact that specialization was less painful and Clerics got Domains.

Quote from: jhkim;518081I'm curious about why this was different for your groups as for mine.  In other words, why didn't your PCs rest before they were thoroughly battered?  (This also to Aos.  I know Brendan said that his groups were always reactive - i.e. the enemy generally attacked them rather than them attacking the enemy, though I'd like to know more about what that looked like.)  

For example, was the enemy much more dangerous after they retreated from being battered?  Or did the PCs have particular reasons for that?  

From my character's point of view, it seemed pretty dumb to keep pushing until we were severely wounded and lacking spells before retreating.  Doing so seemed to me like a huge risk, given that we could be attacked as we retreated or at our camp.

My guys run but they don't turtle. Honestly, I don't know why.

Quote from: jhkim;518081I'm curious about why this was different for your groups as for mine.  In other words, why didn't your PCs rest before they were thoroughly battered?  (This also to Aos.  I know Brendan said that his groups were always reactive - i.e. the enemy generally attacked them rather than them attacking the enemy, though I'd like to know more about what that looked like.)  

For example, was the enemy much more dangerous after they retreated from being battered?  Or did the PCs have particular reasons for that?  

From my character's point of view, it seemed pretty dumb to keep pushing until we were severely wounded and lacking spells before retreating.  Doing so seemed to me like a huge risk, given that we could be attacked as we retreated or at our camp.

Yes it's interesting.

From what I can recollect of different campaigns and game tables and different types of players I've been playing with, there are varying reasons why the party would want to keep pushing forward, for example if some characters who are more daredevils than others take the lead in such a move, or the group has some sort of specific goal or objective in mind that partly depends on time to be fulfilled... but generally, and most importantly, I think, it'll depend on the set of circumstances that make either retreat or setting up camp choices which carry their own sets of drawbacks, and not just instant rewards.

For instance, it's pretty standard in the games I run and play that when you withdraw from a dungeon area completely to go back to town and come back later to the level, you'll have to face a situation that has evolved on its own in the meantime: bodies will have been displaced by animals, traps will have been reset, some intelligent enemies will wait for you in ambush, ... the situation carries its lot of consequences in such a way that sometimes you'll just hope you can push a little further without running into a huge problem before being able to withdraw, fulfill the objective or secure the area you're in to camp and stuff. Likewise, camping in many areas of the dungeon carries its own lot of dangers, including run-ins with wandering creatures, patrols, inhabitants of the dungeons and other creatures coming in to inhabit the space left void after you went through it the previous day, etc.

So really, it's about making choices just that: actual tactical choices that each carry their own set of rewards and drawbacks. If there are no negative consequences ever in setting up camp or withdrawing from the dungeon, I guess that's what the smart player will do each and every single time.

Quote from: jhkim;518081I'm curious about why this was different for your groups as for mine.  In other words, why didn't your PCs rest before they were thoroughly battered?  (This also to Aos.  I know Brendan said that his groups were always reactive - i.e. the enemy generally attacked them rather than them attacking the enemy, though I'd like to know more about what that looked like.)  

For example, was the enemy much more dangerous after they retreated from being battered?  Or did the PCs have particular reasons for that?  

From my character's point of view, it seemed pretty dumb to keep pushing until we were severely wounded and lacking spells before retreating.  Doing so seemed to me like a huge risk, given that we could be attacked as we retreated or at our camp.

Speaking for myself it varied greatly depending on the situation and characters involved, but when I ran a campaign the villains and big badies dont sit there waiting for the PCs to show up (and for D&D i ran either Ravenloft or my home brew----both well suited to villains). As an example if the Pcs storm the keep of a vampire lord, there is no safe way for them to hack through portions of his defenses but rest halfway through. And if they flee, you can bet the vampire will reorganize his defenses, hunt them down, or (if he feels really threatened) take off to evade them. However I wasn't actively trying to cut down the fifteen minute adventuring day because, as I said, never really encountered it in my games. Either what I was doing kept it from happening, or my players just never did that sort of thing.

Quote from: jhkim;518081From my character's point of view, it seemed pretty dumb to keep pushing until we were severely wounded and lacking spells before retreating.  Doing so seemed to me like a huge risk, given that we could be attacked as we retreated or at our camp.

First, most of my groups have been full of fighters and other characters who "don't run out until dead", the magic-users weren't catered to -- protected, yes -- but the expedition did not end just because the party's magic-users were out of spells. Also, my groups tend to be large (I currently have 9 players) and use hirelings and henchmen.

Second, there's a difference to me between retreating when everyone is wounded and tired and retreating when the only person down is the magic-user who isn't even hurt but stupidly used all his spells in one encounter. The former makes sense. The latter is generally just catering to a character who thinks the expedition revolves around him. The other characters in my games tend not to cater to that fantasy. After all, the mage without spells can still guard doors, lend his higher intelligence to problem solving, use his knowledge of languages (from that higher INT) to communicate with monsters the party runs into, etc. Remember that monsters do not attack on sight, there is a reaction roll in TSR D&D. Also mages are the walking gods they are in 3.x so other players have less reason to cater to their desire to go nova and retreat.

Third, unless there are right outside a town, retreating does not necessarily mean safety. A camp will have wandering monster rolls at night  -- and in some cases might be subject to an attack from the very monsters they were fighting but did not finish.  Camping in a dungeon is even more dangerous.

Quote from: beeber;517424you gotta let mearls know that, you've got his ear, right?

I already have.

RPGPundit

CasualOblivion is part right about 1 thing because of the Concentration skill it was far easier to cast in combat than in earlier editions the bigger thing he missed though is how initiative is done differently between 3e and pre 3e, I would argue it has a larger effect than the Concentration skill which can altered easily enough like Pathfinder did to make casting in combat more risky.

Quote from: Marleycat;518101CasualOblivion is part right about 1 thing because of the Concentration skill it was far easier to cast in combat than in earlier editions the bigger thing he missed though is how initiative is done differently between 3e and pre 3e, I would it has a larger effect than the Concentration skill which can altered easily enough like Pathfinder did to make casting in combat more risky.

If you use the Spell Compendium, magic resistance also ceases to be an issue. Also, in 3E there was also the fact that you could take a 5ft step before you cast a spell, and rarely had to deal with Opportunity Attacks.

Quote from: Benoist;518090Yes it's interesting.
 and play that when you withdraw from a dungeon area completely to go back to town and come back later to the level, you'll have to face a situation that has evolved on its own in the meantime: bodies will have been displaced by animals, traps will have been reset, some intelligent enemies will wait for you in ambush, ... the situation carries its lot of consequences in such a way that sometimes you'll just hope you can push a little further without running into a huge problem before being able to withdraw, fulfill the objective or secure the area you're in to camp and stuff. Likewise, camping in many areas of the dungeon carries its own lot of dangers, including run-ins with wandering creatures, patrols, inhabitants of the dungeons and other creatures coming in to inhabit the space left void after you went through it the previous day, etc.
So really, it's about making choices just that: actual tactical choices that each carry their own set of rewards and drawbacks. consequences ever in setting up camp or withdrawing from the dungeon, I guess that's what the smart player will do each and every single time.

Or, as my players like to say...
"if we have to leave this place now, we'll have to do it all over again...and it will be harder next time..."

Quote from: two_fishes;517991You have failed to convince me that game structure does not influence play structure.

But surely if your DM drones "Still walking in the woods.  Still walking.  Still walking.  Still..." for ten minutes, there's something desperately wrong there, and it's not with the turn structure.

Having turns or days as measure does not prevent the DM from 'fast-forwarding'.

Quote from: VectorSigma;518107But surely if your DM drones "Still walking in the woods.  Still walking.  Still walking.  Still..." for ten minutes, there's something desperately wrong there, and it's not with the turn structure.

Having turns or days as measure does not prevent the DM from 'fast-forwarding'.

Obviously, "minute-by-minute" is a bit of hyperbole. I can certainly understand that there are drawbacks to Encounter-style design. I get it that when it's used poorly, it can become a framework for disjointed, non-immersive play. But it's worth pointing out that there are also drawbacks to turn-based design, and that when it used poorly, can all too easily become a framework for dull play. And I am not talking about an isolated incident, of one shitty DM that I had. It's something I've encountered more than once, and I might venture that it fostered a (sub-)culture of rather dull play. For the people who have made turn-based play work for them, that's great. But it's blinkered to think those experiences were universal.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518102If you use the Spell Compendium, magic resistance also ceases to be an issue. Also, in 3E there was also the fact that you could take a 5ft step before you cast a spell, and rarely had to deal with Opportunity Attacks.

I have no idea what the spell compendium is, is it some 4e thing? Either way it's irrelevant given the first rule in any RPG is the DM decides what's allowed in the game, especially concerning spells, full stop, no pass go, no 200.00 dollars.  Five foot steps? They can be controlled so easily as to also make them irrelevant if the DM needs to, given that's a condition of tactics and strategy, not a game rule not well thought out.

Quote from: Aos;518074TBH, I'm not even sure why it's a problem. Dies it drag the game down to have the party spike themselves in room or go back to town to recharge?  Imean what are we talking here like 5 minutes of play time?

Ah, until you have adventured with a fucking cleric who believes you have to go back to town after every fucking minor fight, you have no idea what the words 'slow', 'boring' and 'dull as fucking shit' really mean.

It really fucking boogles the mind that games like that not only fucking survive, but somehow fucking thrive.

[Not that I feel bitter about it, you understand]

Apologies if someone has already made the comparison, but the more I hear about 5e and the more I see people argue about it on various fora, I can't help but think of the Kobayashi Maru.

I'm not saying that's how it really will be or is, but that's just the impression I'm getting with what limited knowledge I have right now.

Quote from: Marleycat;518113I have no idea what the spell compendium is, is it some 4e thing? Either way it's irrelevant given the first rule in any RPG is the DM decides what's allowed in the game, especially concerning spells, full stop, no pass go, no 200.00 dollars.  Five foot steps? They can be controlled so easily as to also make them irrelevant if the DM needs to, given that's a condition of tactics and strategy, not a game rule not well thought out.

It's a 3.5E book, and it compiles all the spells from different 3.5E books beyond the PHB. If used, spell resistance largely ceases to be any hindrance.

How do you control 5ft steps, may I ask?

Quote from: jadrax;518116Ah, until you have adventured with a fucking cleric who believes you have to go back to town after every fucking minor fight, you have no idea what the words 'slow', 'boring' and 'dull as fucking shit' really mean.

It really fucking boogles the mind that games like that not only fucking survive, but somehow fucking thrive.

[Not that I feel bitter about it, you understand]

Sounds like the DM never heard of the greatest thing in Dnd (beyond harlots as an NPC city encounter that is, it even works for female players like myself if DM is game) , random wandering monster encounter tables!

Quote from: Benoist;517703Somebody's bound to be disappointed.

The fans of 4e, with its uncompromising, absolute principles that inform its design itself, are the most likely to be in this case. Take rules balance as an example. Either the rules are super-uber-duper balanced like the 4vengers want them to be, or they aren't. If the game's rules are 90% balanced and that's 2% less than how balanced 4e seemed to be in the eyes of its fans, that's it, deal-breaker.

I think 4vengers will be mad, no matter what the game ends up being, since it won't be this 4e on steroids they want right out of the gate.

Me? I'm fine with AEDU. As a module for the game I can toggle on/off.
I'm fine with feats. As a module for the game I can toggle on/off.
I'm fine with skills. As a module of the game I can toggle on/off.
I'm fine with miniatures tactical combat. If I can toggle it on and off.
And so on. So forth.

The least compromising are the 4e gamers here, as far as I can tell.

Except that I think a very significant percentage of 4e fans are actually fans of D&D in any edition.  That is, they're always fans of whatever the current edition of D&D is.  

That's not to say there won't be some attrition, there obviously will, but I think you won't see the mass exodus you saw in the move from 3e to 4e, because the vast majority of 4e players were 3e players before they were ever 4e players (at least, significant numbers of them were 2e players before that, and 1e before that).

RPGPundit

Quote from: Marleycat;518120Sounds like the DM never heard of the greatest thing in Dnd (beyond harlots as an NPC city encounter that is, it even works for female players like myself if DM is game) , random wandering monster encounter tables!

Honestly you would think. But no, you head out, hit a wandering monster, fight it, go home. Possibly hit a wandering monster on the way back. You do this for three sessions before Jadrax sees the light and drops this D&D game for a different one, that's exactly the fucking same.

I don't go to Role-playing Clubs any-more, and when I do return I am so never playing 3.5 ever again.

And I do find it bizarre, because nether of the 3.5 games I ran suffered from this issue. Someone is clearly out there teaching the fuckers to play like that. I suspect some sort of Illumanatus type secret society is responsible.

Quote from: jadrax;518124And I do find it bizarre, because nether of the 3.5 games I ran suffered from this issue. Someone is clearly out there teaching the fuckers to play like that. I suspect some sort of Illumanatus type secret society is responsible.

Which I suppose leads into a interesting philosophical point. If no-one but me found it a problem, (and they clearly did not) do I have the right to expect the rules to fix it? It's something to think about.

@CO, that sounds like a book late in 3.5's cycle by then I went into my White Wolf phase. Got deep into both versions of Mage, which are possibly my favorite games even now.

5 foot steps .....the list is long without houserules even.  F/MU's are mage's worst nightmare, especially if you include something like a Magus as an NPC. Their whole focus is geek the mage by being way better in close combat, both magic and mundane despite concentration or movement.  It looks to me a Swordmage could serve the same function in 4e if you wanted.  Bladesinger seems at better fit though, just never saw the complete class to be sure.

Anyway another is reach, anyway possible.  It goes on because all you have to be is just as tactical as your players, less so even, given ultimately you are in control of how any fight or scene plays out.

Quote from: jgants;518041Note that I say artificial - because the methods a DM can employ to avoid a 15 minute workday are heavily metagamey, railroady, and generally not all that "realistic" or "immersive".

There are two methods:

(1) Having an active and/or reactive campaign world
(2) Giving the PCs multiple goals that they could be pursuing at any time

I'm unclear on which of these is supposed to be "metagamey", "railroady", or "not realistic". Could you clarify?

Quote from: Rincewind1;518049It's not like whatever monsters they fought in the dungeon will just sit and wait for them.

Which is basically the heart of the problem.  Most DMs experiencing the 15-minute work day don't know how to do anything except railroaded adventures studded with My Perfect Encounters(TM): The next encounter remains the same because that's the encounter they have planned.

Quote from: jgants;518058If you are doing the realistic/immersive approach and not just using DM-fiat to punish the PCs, there's not a ton the monsters can do.

The reaction of the bad guys, of course, largely depends on what their agenda is. One of the most devastating things I ever had the bad guys do when the PCs retreated was simply leave. The PCs came back and found the warehouse had been torched and the bad guys had gone to ground: The intensive investigation that had brought them to that point was now irrelevant and they were basically back at ground zero.

More generally, it's not like the only way to reinforce your position is to dig a moat. Usually just putting the complex on alert and concentrating your forces is more than enough to turn an easy fight into a tough one.

Take Keep on the Shadowfell, for example. Let's say the PCs hit the keep, take out 2 encounters, and then retreat for the day. What could Kalarel do?

Well, let's ignore the kobolds that could be called into reinforce the dungeons. And let's say that Kalarel isn't willing to send anyone up from level 2 to concentrate defenses against the next day's assault. And let's even ignore the sarcophagi that can produce an endless supply of skeletons in area 7 (it doesn't make much sense anyway).

Instead, we'll simply have the goblins reinforce area 1 (the only entrance into the dungeon). The PCs have wiped out encounter 1 and encounter 2, but that leaves uswith:

- 2 Guard Drakes (125 XP each)
- 3 Goblin Sharpshooters (125 XP each)
- 8 Goblin Cutters (25 XP each)
- 5 Goblin Warriors (100 XP each)
- Balgron the Fat (175 XP)
- 10 Zombie Rotters (58 XP each)
- 4 Zombies (125 XP each)

Let's assume that Balgron is lazy and some of the goblins also need to sleep at any given time. So we cut them out and drop into area 1 the following encounter:

- 2 Guard Drakes
- 2 Goblin Sharpshooters
- 5 Goblin Cutters
- 3 Goblin Warriors
- 10 Zombie Rotters
- 4 Zombies

For a total of 2,005 XP... which means that the PCs have switched from having a series of manageable EL 2 to EL 3 encounters to a really brutal EL 10 encounter (even before the alarm bell they're ringing brings in Balgron and the others).

I don't even have to soak the stairs down with oil or have the goblins haul out some of the crates from the next room to raise some crude barriers. I just do this a couple of times and players reliably start being motivated to not let that happen.

And the "monsters reinforce their positions" thing is really just the simplest and most basic way of letting the PCs' actions have consequences: Hostages. Destruction of evidence. Loss of treasure. Retaliation (either against the PCs directly or against their friends). And on and on and on.

And note that you don't have to do this every time: Partly because it's not realistic. Partly because it's okay for the occasional well-planned smash-and-blast to go well. Partly because you don't need to do it every time to fix the problem: It just needs to be a possibility that the PCs need to safeguard against.

Quote from: Aos;518074TBH, I'm not even sure why it's a problem. Dies it drag the game down to have the party spike themselves in room or go back to town to recharge?  Imean what are we talking here like 5 minutes of play time?

If the PCs are allowed to do it reliably -- i.e., blow their most powerful abilities in a single encounter, retreat, and then do it again the next day -- then the classes that are balanced around daily resource management become over-powered.

Which is true.

But since the problem only crops up if the DM is running a railroad but doesn't want to railroad away the 15-minute adventuring day, it's not really a problem worth trying to solve mechanically: Once the DM stops sucking, the mechanical problems goes away at the same time.

Quote from: jadrax;518124Honestly you would think. But no, you head out, hit a wandering monster, fight it, go home. Possibly hit a wandering monster on the way back. You do this for three sessions before Jadrax sees the light and drops this D&D game for a different one, that's exactly the fucking same.

I don't go to Role-playing Clubs any-more, and when I do return I am so never playing 3.5 ever again.

And I do find it bizarre, because nether of the 3.5 games I ran suffered from this issue. Someone is clearly out there teaching the fuckers to play like that. I suspect some sort of Illumanatus type secret society is responsible.

I think you may be right.  I wish I could run a 3.5 or Pathfinder game for you just to get that ridiculous experience of the game out you mind.  Careful I'm old school that prefers modern mechanics. :)

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518119It's a 3.5E book, and it compiles all the spells from different 3.5E books beyond the PHB. If used, spell resistance largely ceases to be any hindrance.

For those not familiar with the book, what TCO is referring to are a large number of spells which essentially exist for the sole purpose of letting the spellcasters ignore SR. A key example are a number of conjuration spells that work exactly like evocation spells, but because they conjure the fire instead of evoking the fire, SR doesn't apply.

Which might be okay if they were higher level spells than evocation equivalents. But they're not. It's just really, really bad design.

QuoteHow do you control 5ft steps, may I ask?

Monsters with reach. Park an ogre next to a spellcaster and their 5 ft. step is irrelevant.

The real problem isn't 5 ft. steps, of course. It's the DCs on casting defensively: DC 15 + spell level. Even if the spellcaster doesn't invest in a skill boost item or ability score improvements, the fact that they can put 1 skill point towards Concentration each level but only increase their highest spell level by one every two levels means that the check is constantly getting easier and easier. Even if they don't invest in a skill boost item or ability score improvements.

The calculation should probably be DC 15 + twice the spell level. Or possibly even DC 15 + (spell level x 3).

Another option, though, is to build encounters with multiple opponents (which you should be doing anyway (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2050/roleplaying-games/revisiting-encounter-design)) and then have two or three of them hang back with readied actions to attack the spellcaster. Even if this turns into them doing nothing because the spellcaster decides not to cast under those circumstances, their job is done.

@Jason, I said the EXACTLY the same thing upthread. You just put it into a single post and with far more literacy. That's why I mentioned GISH classes, they fight fire with fire, so make your second point moot. I'm not mad given maybe you'll be listened to.:)

Those spells sound like the "orb" spells, see my mantra about any RPG and any DM, you're in control of the game and your vision, don't be shy to be the Queen Bitch if that's what's required.


Pathfinder does it right, triple dc's is a great idea for a S@S style game though ...hmm ...

I respect your views a lot btw.  Even if I disagree rarely.

*100 posts!  Woot!

Quote from: jgants;518058Well, the usual way it works IME is they kill everything they encounter, then decide to head back to town instead of continuing to explore then come back the next day.

If you are doing the realistic/immersive approach and not just using DM-fiat to punish the PCs, there's not a ton the monsters can do. Certainly unintelligent creatures in the dungeon wouldn't do anything in the meantime. And even intelligent ones would be hard-pressed to do too much in that amount of time (8 hours or so isn't a lot to get reinforcements or build traps / defenses), assuming they even managed to figure out what was going on by then.

There's also the problem of exactly what can the monsters do that will give you a different result from the PCs. Making the monsters harder next time tends to exacerbate the problem, IME. The PCs then just get even more paranoid and will both rest more often and refuse to adventure anywhere unless they feel they have overwhelming force.

Or the intelligent monsters can move along, taking whatever they deem as valuable treasure away with them.

Or, as it states directly in AD&D 1e DMG, another party of lower level PCs can come in behind the veteran PCs and snipe away the valuable treasure now that most of the dungeon has been cleaned of threats.

The animal intelligent ones would likely find a new lair, or hole up in the darkest alcoves hiding, not engaging. And the non-intelligent slimes and the like would move merrily along into the new ecosystem vacuum.

As the vet PCs return they end up fighting lots of slimes for little to no profit. Voilá. And all from using time keeping, random encounters, some NPC logic, and DMG recommendations.

(I'm also surprised there's no dangerous random encounters on the way back to town. And further surprised that the town has no one of above average intelligence NPCs who see an opportunity and grab for it. I mean, PCs tend to rest in a tavern/inn, and usually pick up rumors in the same places... one plus one equals two and all. But I've suffered through games like that before; mostly during WotC D&D games, but let's leave that sleeping dog alone...)

Quote from: Opaopajr;518148Or the intelligent monsters can move along, taking whatever they deem as valuable treasure away with them.

Or, as it states directly in AD&D 1e DMG, another party of lower level PCs can come in behind the veteran PCs and snipe away the valuable treasure now that most of the dungeon has been cleaned of threats.

The animal intelligent ones would likely find a new lair, or hole up in the darkest alcoves hiding, not engaging. And the non-intelligent slimes and the like would move merrily along into the new ecosystem vacuum.

As the vet PCs return they end up fighting lots of slimes for little to no profit. Voilá. And all from using time keeping, random encounters, some NPC logic, and DMG recommendations.

(I'm also surprised there's no dangerous random encounters on the way back to town. And further surprised that the town has no one of above average intelligence NPCs who see an opportunity and grab for it. I mean, PCs tend to rest in a tavern/inn, and usually pick up rumors in the same places... one plus one equals two and all. But I've suffered through games like that before; mostly during WotC D&D games, but let's leave that ]sleeping dog alone...)

Sounds about what I expect when I Play.  The world DOES NOT stand still while the players do stuff, including even leveled and like minded NPC's.

Where do you draw the line? Most of the dungeons I've seen in older published mods are big enough that nobody is going to clear them in one go. PCs retreating to rest is a given. Do you punish them for leaving period, or do you just punish them if you think they left too early? What if the dice just hated the players and they got so torn up that continuing is suicide? What if you the DM screwed up and made the adventure much harder than you intended?

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518151Where do you draw the line? Most of the dungeons I've seen in older published mods are big enough that nobody is going to clear them in one go. PCs retreating to rest is a given. Do you punish them for leaving period, or do you just punish them if you think they left too early? What if the dice just hated the players and they got so torn up that continuing is suicide? What if you the DM screwed up and made the adventure much harder than you intended?

Players should do exactly what they would as if they were really there with the capabilities of their characters. The answer is as simple as that.

And on the flip side the referee should adjudicate the response of the NPCs as if they are being existing in the setting. There is no exact answer as it is highly situational. What would happen in Tegal Manor great differs than what would happen in Castle Greyhawk.


What would you do as a 9th level AD&D Wizard standing outside of the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief?

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518151Where do you draw the line? Most of the dungeons I've seen in older published mods are big enough that nobody is going to clear them in one go. PCs retreating to rest is a given. Do you punish them for leaving period, or do you just punish them if you think they left too early? What if the dice just hated the players and they got so torn up that continuing is suicide? What if you the DM screwed up and made the adventure much harder than you intended?

No, my games move in real time as I expect in any game I play in. I reward any player that does what an actual person would do if either caught in heroic circumstances or willing to take heroic actions in the face of real danger. All the better if the goal is impossible to achieve without serious cost. At least in the player's view. Punishment? Never, unless I have talked with the player in question and it was with the understanding that it was a part of a story arc, at the least.

Fucking my players over means I fail big time, we are both at the table to create a fun story and have fun.  Not for me to win, regardless if I'm a player or Queen Bitch.

Quote from: estar;518153What would you do as a 9th level AD&D Wizard standing outside of the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief?

I'd go somewhere nice and raise a tower and train some apprentices. Screw adventuring! That's dangerous!

You are starting from a false premise. The world engaging you realistically is not a form of punishment. It's just realistic, because worlds change and living things like to exploit opportunities.

One can reverse the question. Why are you playing a frozen setting that only serves as a pageant play for precious encounters? If there's no meaningful interaction with the set pieces beyond what the script says, are you truly playing a role in a game, or just filling an actor position in some playwright's already finished story? If it's the latter, and the events are already a foregone conclusion (only the details change), then where's the game?

No player consequences for choice means no real play, period.

Quote from: estar;518153Players should do exactly what they would as if they were really there with the capabilities of their characters. The answer is as simple as that.

What would you do as a 9th level AD&D Wizard standing outside of the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief?

Hide behind the (hopefully) very large number of fighters.:D

Quote from: danbuter;518155I'd go somewhere nice and raise a tower and train some apprentices. Screw adventuring! That's dangerous!

Ok you turn away from the Steading and head to the City-State. After consulting several castellans and masons you estimate that the tower will cost 20,000 GP to build and outfit. More so the Overlord tells you the only land he is willing to grant you has a Steading of Hill Giants that needs cleared out.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518025You have your definition of D&D, I have mine. I find it very condescending that you seem to believe that yours is the only true definition.

The idea of definitions... is for them to be DEFINITIVE! o_0

Quote from: estar;518153Players should do exactly what they would as if they were really there with the capabilities of their characters. The answer is as simple as that.

And on the flip side the referee should adjudicate the response of the NPCs as if they are being existing in the setting. There is no exact answer as it is highly situational. What would happen in Tegal Manor great differs than what would happen in Castle Greyhawk.


What would you do as a 9th level AD&D Wizard standing outside of the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief?

That's a great question.  I have no idea what module that is. But seriously I would need far more information, such as, am I alone?  With a trusted party of like minded people /party?  And more before I could give a serious answer.

Quote from: SionEwig;518157Hide behind the (hopefully) very large number of fighters.:D

We have a winner for the first viable plan to be put on the proverbial blackboard.

There are obviously more possibilities but the point that the players need to consider the world that their characters exist in to overcome the challenges they face. Not just the mechanics written on their sheet.

In a D&D style setting there would fighters be avaliable to be hired so that is one resource players can use to overcome the fact that they may not be able to overwhelm the Steading in a single push by themselves.

Quote from: Marleycat;518160That's a great question.  I have no idea what module that is. But seriously I would need far more information, such as, am I alone?  With a trusted party of like minded people /party?  And more before I could give a serious answer.

Assume that it is the World of Greyhawk and AD&D 1st and that at that point it just you in the party.

Quote from: estar;518161We have a winner for the first viable plan to be put on the proverbial blackboard.

There are obviously more possibilities but the point that the players need to consider the world that their characters exist in to overcome the challenges they face. Not just the mechanics written on their sheet.

In a D&D style setting there would fighters be avaliable to be hired so that is one resource players can use to overcome the fact that they may not be able to overwhelm the Steading in a single push by themselves.

Goddammit! I knew playing 3e was the devil. "Momma said so" I shoulda listened.

Quote from: estar;518158Ok you turn away from the Steading and head to the City-State. After consulting several castellans and masons you estimate that the tower will cost 20,000 GP to build and outfit. More so the Overlord tells you the only land he is willing to grant you has a Steading of Hill Giants that needs cleared out.

Excellent reply, reminds me of the happenings in one very memorable (both good and bad) campaign I played in years ago.

Quote from: Marleycat;518163Goddammit! I knew playing 3e was the devil. "Momma said so" I shoulda listened.

The problem of players not looking beyond their character sheet afflicted even AD&D 1st, older D&D has no special virtue in that regard. Player forget that there is more than a game involved that you need to roleplay your character as well. And the stuff you can do while roleplaying isn't nicely summarized in the mechanics.

Quote from: estar;518162Assume that it is the World of Greyhawk and AD&D 1st and that at that point it just you in the party.

I search for henchmen willing to fight for a share of the loot, and complement this retinue with as many men-at-arms as my initial funds will allow. I will then search for signs of activity of the giants around the region in the hope of confronting/isolating some of them first to find out more about the steading, its layout, forces, chieftains, their goals, allies, resources, etc. No sense in going straight for the steading to get killed. I'll prepare my assault first. :D

Quote from: Marleycat;518163I knew playing 3e was the devil.

It's never too late to get your soul right (http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/?page_id=6).

;)

Quote from: estar;518162Assume that it is the World of Greyhawk and AD&D 1st and that at that point it just you in the party.

Girl Wizard in charge, hee,hee...

I would walk into the village below and find the midwives or the women in the know and talk shop while gathering the layout of the local area and go from there.

Quote from: Marleycat;518168Girl Wizard in change, hee,hee...

I would walk into the village below and find the midwives or the women in the know and talk shop while gathering the layout of the local area and go from there.

From which you would learn where some of the local hill giants are known to be seen including several opportunities where they could be caught outside alone and well away from the Steading.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;518167It's never too late to get your soul right (http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/?page_id=6).

;)

I'm your fantasy girl. I'm old school with new school sensilbilities, in otherwords, I likes them both!  I am 5e's target audience, I have high hopes for 5e.

Quote from: estar;518169From which you would learn where some of the local hill giants are known to be seen including several opportunities where they could be caught outside alone and well away from the Steading.

I would then ask if they're friends or not, if not I ask who is the Mayor's wife and ask if I could speak with her to get a meeting with him about recruiting a few "good" men to solve the problem after guaging if the midwives fear magic, if not I use a cantrip to show I use magic and go from there.

To make this obvious I would go with my strengths and deal with the "women's circle" in any situation before going to the men for information directly.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;518134Take Keep on the Shadowfell, for example. Let's say the PCs hit the keep, take out 2 encounters, and then retreat for the day. What could Kalarel do?

Well, let's ignore the kobolds that could be called into reinforce the dungeons. And let's say that Kalarel isn't willing to send anyone up from level 2 to concentrate defenses against the next day's assault. And let's even ignore the sarcophagi that can produce an endless supply of skeletons in area 7 (it doesn't make much sense anyway).

Instead, we'll simply have the goblins reinforce area 1 (the only entrance into the dungeon). The PCs have wiped out encounter 1 and encounter 2, but that leaves uswith:

- 2 Guard Drakes (125 XP each)
- 3 Goblin Sharpshooters (125 XP each)
- 8 Goblin Cutters (25 XP each)
- 5 Goblin Warriors (100 XP each)
- Balgron the Fat (175 XP)
- 10 Zombie Rotters (58 XP each)
- 4 Zombies (125 XP each)

Let's assume that Balgron is lazy and some of the goblins also need to sleep at any given time. So we cut them out and drop into area 1 the following encounter:

- 2 Guard Drakes
- 2 Goblin Sharpshooters
- 5 Goblin Cutters
- 3 Goblin Warriors
- 10 Zombie Rotters
- 4 Zombies

For a total of 2,005 XP... which means that the PCs have switched from having a series of manageable EL 2 to EL 3 encounters to a really brutal EL 10 encounter (even before the alarm bell they're ringing brings in Balgron and the others).

I don't even have to soak the stairs down with oil or have the goblins haul out some of the crates from the next room to raise some crude barriers. I just do this a couple of times and players reliably start being motivated to not let that happen.

And the "monsters reinforce their positions" thing is really just the simplest and most basic way of letting the PCs' actions have consequences: Hostages. Destruction of evidence. Loss of treasure. Retaliation (either against the PCs directly or against their friends). And on and on and on.

And note that you don't have to do this every time: Partly because it's not realistic. Partly because it's okay for the occasional well-planned smash-and-blast to go well. Partly because you don't need to do it every time to fix the problem: It just needs to be a possibility that the PCs need to safeguard against.

The question in my mind is what you would make happen if the PCs didn't stop after encounter #2.  Would the same forces as you outline be mobilizing based on the alert that went out?  Or would they just continue to wait in their areas as outlined in the module?  

I have seen similar behavior before from some GMs.  In those cases, the GM would have the enemy act in totally stupid and mindless ways only if the PCs did what he wanted them to do.  If we acted in a way that he didn't like, suddenly the enemy would get organized, call in help, search out all the PCs weaknesses, and so forth.  I found this pretty damn annoying.

Logically as my character, I think that retreating after encounter #2 seems a pretty good idea - particularly if the PCs haven't let any goblins escape.  From my point of view, I now have a potential information source (the prisoner Splug), while as far as I know the enemy has no knowledge of who or what killed their guards.  

Of course really, Kalarel already knows about the adventurers due to the report from the spy Ninaran.  So his forces should already be prepared regardless of whether the adventurers retreat or not.  However, that's really up to the GM.

Quote from: jhkim;518176The question in my mind is what you would make happen if the PCs didn't stop after encounter #2.  Would the same forces as you outline be mobilizing based on the alert that went out?  Or would they just continue to wait in their areas as outlined in the module?  

I have seen similar behavior before from some GMs.  In those cases, the GM would have the enemy act in totally stupid and mindless ways only if the PCs did what he wanted them to do.  If we acted in a way that he didn't like, suddenly the enemy would get organized, call in help, search out all the PCs weaknesses, and so forth.  I found this pretty damn annoying. Y

Logically as my character, I think that retreating after encounter #2 seems a pretty good idea - particularly if the PCs haven't let any goblins escape.  From my point of view, I now have a potential information source (the prisoner Splug), while as far as I know the enemy has no knowledge of who or what killed their guards.  

Of course really, Kalarel already knows about the adventurers due to the report from the spy Ninaran.  So his forces should already be prepared regardless of whether the adventurers retreat or not.  However, that's really up to the GM.

You are right, it's totally up to the GM in the end. A good one let's her players help craft the overall story though.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;518136Another option, though, is to build encounters with multiple opponents (which you should be doing anyway (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2050/roleplaying-games/revisiting-encounter-design)) and then have two or three of them hang back with readied actions to attack the spellcaster. Even if this turns into them doing nothing because the spellcaster decides not to cast under those circumstances, their job is done.

This is also a super effective strategy to shut down a lot of encounters in Paizo modules. You'd be surprised about the rooms with single casters in them, who just sit there waiting for a party of PCs to neutralize them by two PCs going into melee and two ranged PCs (martial or arcane, incl. wand users) readying ranged attack actions which trigger when the NPC caster starts casting. Since the damage dealt on those attacks translates into the Concentration DC, it's (as you write) a strong disincentive to do much further.

The fact that this set-up persists in Pathfinder Adventure Paths write-up to this day is one of many indications that either the writers don't understand how the game works tactically, or that these writers expect DMs to not regard the allocation of NPCs/monsters per room as more or less sacrosanct i.e. 'part of the set-up' (as it would be in a 4e module).

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518151Where do you draw the line? Most of the dungeons I've seen in older published mods are big enough that nobody is going to clear them in one go. PCs retreating to rest is a given. Do you punish them for leaving period, or do you just punish them if you think they left too early?

It's not a matter of "punishing" them. It's a matter of the game world being a reactive place that doesn't sit around passively waiting for the PCs to stop by and wipe them out. It's a matter of making the choices players make matter.

The big complexes you're talking about in older modules were, for the most part, designed for strategic play. You want to retreat and come back tomorrow? Then you'd better put together a strategy that lets you do it.

At this point, the example of Keep on the Shadowfell falls apart because the module was designed as a linear railroad and can't support meaningful strategic play. But if you jaquay the dungeon (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/13123/roleplaying-games/jaquaying-the-dungeon-part-4-jaquaying-the-keep-on-the-shadowfell), then we can consider a few hypothetical examples:

(1) The PCs go in. Due to some bad dice-rolling, they're forced to retreat after facing the first couple encounters worth of guards.

(2) They go back the next day and find the main entrance heavily reinforced. The goblins easily drive them back.

(3) They decide to hunt around for an alternative entrance. Success! They find the path in through the kruthik caves. Largely avoiding the kruthiks, they sneak around the guards and take out the reinforcements. They wait for another group to come and find out why their replacements haven't arrived; ambush them; and then surprise and take out the weakened guards.

Or:

(1) The PCs go in. Due to some bad dice-rolling, they know they can't take any more goblins. They sneak down into area 11, dispatch the blue slime, and camp out.

(2) The next day, they sneak through the abandoned earthworks the goblins have left unmanned due to their increased guard presence on the stairs and head down to level 2: Their goal, after all, is Kalarel.

Or:

(1) The PCs go in. They don't roll as poorly on the first couple encounters, but they know they're burned through a lot of resources and may need to rest soon.

(2) Interrogating one of the goblins they've just defeated, they learn that Balgron is their leader and they also learn of the existence of the secret passage heading up to his bedroom.

(3) Using the secret passage, they assassinate Balgron, chop off his head, and then leave the complex. They put Balgron's head on a spiked post, leave a false trail, then double back and hide out. A little while later they watch an enraged party of goblins rush out of the keep and head off in hot pursuit of their false trail. They go back down into the dungeon, kill the goblins who remain, and then leave. When they go back the next day, the goblins have reinforced the entrance, but there aren't as many of them and the PCs easily cut their way through.

And on and on and on and on.

Example from actual play: "We'll stake out both entrances we know about. We know they're coordinating with the kobolds. They probably need food. We'll wait for groups to leave and then take them out." That worked and they eventually provoked the complex into coming after them -- at which point they snuck into the Keep behind them, eliminated the guards who had been left behind, and then secured the upper level of the dungeon against the returning patrols (giving them the advantage of the fortified position).

Sometimes, of course, the players will stick their hand in the beehive and discover they've riled it up too much. It's not unusual for players in my games to retreat from a complex of bad guys and then leave it alone for days or weeks or even months because they know they've put them on alert and they don't have a way to deal with that. And they can do that (sometimes) because the campaign isn't a linear sequence of pre-planned events.

The important thing to understand is that none of this requires extra prep. It's not even particularly difficult. It just requires the GM to use that material in a more creative and flexible way; and to understand that a linear railroad isn't the best way to run a session.

Quote from: jhkim;518176The question in my mind is what you would make happen if the PCs didn't stop after encounter #2.  Would the same forces as you outline be mobilizing based on the alert that went out?

If the alert got out, they'd start mobilizing. But it does take time for word to spread; for leaders to get control of their men; for a strategy to be put in place; and so forth. And during that time, ideally, the PCs will be mobile (which means that the enemy can't simply concentrate their forces).

This is another reason why it doesn't work well with linear dungeons: When all the bad guys have to do is "move towards the entrance" to catch the PCs, the PCs are strategically screwed. The only way for the PCs to survive that is for the bad guys to behave like a bunch of morons.

I've certainly had groups get pushed out of dungeon complexes when they've gotten bogged down and the bad guys have had time to rally their reinforcements. One of the most exciting moments in my current campaign was when the PCs breached a compound by drilling a hole in the side of the building (using a stone shape spell), got bogged down by enemy forces, and then realized:

(1) Things were going badly for them.
(2) The bad guys were trying to flank them and cut off their escape route.

The result was a really intense chase sequence as the PCs disengaged from the massive melee that had broken out and raced back towards their exit point before the bad guys (circling around in a different direction through the compound) beat them there.

QuoteOf course really, Kalarel already knows about the adventurers due to the report from the spy Ninaran. So his forces should already be prepared regardless of whether the adventurers retreat or not.

And they are: As written, the adventure has a whole squadron of goblins camping out in area 1 guarding the entrance.

After they get wiped out, though, the logical course of action isn't to say, "Well, they must have had bad luck." It's to say, "I guess a squadron wasn't enough. Pile in the reinforcements, boys."

QuoteLogically as my character, I think that retreating after encounter #2 seems a pretty good idea - particularly if the PCs haven't let any goblins escape. From my point of view, I now have a potential information source (the prisoner Splug), while as far as I know the enemy has no knowledge of who or what killed their guards.

In this particular situation, I'd be concerned about there being only one entrance (which I would know could be secured against me). But if I had the ability to teleport or knew about a second entrance or thought I could tunnel in or had some other plan, then retreating to a safe location to question my prisoner might also make sense.

Nothing wrong with strategically sound retreats.

Quote from: Windjammer;518181The fact that this set-up persists in Pathfinder Adventure Paths write-up to this day is one of many indications that either the writers don't understand how the game works tactically...

Sadly, I suspect it's that these writers have just never had their players challenge them tactically.

I think I benefit greatly from the fact that the two main groups I've played 3E with have both been tactically brilliant. For example, I remember making the early mistake of these solo caster encounters: They got locked down and then got the crap beaten out of them and I said to myself, "Okay. No more solo caster encounters. They don't work."

(They still happen occasionally, of course, when the PCs manage to infiltrate a compound without raising the alarm. And the result is usually the same: They get locked down and quickly slaughtered.)

Quote...or that these writers expect DMs to not regard the allocation of NPCs/monsters per room as more or less sacrosanct i.e. 'part of the set-up' (as it would be in a 4e module).

I'd put more credence in this theory if so many of these modules didn't spend multiple paragraphs explaining the tactics these solo casters will use if confronted by themselves in these tiny rooms.

(For example, Nolveniss Azrinae from Second Darkness who explicitly sits all alone in his room and waits for the PCs even if the alarm is raised and he's aware of it.)

Quote from: Windjammer;518181This is also a super effective strategy to shut down a lot of encounters in Paizo modules. You'd be surprised about the rooms with single casters in them, who just sit there waiting for a party of PCs to neutralize them by two PCs going into melee and two ranged PCs (martial or arcane, incl. wand users) readying ranged attack actions which trigger when the NPC caster starts casting. Since the damage dealt on those attacks translates into the Concentration DC, it's (as you write) a strong disincentive to do much further.

The fact that this set-up persists in Pathfinder Adventure Paths write-up to this day is one of many indications that either the writers don't understand how the game works tactically, or that these writers expect DMs to not regard the allocation of NPCs/monsters per room as more or less sacrosanct i.e. 'part of the set-up' (as it would be in a 4e module).

I am a fan of modules where npcs and monsters aren't pinned down to one spot and they are treated as live participants.

Even going back to their dungeon magazine days Paizo's adventures never really did it for me.

Quote from: RandallS;517965The problem I have with powers and spells described as "lasts until the end of the encounter"  is how long do they last if you don't use them in an encounter? Give them a duration in time and put a star next to it to tell the GM that she can just have it last for the duration of the encounter if it is used in an encounter (and the GM chooses to use "an encounter" as a unit of game time.  That way everyone could be happy.

I realize that I'm probably just an asshole for running a pure sandbox game and for not having players who believe that everything outside outside of an encounter is boring and should be glossed over so you can get to the next set-piece encounter on the program in the pre-written adventure.

And don't even let me talk about how I hate "cooldown" nonsense (use it again after 30 minutes). That stuff belongs in a computer game where the damn computer can track it all without the humans playing needing to do it. All the fiddly conditions used in 4e combat are in the same category: only in a computer game please.  And I don't want to have to use a computer at my game table.

I would totally agree with that approach and yeah you proabably are an arsehole but not for that reason :)

Much like you I want spells like everything else to be part of the physics engine that informs the world. However in magic terms I prefer effect lasts until new effect happens. So for example your pumpkin stays looking like a coach until midnight strikes, or you stay invisible until you attack someone, or you stay immune to swords until you next eat. However, I can see that there are problems with that in a game. I just hate having to track  multiple varied clocks (and yes i do it with ticks or tallys or just with dice but .... its inelegant.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;518185Even going back to their dungeon magazine days Paizo's adventures never really did it for me.

It's a consequence of writing modules that are designed to be read as pulp fiction.

I don't want to be too hard on Paizo (because they certainly do a better job than most companies do; and a much better job than WotC has done in at least a decade), but there are some significant limitations to their house format for presenting adventures.

Personally, I've been using a rostered approach for over a decade: Instead of putting monsters in the location key, you create a separate one-sheet reference of everybody in the complex. This not only gives you a better insight into the "life" of the complex, it's also a lot more convenient for manipulating the inhabitants on-the-fly.

For small complexes, I'll actually run them in "real time": I can actually put counters on the map for each patrol and move them around the complex in real time as the PCs do their thing.

For larger complexes, random encounters are still an easier method for simulating activity. But rosters are still the most useful way for accessing, understanding, and manipulating population data.

Rosters also make it really, really easy to prep different "states" for the complex: This is what it looks like during the day; this is what it looks like at night; this is what it looks like on alert; etc. I've seen modules that try to cook this info into the map key and it just turns into a complete mess.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;518196Personally, I've been using a rostered approach for over a decade: Instead of putting monsters in the location key, you create a separate one-sheet reference of everybody in the complex. This not only gives you a better insight into the "life" of the complex, it's also a lot more convenient for manipulating the inhabitants on-the-fly.

Very interesting. Could you post an example of one of these rosters?

Quote from: Rum Cove;518008As you and I have discussed previously on another thread, calling class abilities "feats" and using them as building blocks in class design is most likely the only way to achieve 5e's goal.

Unfortunately, Cook has been talking about the TSR-style arcane spell caster (let's call them Wizards) having Vancian magic AND Feats that allow them to cast at-wills.  These at-wills seem to be all non-combat spells (so that spell slots are not wasted for combat) and at least one mundane magic attack.

That doesn't reconcile with my personal view of how the Wizard should be designed and I must admit to have lost all interest in playing 5e.

I also think that these design principles (as you hinted at above) will ruin the most basic version of the 5e Fighter by saddling the class with a list of "options" to give the illusion of choice.

Well, like I said Up post I think you could mix vancian style casting with at will/encounter/daily powers fairly easily. If you have cast 1st level spells as a 'feat' that gets tougher as you level, and you do the same with cast 2nd level, cast 3rd level etc Then its fairly easy to swap out cast 3rd level spells with some sort of feat, say one of the useful spells that often get relegated on adventuring days like Indentify. You can then justify that with some fluff around, "the caster studies the way to create magical equipment and can through intense concentration and can recognise the nature of enchanted items" give then a % that improves per level once the 'feat is learnt'. at the time the feat is learnt it will probably be a little tougher than cast 3rd level spells but over time the 3rd level spell guy shoudl inch ahead.

Then you have at 1st level the quite popular choice of wizards having some default magic missile effect whenere they roll to hit and its mechanically much like a dagger but feels more like magic and they don't need to hoick a sack of cutlery round with them everywhere they go.

As for the fighter he already had a load of options in 1e

i) Mutilple attacks versus less than 1hd oponents
ii) Lots of weapon proficiency slots
iii) ability to build a castle and attract followers
iv) From UA onwards specialisation etc

So its just a case of rationalising. I for one thing the fighter could do with a few more options and I think Stances from Essentials might be something that could be adapted. It feels real worldy , it invokes the idea of training not magical super powers.

Quote from: Benoist;518026You're just a sucky player and you hate D&D.

Just come to terms with it, move on, and you'll be a much happier gamer from there.

Out of order due. TCO has a prefered play style he has outlined it clearly and whether or not yuou liek it is irrelevant.
What he wants to do is achievable using the 1e rules all the way through to 4e.

Quote from: Rincewind1;518061I can assure you that if I had survived the early slaughter, in the 8 hours, I ( and I mean me as a person) would be more then capable of setting up at least a few traps, with rather basic elements such as wood, rope, stone. And I am not a soldier - just used to be a bit into survival.

Not to mention that in those 8 hours, if you have a race that is not made out of complete retards, they WILL analyse the tactics of the PCs (the survivors, at least), and I am pretty sure first thing I'd do, as a monster, if I know that that damn PC mage is there, would be to run to the lower level of the dungeon, to try and bargain with whatever power is there, if only in a hope that he is also a magic - user who will counter their magic.

Great idea for an adventure.

All the PCs are orcs/goblins. They get dragged off guard duty to reinforce the upper warren chamber when they get there there are loads of dead guards and signs of struggle but the villians have left the scene. they have 8 hours to work out what happened what tactics the perps used and prepare traps ready for the next onslaught ... I am so stealling that.

Quote from: estar;518161We have a winner for the first viable plan to be put on the proverbial blackboard.

There are obviously more possibilities but the point that the players need to consider the world that their characters exist in to overcome the challenges they face. Not just the mechanics written on their sheet.

In a D&D style setting there would fighters be avaliable to be hired so that is one resource players can use to overcome the fact that they may not be able to overwhelm the Steading in a single push by themselves.

Okay I use my charm spell to seduce the King's second cousin's neice. I then present my certificate of nobility from the City State of Quirm and ingratiate myself into the royal family. When the topic of the Steading and the pesky hill giants comes up over port one evening I suggest we run a tournament and gather the greatest warriors in the land to run them out of there. I offer my services as a skilled tactician, and of course powerful sorcerer, to assist in the selection and training of a militia suited to razing the Hill Giants and driving their cursed hides out of the kingdom.
Meanwhile I use a variety of low level trickery such as friends spells, common trickery, bribery and corruption and slowly ingratiatie myself into the royal court. I disguise myself as the most annoying courtier and hire an incompetant assassin to eliminate some other fellow and if he fails I will offer to use my detect lie spell to wrench the truth from him...
etc...

Eventually the militia and champions who have been slected, trained and are loyal to me mount a coup d'etat which fails and I flee for my life disguised as a begger woman with nothing to show for my trouble but a large diamond ...

Quote from: RandallS;518092First, most of my groups have been full of fighters and other characters who "don't run out until dead", the magic-users weren't catered to -- protected, yes -- but the expedition did not end just because the party's magic-users were out of spells. Also, my groups tend to be large (I currently have 9 players) and use hirelings and henchmen.

Second, there's a difference to me between retreating when everyone is wounded and tired and retreating when the only person down is the magic-user who isn't even hurt but stupidly used all his spells in one encounter. The former makes sense. The latter is generally just catering to a character who thinks the expedition revolves around him. The other characters in my games tend not to cater to that fantasy. After all, the mage without spells can still guard doors, lend his higher intelligence to problem solving, use his knowledge of languages (from that higher INT) to communicate with monsters the party runs into, etc. Remember that monsters do not attack on sight, there is a reaction roll in TSR D&D. Also mages are the walking gods they are in 3.x so other players have less reason to cater to their desire to go nova and retreat.

Third, unless there are right outside a town, retreating does not necessarily mean safety. A camp will have wandering monster rolls at night  -- and in some cases might be subject to an attack from the very monsters they were fighting but did not finish.  Camping in a dungeon is even more dangerous.

In my experience, it is not usually the mage (or even more often, the cleric) who is out of spells and insisting everyone go back; it is the entire party going "the cleric is out of healing spells, time to head back" or "the mage used up her fireball spell, we may as well go back".

And yes, there are wandering monsters. But here's the thing - wandering monsters don't statistically show up all that often. You usually only check a couple of times and even the worst case scenerio is a 1 in 10 chance by the rules. And if your party is using a 15 minute workday, it's usually pretty easy to defeat the one encounter you may get because they aren't completely depleted. Plus, you have the same chance for those random encounters whether you use the 15 minute workday or not.

It's simple math, really - a slim chance of one encounter vs. a guarentee of at least one if not several encounters. And after those guarenteed encounters, you can still have those exact same random encounters.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;518134There are two methods:

(1) Having an active and/or reactive campaign world
(2) Giving the PCs multiple goals that they could be pursuing at any time

I'm unclear on which of these is supposed to be "metagamey", "railroady", or "not realistic". Could you clarify?

Having a reactive world can come up some times, but my adventures are rarely in the vein of "there's this giant group of well-organized intelligent humanoids and you are invading their base".

I'm not seeing how giving PCs multiple goals has anything to do with anything about the 15 minute workday.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;518134More generally, it's not like the only way to reinforce your position is to dig a moat. Usually just putting the complex on alert and concentrating your forces is more than enough to turn an easy fight into a tough one.

Yes, I agree that works, but as I said, my experience is that approach exacerbates the problem by making the PCs even more cautious.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;518134And the "monsters reinforce their positions" thing is really just the simplest and most basic way of letting the PCs' actions have consequences: Hostages. Destruction of evidence. Loss of treasure. Retaliation (either against the PCs directly or against their friends). And on and on and on.

And note that you don't have to do this every time: Partly because it's not realistic. Partly because it's okay for the occasional well-planned smash-and-blast to go well. Partly because you don't need to do it every time to fix the problem: It just needs to be a possibility that the PCs need to safeguard against.

Again, I'm not sure I've seen too many cases where hostages or destruction of evidence apply. Loss of treasure would work, though usually I find that happens anyway.

I'm not saying the PCs don't think about the consequences, I'm saying the consequences will rarely outweigh the benefits of waiting. Even if there is a risk of loss of treasure or hostages or whatever, they just go "well, that's too bad but it's too risky to go in without being at full strength". They are specifically picking the strategy because it is usually the better odds.

Quote from: Opaopajr;518148(I'm also surprised there's no dangerous random encounters on the way back to town. And further surprised that the town has no one of above average intelligence NPCs who see an opportunity and grab for it. I mean, PCs tend to rest in a tavern/inn, and usually pick up rumors in the same places... one plus one equals two and all. But I've suffered through games like that before; mostly during WotC D&D games, but let's leave that sleeping dog alone...)

I already mentioned why I don't think random encounters are persuasive to any degree. Basically, for PCs it boils down to "a very small risk we might have a single encounter on the way back to our base where we can rest up to full strength" vs. "continue exploring the dangerous dungeon where we are guarenteed to have several more encounters". It's simple math.

As for the NPC thing, how many leveled NPCs do you usually have sitting around in an inn? Personally, I prefer a style of game where the PCs are the exception to the rule. I dislike games where every bartender is a 3rd level fighter, etc (for one thing, it doesn't take very long before the PCs start complaining that the NPCs should be solving all their problems for them).



My point wasn't that the 15 minute workday isn't an unsolvable problem or even that it is a big deal, just that it does happen and often I find there are no good ways to prevent it. I see it more like jhkim, its a byproduct of playing the game with players who use strategy.

Quote from: jibbajibba;518205Out of order due. TCO has a prefered play style he has outlined it clearly and whether or not yuou liek it is irrelevant.
What he wants to do is achievable using the 1e rules all the way through to 4e.

Leaving aside the fact that I don't take TCO seriously for a minute because I sure know better by now, I disagree with your admonition.

First: If what TCO describes about him zoning out of game sessions and wandering off to read comics while there's a part of the adventure he doesn't like that unfolds at the game table is true, I sustain that he is a piss poor player. This is a collaborative game. When my players are engaged in the game, they cheer at other people's dice rolls, they listen to whoever is talking, they do their best to make the game enjoyable to everyone. If, as soon as you do not get your way, you are just "tuning off" and leaving the game table, you are a selfish, lame, sucky player, and you should be told as much. I don't care for political correctness. I actually believe that just not saying anything to people who suck at playing the game stops them from improving, and leads directly to piss poor experiences which then lead to "fixing the game" to catter to these bad players. They have a choice not to suck, but they can't realize it if we don't step up and say: "dude. You are sucking right now, and you should stop."

Second: Dungeons & Dragons is not a generic game system. It's never been. It has central themes and concepts at the core of its design, like exploration of dungeons and the wilderness, like archetypes as character classes and races, like Vancian magic, and so on and so forth.

There are basically people who like these central ideas at the core of the game, and people who do not. People who do not may house rule the game in a number of ways, and you are right in saying that, in this regard, the D&D game is flexible. Not generic right out the gate, but flexible enough to accomodate a variety of tastes. So TCO may have the play experience he is (seemingly, again, if he's actually telling the truth this time, which I don't believe for a minute) searching for if he runs the game a certain way and adjusts a few rules to fit his playstyle (maybe aided by supplements to the game, or modules or whatnot - the game certainly can be modular, even though it's not generic at its core).

BUT. I contend that the core ideas and themes of the Dungeons & Dragons game are part of the reasons for its success. The structure the dungeon and wilderness maps give to the DM to conceptualize the adventuring world right out of the gate, deconstructing the challenges with the help of the layout of the places, the rooms and corridors and hexes and mountain ranges and forests, etc.

The core of the Dungeons & Dragons game is about the organization and role playing of the environment on the DM's side so that it provides a challenge the players and their characters can meet if they so wish. It's always been. The minute the publisher of the game tries to catter to the crowd of people who don't like the Dungeons & Dragons game, especially when designing a new edition of the game, is the moment everything goes wrong, and it's always ultimately led to complete financial disaster. The moment, on the other hand, the publisher of the game catters to the core ideas of the game and decidedly, openly goes back to these core concepts, the game fares better (remember the "Back to the Dungeon" slogan of 3rd edition? I do).

So. The take away from this is: catter to the core ideas of the game, and keep the game flexible enough so it can accomodate a variety of tastes. But DON'T compromise the core of the game and its themes to catter to people who don't like D&D in the first place right out of the gate. That's a proven recipe for disaster.

Quote from: Peregrin;518118Apologies if someone has already made the comparison, but the more I hear about 5e and the more I see people argue about it on various fora, I can't help but think of the Kobayashi Maru.

I'm not saying that's how it really will be or is, but that's just the impression I'm getting with what limited knowledge I have right now.

that's the feeling i'm starting to get too.

Quote from: Benoist;518281Leaving aside the fact that I don't take TCO seriously for a minute because I sure know better by now, I disagree with your admonition.

First: If what TCO describes about him zoning out of game sessions and wandering off to read comics while there's a part of the adventure he doesn't like that unfolds at the game table is true, I sustain that he is a piss poor player. This is a collaborative game. When my players are engaged in the game, they cheer at other people's dice rolls, they listen to whoever is talking, they do their best to make the game enjoyable to everyone. If, as soon as you do not get your way, you are just "tuning off" and leaving the game table, you are a selfish, lame, sucky player, and you should be told as much. I don't care for political correctness. I actually believe that just not saying anything to people who suck at playing the game stops them from improving, and leads directly to piss poor experiences which then lead to "fixing the game" to catter to these bad players. They have a choice not to suck, but they can't realize it if we don't step up and say: "dude. You are sucking right now, and you should stop."

Second: Dungeons & Dragons is not a generic game system. It's never been. It has central themes and concepts at the core of its design, like exploration of dungeons and the wilderness, like archetypes as character classes and races, like Vancian magic, and so on and so forth.

There are basically people who like these central ideas at the core of the game, and people who do not. People who do not may house rule the game in a number of ways, and you are right in saying that, in this regard, the D&D game is flexible. Not generic right out the gate, but flexible enough to accomodate a variety of tastes. So TCO may have the play experience he is (seemingly, again, if he's actually telling the truth this time, which I don't believe for a minute) searching for if he runs the game a certain way and adjusts a few rules to fit his playstyle (maybe aided by supplements to the game, or modules or whatnot - the game certainly can be modular, even though it's not generic at its core).

BUT. I contend that the core ideas and themes of the Dungeons & Dragons game are part of the reasons for its success. The structure the dungeon and wilderness maps give to the DM to conceptualize the adventuring world right out of the gate, deconstructing the challenges with the help of the layout of the places, the rooms and corridors and hexes and mountain ranges and forests, etc.

The core of the Dungeons & Dragons game is about the organization and role playing of the environment on the DM's side so that it provides a challenge the players and their characters can meet if they so wish. It's always been. The minute the publisher of the game tries to catter to the crowd of people who don't like the Dungeons & Dragons game, especially when designing a new edition of the game, is the moment everything goes wrong, and it's always ultimately led to complete financial disaster. The moment, on the other hand, the publisher of the game catters to the core ideas of the game and decidedly, openly goes back to these core concepts, the game fares better (remember the "Back to the Dungeon" slogan of 3rd edition? I do).

So. The take away from this is: catter to the core ideas of the game, and keep the game flexible enough so it can accomodate a variety of tastes. But DON'T compromise the core of the game and its themes to catter to people who don't like D&D in the first place right out of the gate. That's a proven recipe for disaster.

hehe... I actually think you were just being rude ...

re the bolded bit. The fact that the core engine of DnD is generic is why I kept coming back to it as a game. All other games had settign baked in some how but with DnD i wuld run shogun, Arthurian romance, Narnia, Hansel and Grettle vers the witch (all games I have run by the by). The real strength of the game and why its still goin with such wild variants and changes is that it is so maleable and adaptable.

Don't like dungeons, dump em, don't like vancian magic , dump it, the core game still runs. I could run a game of courtly politics with no wizards and it woudl still feel like DnD...

Quote from: jibbajibba;518291hehe... I actually think you were just being rude ...

Of course I was being rude. It's TCO for fuck's sakes. :rolleyes:

Quote from: jibbajibba;518291The fact that the core engine of DnD is generic is why I kept coming back to it as a game.

D&D is not a generic fantasy game. It's never been.

Quote from: jgants;518266In my experience, it is not usually the mage (or even more often, the cleric) who is out of spells and insisting everyone go back; it is the entire party going "the cleric is out of healing spells, time to head back" or "the mage used up her fireball spell, we may as well go back".

All I can say in that I have never encountered this in 35 years or so of playing and GMing D&D. However, very little of that has been done with WOTC editions of D&D.  If I (as a GM) did have a group that regularly insisted on doing this no matter what happened in the world, I'd tell them to stop doing it or to find another GM. If I was playing with a group that did this, I'd find another group to play with.

As far as I can tell the 15 minute work day taken to this extreme is a player-issue not a rules or setting or GM issue. Therefore I would not try to solve it with rules or in-game GM-foo.

Quote from: Benoist;518295Of course I was being rude. It's TCO for fuck's sakes. :rolleyes:


D&D is not a generic fantasy game. It's never been.

if the OGL and the d20 explosion and the OSR couldn't convince you I never will....

Quote from: jibbajibba;518328if the OGL and the d20 explosion and the OSR couldn't convince you I never will....

Not the same thing. You are mixing up flexibility with genericity. The D&D game is a flexible game system that can be taken with moderate changes in any number of directions. Variants on the game can lead to all sorts of different role playing experiences, but these are just that: variants, house ruled versions that take the game in different directions.

The D&D game itself is not generic. It's not GURPS. It has a set of particular themes, ideas, a conceptual design that informs the core experience of its game play. Which is why such things as Vancian magic and classes and levels and HP and AC all these things are considered "sacred cows" by some.

It can be made to be modular, in that it would accomodate for different play styles and inclinations based on its core design, but it is not generic in nature. It has never been. Every time some game designer or other believed it'd be good for the game to be "generic" or "something else" is when the game started to suck, which invariably leads, sooner or later, to financial disaster.

Quote from: Benoist;518332Not the same thing. You are mixing up flexibility with genericity. The D&D game is a flexible game system that can be taken with moderate changes in any number of directions. Variants on the game can lead to all sorts of different role playing experiences, but these are just that: variants, house ruled versions that take the game in different directions.

The D&D game itself is not generic. It's not GURPS. It has a set of particular themes, ideas, a conceptual design that informs the core experience of its game play. Which is why such things as Vancian magic and classes and levels and HP and AC all these things are considered "sacred cows" by some.

It can be made to be modular, in that it would accomodate for different play styles and inclinations based on its core design, but it is not generic in nature. It has never been. Every time some game designer or other believed it'd be good for the game to be "generic" is when the game started to suck, which invariably leads, sooner or later, to financial disaster.

A generic fantasy game or a fantasy game that can keep it's core but allow variants with degrees of modularity is a sematic distinction.

Quote from: jibbajibba;518335A generic fantasy game or a fantasy game that can keep it's core but allow variants with degrees of modularity is a sematic distinction.

It's not. It's a very important distinction that directly informs whether 5e will be a success or failure.
If you can't see that by now I doubt you ever will.

I will say, on the record, that the last D&D game I was in as a player did, in fact, use the 15 minute work day concept. Specifically the party wizard would burn spells like candy then bitch until we let him rest, no matter what was going on in the world.

Note that he had reserve feats.

Note that we did, in fact, wind up with a magic bedroll of 'extra-restyness' just for him.

Note that, despite being a relatively new spellcaster myself (playing the cleric), I rarely had this problem. In fact, in order to assure you all of my inherent awesome prowess as a player, in that game we had a veritable surplus of healing magic.... and I blasted the fuck out of shit all the time (To the point where the wizard complained I was wasting magic/actions I could have spent running all over the field touching people in their ouchies. I contend that no one ever died, so my healing/casting balance was quite good, thank you very much...)

In the campaign I ran after that, using 3.5E, I designed a 'mega dungeon' that was made of discreet parts that more or less needed to be done over a period of time, with consequences for lingering. It worked quite well, I believe... though I do regret designing the 'final boss' segment in a fucking spiral of tiny rooms.... hundreds of tiny rooms, some barely big enough for the whole party (given, you know, the utterly massive 5-foot squares they all occupied. Four people in a ten foot square room isn't comfortable, but fuck, man!)... never do that. Never, never, ever do that.

It did make for an interesting strategic challenge, however... so there is that (also: its funny when you pile on enough weak ass, easily beaten monsters... with fear. Even that one in twenty fail rate utterly changes the dynamics of the fight...)

Quote from: Justin AlexanderMore generally, it's not like the only way to reinforce your position is to dig a moat. Usually just putting the complex on alert and concentrating your forces is more than enough to turn an easy fight into a tough one.

Quote from: jgants;518266Yes, I agree that works, but as I said, my experience is that approach exacerbates the problem by making the PCs even more cautious.

Quote from: jgants;518266My point wasn't that the 15 minute workday isn't an unsolvable problem or even that it is a big deal, just that it does happen and often I find there are no good ways to prevent it. I see it more like jhkim, its a byproduct of playing the game with players who use strategy.

Agreed with jgants.  A number of people (BedrockBrendan, Justin Alexander, Benoist, and others) have pushed forward the idea that the enemy would organize, reinforce, and/or strike back if the PCs retreated or holed up.  

That wasn't the average case for me because in my D&D experience, we typically weren't dealing with a single unified group of intelligent enemies.  Most often, we were dealing with isolated groups along with a mix of unintelligent monsters and tricks/traps.  

Still, it would happen, and I like a good tactical clash.  However, in my experience, more active and/or intelligent opponents do make my PCs more cautious.  For example, I thought we were likely to be attacked while we retreated, then I would generally want to retreat earlier so that we can successfully deal with that attack - rather than wait until everyone is wounded and we are low on spells.  

A few people have commented on spellcasters throwing off spells uselessly, which wasn't my experience.  In my play experience, our principle was that we would use the minimum spells to get the job done - but if we had a choice between casting a spell and someone getting chopped into, we would prefer using the spell.  Also, we always kept a bunch of spells in reserve in case we were attacked while retreating and/or camping.  The more dangerous it seemed, the more we would hold in reserve for our retreat.  

This seems opposite to what the posters want to encourage.  So, do other players react opposite to the way I do?

Quote from: Imperator;518202Very interesting. Could you post an example of one of these rosters?

I've started a new thread for it (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=22095).

Quote from: jgants;518266Having a reactive world can come up some times, but my adventures are rarely in the vein of "there's this giant group of well-organized intelligent humanoids and you are invading their base".

I'm not seeing how giving PCs multiple goals has anything to do with anything about the 15 minute workday.

I find that when the players have lots of things they want to accomplish, they'll try to accomplish them. The more stuff they try to do in a day, the less likely a 15 minute workday becomes.

For a non-"base invasion" example: In my current campaign the PCs have gotten tied up in the politics around the equivalent of a local cardinal declaring himself the equivalent of Pope. One facet of that is that the church's official Order of Knighthood (to which one of the PCs belongs) has split: One half is loyal to the "False Pope"; the other half is basically running a local "religious rebellion" in an effort to take back the church. The PC knight has managed to position himself as a spy (the False Pope thinks he's loyal to him, but he's actually loyal to the rebels).

At this point, both the False Pope and the rebellious knights have their own plans and agendas: Street skirmishes. Political machinations. Public rallies. Et cetera. There's nothing here which compels the PCs to stay involved, but if the PCs want to be involved, then there's a daily or near-daily demand on their attention because that's what the world is like when people are actively pursuing their agendas.

Meanwhile, the PCs are also involved in trying to seal the Banewarrens (a complex filled with evil artifacts that has recently been breached by the Pactlords of the Quaan). They've responded to that situation by arranging for a group of NPCs to guard the entrance to the Banewarrens: But there are currently two other groups trying to get access to the Banewarrens. There's no "drop dead deadline", but there is a constant time pressure because these other groups are actively pursuing their competitive agendas.

The PCs themselves have learned that there's Banewarrens-related lore in a place called Alchestrin's Tomb. The tomb itself is a largely non-reactive dungeon complex: The PCs could easily attack, draw back, and attack again if they wanted to.

But, of course, there's the pressure being put on them from the other Banewarrens groups. And the guardians they placed on the Banewarrens are occasionally getting attacked. And there's the church politics to deal with. And a creature that escaped from the Banewarrens on their watch is starting to kill people around town. And then some old baggage from earlier in the campaign (that I scheduled months ago) crops up: Local gangsters want to hire the PCs for a heist, which will clear a debt that the PCs theoretically owe the gangsters.

And the thing is: They don't have to do any of this stuff. I didn't make them cut a deal with gangsters. I was actually shocked when they got tangled up in the church politics (which I thought were going to just be a backdrop of "current events"). And there are lots of scenario hooks that they reject.

But the consequence is that the players in this campaign are constantly pushing themselves to do everything that they're capable of doing: And that means they can't indulge themselves in a 15-minute workday. 15-minute workdays are wasteful.

This group is probably somewhat unusual in their magpie-like desire to pick up shiny things until their capacity to deal with them is overflowing. But even if the campaign were just limited to the Banewarrens-related stuff, the fact that there are living NPCs with proactive agendas would prevent the PCs from resting into a 15-minute workday. Or, if they did, there would be consequences for it. (Which would probably include "all of your allies are now dead because you didn't help them when they called" and "the bad guys won because you gave them 23 hours to molest the Banewarrens unopposed while you hung out back at the inn".)

tl;dr: If the PCs have a reason to be involved in the world, then they can't simply sit back and do nothing if the world will roll on without them.

Quote from: jhkim;518411A few people have commented on spellcasters throwing off spells uselessly, which wasn't my experience.  In my play experience, our principle was that we would use the minimum spells to get the job done - but if we had a choice between casting a spell and someone getting chopped into, we would prefer using the spell.  Also, we always kept a bunch of spells in reserve in case we were attacked while retreating and/or camping.  The more dangerous it seemed, the more we would hold in reserve for our retreat.

This seems opposite to what the posters want to encourage. So, do other players react opposite to the way I do?

Nope. Conservative and strategically smart use of daily resources is pretty much exactly what I want to encourage.

The problem of the 15 minute workday isn't "oh no! my players have chosen to retreat at the appropriate time to regain their strength!". The problem of the 15 minute workday is "oh no! my spellcasters blew all their spells in the first two encounters of the day (thereby rendering those encounters completely unchallenging and screwing up the balance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters)!"

Quote from: Justin Alexander;518424The problem of the 15 minute workday isn't "oh no! my players have chosen to retreat at the appropriate time to regain their strength!". The problem of the 15 minute workday is "oh no! my spellcasters blew all their spells in the first two encounters of the day (thereby rendering those encounters completely unchallenging and screwing up the balance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters)!"

Agreed, this is spot on to my mind. :)

Quote from: jhkimA few people have commented on spellcasters throwing off spells uselessly, which wasn't my experience. In my play experience, our principle was that we would use the minimum spells to get the job done - but if we had a choice between casting a spell and someone getting chopped into, we would prefer using the spell. Also, we always kept a bunch of spells in reserve in case we were attacked while retreating and/or camping. The more dangerous it seemed, the more we would hold in reserve for our retreat.

This seems opposite to what the posters want to encourage. So, do other players react opposite to the way I do?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;518424Nope. Conservative and strategically smart use of daily resources is pretty much exactly what I want to encourage.

The problem of the 15 minute workday isn't "oh no! my players have chosen to retreat at the appropriate time to regain their strength!". The problem of the 15 minute workday is "oh no! my spellcasters blew all their spells in the first two encounters of the day (thereby rendering those encounters completely unchallenging and screwing up the balance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters)!"

As far as I can tell, though, these are both part and parcel of the same thing.  From the character point of view, I very much want encounters to be un-challenging, and I don't give a damn about balance of spellcasters.  While we're on the same team, I as a thief will absolutely prefer to have my enemies knocked down by spells than get chopped into.  

To me, this came across clearly when we used a concrete example: i.e. the dungeon under the keep from Keep on the Shadowfell.  Looking at it from a character perspective, my reaction was that it made a great deal of sense to retreat and re-group after dealing with the first nine goblins (i.e. rooms #1 and #2).  However, you thought that doing so was exactly an example of the problem.

Quote from: jhkim;518448As far as I can tell, though, these are both part and parcel of the same thing.  From the character point of view, I very much want encounters to be un-challenging, and I don't give a damn about balance of spellcasters.

Yes. Which is why the 15-minute adventuring day happens: If the campaign world sits around like a static lump (no active opponents; no active competition; no active allies), then there isn't any reason for the PCs not to blow all their most powerful abilities and then head back home to rest up. In the absence of any competing interests, it's a perfectly rational strategy.

But that's not what you're describing: What you're describing are PCs who are using a mixture of abilities to deal with a reasonable number of encounters (with "reasonable" being dependent on the nature of the situation) and then retreating with a sizable strategic reserve in case of unforeseen difficulties.

There may be some people who have an aesthetic dislike for hit-and-run tactics (for reasons that I couldn't begin to fathom), but hit-and-run tactics aren't inherently the same thing as the 15-minute workday.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;518471Yes. Which is why the 15-minute adventuring day happens: If the campaign world sits around like a static lump (no active opponents; no active competition; no active allies), then there isn't any reason for the PCs not to blow all their most powerful abilities and then head back home to rest up. In the absence of any competing interests, it's a perfectly rational strategy.

But that's not what you're describing: What you're describing are PCs who are using a mixture of abilities to deal with a reasonable number of encounters (with "reasonable" being dependent on the nature of the situation) and then retreating with a sizable strategic reserve in case of unforeseen difficulties.

There may be some people who have an aesthetic dislike for hit-and-run tactics (for reasons that I couldn't begin to fathom), but hit-and-run tactics aren't inherently the same thing as the 15-minute workday.

They may not be inherently the same thing, but in my experience, we would often reach what I considered to be a reasonable number of encounters within 15 minutes of forward-pushing activity (into the dungeon or other hostile area).  After that we would be on the defensive and spend the rest of the day doing travel back, covering our trail, fortification, crafting traps or other items, study, planning, and other non-forward-pushing activities.  

So this might not be exactly the 15-minute-workday that you were thinking of (which requires the PCs to be stupid and wasteful and the world to be completely static).  However, it is still a kind of 15-minute workday.

Just for fun: I've actually seen a fight (in the group mentioned in my last post) chopped up into 'spellcaster sized chunks'.

Knowing the monsters were trapped (undead guardian types that couldn't leave their tomb), the wizard insisted on fireballing the room, makign the entire party wait a day, fireballing it again, waiting AGAIN and seeing if he'd got 'em all.

Now, some of that was understandable: When we triggered the undead we were not tactically prepared and the rogue came within inches of munching (I believe this was the campaign before my cleric, but I wouldn't swear to it), so it felt like a hard, scary fight.

BUt seriously: he made the party camp out in hostile territory (where we were, ostensibly, doing recon on the big badguys of the campaign....) for three days so he could, essentially, solo the fight with his awesome spellpower.

Even though it didn't really take longer, at the table, than any other fight, it was both boring to watch and entirely aggrivating on principles.

Just because I enjoy arguing on forums doesn't mean I state things in bad faith or don't try to have a point. Benoist's blind hatred of me notwithstanding.

Quote from: Benoist;518281Leaving aside the fact that I don't take TCO seriously for a minute because I sure know better by now, I disagree with your admonition.

First: If what TCO describes about him zoning out of game sessions and wandering off to read comics while there's a part of the adventure he doesn't like that unfolds at the game table is true, I sustain that he is a piss poor player. This is a collaborative game. When my players are engaged in the game, they cheer at other people's dice rolls, they listen to whoever is talking, they do their best to make the game enjoyable to everyone. If, as soon as you do not get your way, you are just "tuning off" and leaving the game table, you are a selfish, lame, sucky player, and you should be told as much. I don't care for political correctness. I actually believe that just not saying anything to people who suck at playing the game stops them from improving, and leads directly to piss poor experiences which then lead to "fixing the game" to catter to these bad players. They have a choice not to suck, but they can't realize it if we don't step up and say: "dude. You are sucking right now, and you should stop."

I don't consider it sucking, and I've never been admonished or complained to about my behavior. I also wouldn't describe it as not getting my way, I'd describe it as dealing with parts of the game that I don't enjoy and bore me to fucking tears. I'm an action junkie, and when the game slows down to a crawl and people start poking every rock with 10 ft poles or start haggling with merchants for 30 minutes straight my eyes just glaze over. The least obvious way to tune things out is to just open the Player's Handbook and bury my head in it and let people assume I'm looking up rules. I do that a lot. I usually get up and excuse myself only when it looks like its going to be a while. As I am not enjoying that part of the game and bored by it, I find any contribution to the game I have in that state is usually disruptive, and it serves the game better by me staying out of everybody else's way and let them have their fun doing things I have no interest in.

Quote from: Benoist;518281Second: Dungeons & Dragons is not a generic game system. It's never been. It has central themes and concepts at the core of its design, like exploration of dungeons and the wilderness, like archetypes as character classes and races, like Vancian magic, and so on and so forth.

There are basically people who like these central ideas at the core of the game, and people who do not. People who do not may house rule the game in a number of ways, and you are right in saying that, in this regard, the D&D game is flexible. Not generic right out the gate, but flexible enough to accomodate a variety of tastes. So TCO may have the play experience he is (seemingly, again, if he's actually telling the truth this time, which I don't believe for a minute) searching for if he runs the game a certain way and adjusts a few rules to fit his playstyle (maybe aided by supplements to the game, or modules or whatnot - the game certainly can be modular, even though it's not generic at its core).

There are also people who don't agree with you on what is essential to the game. Vancian magic is not something in my opinion essential to the game. Its something that I enjoyed D&D in spite of, houseruled around, and was glad was gone when 4E was released. I do agree with you that there are a lot of things that make D&D what it is, I don't see Vancian magic as one of them though, and find it arrogant and condescending that you can't accept anyone else's opinion on the matter.

TCO's trolling is very subtle.

Quote from: B.T.;518667TCO's trolling is very subtle.

Very.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518663I don't see Vancian magic as one of them though, and find it arrogant and condescending that you can't accept anyone else's opinion on the matter.

Well considering that only one edition of D&D omitted Vancian Magic, and that when a competitor released a competing edition that featured Vancian Magic it took the lead in the market; I don't see any argument advocating that Vancian Magic is NOT esstential to D&D holding much weight.

On the other hand I see a lot of merit to the assertion that D&D should offer a setting with or options for magic using classes that doesn't rely on Vancian Magic. As long as it not part of the core of the game I see a lot of gamers perfectly fine with that.

Quote from: estar;518721On the other hand I see a lot of merit to the assertion that D&D should offer a setting with or options for magic using classes that doesn't rely on Vancian Magic. As long as it not part of the core of the game I see a lot of gamers perfectly fine with that.

That setting exists. It's called Dark Sun.

No divine magic, and the only arcane casters PCs could play (preservers) were so lacklustre that in effect most Dark Sun campaigns were full-on martial with psionics in the mix. It's certainly one reason why I personally liked Dark Sun so much.

Then again, I don't want to overgeneralize my own take on Dark Sun, given that others probably enjoyed playing preservers or (campaign concept permitting) defilers.

[Edit.] I'll also note that 4th edition looks to me like it's the first edition ever where you can have martial-only campaigns into high level without adjusting things on the DM's side of the screen at all.

Quote from: estar;518721Well considering that only one edition of D&D omitted Vancian Magic, and that when a competitor released a competing edition that featured Vancian Magic it took the lead in the market; I don't see any argument advocating that Vancian Magic is NOT esstential to D&D holding much weight.

This is the key, and everything else is bullshit. Sales are the only real argument to be had.

Quote from: estar;518721Well considering that only one edition of D&D omitted Vancian Magic, and that when a competitor released a competing edition that featured Vancian Magic it took the lead in the market; I don't see any argument advocating that Vancian Magic is NOT esstential to D&D holding much weight.

On the other hand I see a lot of merit to the assertion that D&D should offer a setting with or options for magic using classes that doesn't rely on Vancian Magic. As long as it not part of the core of the game I see a lot of gamers perfectly fine with that.

They say the next edition is supposed to be for everybody. That includes the people who preferred how 4E did things.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518735They say the next edition is supposed to be for everybody. That includes the people who preferred how 4E did things.

Which can be handled by a separate set of magic using classes that don't use vancian magic. Why does non-vancian has to be a option rather than a core concept? Because simply the potential fans of vancian D&D outnumber the potential fans of non-vancian D&D.

Quote from: estar;518738Which can be handled by a separate set of magic using classes that don't use vancian magic. Why does non-vancian has to be a option rather than a core concept? Because simply the potential fans of vancian D&D outnumber the potential fans of non-vancian D&D.

Again I think Vancian means different things to different people

Classic spell lists and some sort of mechanic to track what spells you cast from a list you learnt is probably vancian for most players.

Spell slots is probably not essential to all of those.

Allowing Spell slots and Spell points from the classic spell lists as core options is probably fine for most people.

Quote from: estar;518738Which can be handled by a separate set of magic using classes that don't use vancian magic. Why does non-vancian has to be a option rather than a core concept? Because simply the potential fans of vancian D&D outnumber the potential fans of non-vancian D&D.

I cool with Vancian being the core concept but what I would actually love to see is some kind of update to Vancian itself.  Say like Arcana Evolved or Experimental Might given I have all the games that give me classic Dnd vancian already. I want 5e to be its own game with its own identity first.:)

Quote from: estar;518738Which can be handled by a separate set of magic using classes that don't use vancian magic. Why does non-vancian has to be a option rather than a core concept? Because simply the potential fans of vancian D&D outnumber the potential fans of non-vancian D&D.

A separate set of classes that use magic is good enough for me if that set can cover all the bases(which includes space occupied by the traditional Vancian classes) and doesn't make those options second rate compared to Vancian classes(which is what happened in 3.5E).

As for option/core-concept, the issue is wanting to build and  play any traditional D&D concept without having to deal with mechanics you detest, and the modular ability for a DM to completely remove Vancian magic from the game without removing essential D&D tropes(like the Wizard).

Last I checked, the attitude 5E was being designed under(at least as advertised) isn't lets cater to the majority and fuck everyone else. There is a significant section of the D&D community hostile to Vancian magic, and this goes back a long time. We've had an entire edition without it. It may not be a majority, and it isn't just about Vancian magic, but I think its enough to maintain D&D as a fragmented community and maintain the Edition Wars at a decent intensity of 5E screws that section of the community over, all of which would be a failure of their stated goals.

Yes, but it turns out that cunts such as yourself aren't enough to sustain sales.

Quote from: B.T.;518769Yes, but it turns out that cunts such as yourself aren't enough to sustain sales.

And the OSR hasn't spawned some megagame which has destroyed post-WotC D&D, what's your point? My point is at this point in time, WotC is saying they are making 5E for EVERYBODY, and "fuck you 4E cunts" doesn't fit with what they say their goals are.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518774And the OSR hasn't spawned some megagame which has destroyed post-WotC D&D, what's your point. My point is at this point in time, WotC is saying they are making 5E for EVERYBODY, and "fuck you 4E cunts" doesn't fit with what they say their goals are.

I agree with you this is their goal, and i think they shouod serve all their customers at this stage (not just 4E, old school, 3e, etc). But to do that effectively the core game cant be offensive to any of these groups. That is the real trick.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;518775I agree with you this is their goal, and i think they shouod serve all their customers at this stage (not just 4E, old school, 3e, etc). But to do that effectively the core game cant be offensive to any of these groups. That is the real trick.

To that I would add that I think if the AD&D crowd was given everything they want, the end result would be offensive to a large enough group of people for WotC's goal of uniting the D&D commnunity to be a complete failure.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518776To that I would add that I think if the AD&D crowd was given everything they want, the end result would be offensive to a large enough group of people for WotC's goal of uniting the D&D commnunity to be a complete failure.

It isnt about giving everyone what they want in core, but leaving out the elements that would be major dealbreakers. I think they can get away with vancian as core and adding in options to help 4e fans work around it. But if they were to include healing surges or 4e powers in te core i suspect they would lose the customers they are trying to regain.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;518780It isnt about giving everyone what they want in core, but leaving out the elements that would be major dealbreakers. I think they can get away with vancian as core and adding in options to help 4e fans work around it. But if they were to include healing surges or 4e powers in te core i suspect they would lose the customers they are trying to regain.

OFT.  Keep it lean and simple like BMXI or whatever and then add on to your heart's content.  I for one wouldn't even give the game a chance if powers or healing surges are core.

Quote from: estar;518721Well considering that only one edition of D&D omitted Vancian Magic, and that when a competitor released a competing edition that featured Vancian Magic it took the lead in the market; I don't see any argument advocating that Vancian Magic is NOT esstential to D&D holding much weight.

The original version of Microlite74 did not have an option for pure Vancian (aka fire and forget) magic. As the original purpose of Microlite74 was to be an intro to the old school style of play for 3.x fans, I just used the burn HP to cast spells method that Microlite20 used as most 3.x fans who liked the very light Microlite20 rules for 3.x were fine with it (and it was very similar to my "use fatigue points [hit points renamed] as spell points house rule so I knew it would be "balanced".

I immediately started getting requests for optional rules for Vancian spellcasters. Lots of requests and lots of ideas for how it could be best done. More requests than for any other changes or additions. Needless to say, Vancian spellcasters were added in the first supplement and I've made sure Vancian casters have been available on release in updated editions.

I think any version of D&D that is going to have a chance of attracting a large number of players from pre-4e editions will have to include Vancian fire-and forget casting and the tradition mix of MU and cleric spells as core.

I think the problems WOTC is having making a game that both pre-4e and 4e fans will play instead of their current game shows just how unlike pre-4e D&D the 4th edition really is. In spite of trying to tell everyone that the game really plays just the same for the last 3-4 years, there really are large and hard-to-bridge differences between 4e and all the previous editions.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518774And the OSR hasn't spawned some megagame which has destroyed post-WotC D&D, what's your point?

Not the OSR but open gaming has ... Paizo.

Quote from: Marleycat;518781OFT.  Keep it lean and simple like BMXI or whatever and then add on to your heart's content.  I for one wouldn't even give the game a chance if powers or healing surges are core.

but again its presentation.

If you present some core classes then give the DM a tool kit that shows how these can be created from a list of 'powers' and the option of letting the Players build their own custom classes using those powers ....

If you explain HP as they are explained in 1e it really only makes sense that they recover quickly so if you rebrand healing surges somehow because you aren't actually healing you are just regaining "energy" whcih is what HPs amount to if you are lookign for a simple parallel.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518752A separate set of classes that use magic is good enough for me if that set can cover all the bases(which includes space occupied by the traditional Vancian classes) and doesn't make those options second rate compared to Vancian classes(which is what happened in 3.5E).

I think it not going to be possible to balance everything. They are going to have to present options in discrete sets that work well each other but with the understanding that if you combine everything that it is not going to be balanced.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518752As for option/core-concept, the issue is wanting to build and  play any traditional D&D concept without having to deal with mechanics you detest, and the modular ability for a DM to completely remove Vancian magic from the game without removing essential D&D tropes(like the Wizard).

It is going to lose the wizard. The wizard uses vancian magic. They may have a warlock that uses the same spells but it not going to be the wizard.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518752Last I checked, the attitude 5E was being designed under(at least as advertised) isn't lets cater to the majority and fuck everyone else. There is a significant section of the D&D community hostile to Vancian magic, and this goes back a long time.

We've had an entire edition without it. It may not be a majority, and it isn't just about Vancian magic, but I think its enough to maintain D&D as a fragmented community and maintain the Edition Wars at a decent intensity of 5E screws that section of the community over, all of which would be a failure of their stated goals.

Despite the fact that I am in the playtest. I have no clue as to how they are going to cater to 4e fans in a substantial way. Right now they haven't released that portion of the rules.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;518780It isnt about giving everyone what they want in core, but leaving out the elements that would be major dealbreakers. I think they can get away with vancian as core and adding in options to help 4e fans work around it. But if they were to include healing surges or 4e powers in te core i suspect they would lose the customers they are trying to regain.

It seems to me that if they don't include anything like 4E in the core books, that they are then going to lose the current 4E players - who will stick with 4E and refuse to make the switch.  Probably someone will come out with an OGL 4E clone within a year or two.  

I suspect that for this to be accepted among a majority of 4E, 3.X/Pathfinder, and OSR fans - that the fans will have to accept that the core rules can support what they want, but also will contain optional elements that they don't want.  I don't think any of those three groups will be satisfied by having core rules with nothing distinctly from their preferred edition.

Quote from: RandallS;518784I immediately started getting requests for optional rules for Vancian spellcasters. Lots of requests and lots of ideas for how it could be best done. More requests than for any other changes or additions.

That is a great data point and thanks for sharing it.

Quote from: RandallS;518784I think any version of D&D that is going to have a chance of attracting a large number of players from pre-4e editions will have to include Vancian fire-and forget casting and the tradition mix of MU and cleric spells as core.

One reason that will be important is because of the Parents looking for that D&D game they played to share with their kids.

Quote from: RandallS;518784I think the problems WOTC is having making a game that both pre-4e and 4e fans will play instead of their current game shows just how unlike pre-4e D&D the 4th edition really is. In spite of trying to tell everyone that the game really plays just the same for the last 3-4 years, there really are large and hard-to-bridge differences between 4e and all the previous editions.

Despite being the playtest, I am not seeing how they are going to accomplish it either. But they haven't released everything either. Right now they are focusing on nailing down the foundation of what they plan to build on.

Quote from: jhkim;518790It seems to me that if they don't include anything like 4E in the core books, that they are then going to lose the current 4E players - who will stick with 4E and refuse to make the switch.  Probably someone will come out with an OGL 4E clone within a year or two.

It will be difficult not just for legal reason but also because it is a ton of work. Like designing a complete set of magic the gathering cards, a handful may be fun but a whole set is way more time than most folks are willing to invest.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518776To that I would add that I think if the AD&D crowd was given everything they want, the end result would be offensive to a large enough group of people for WotC's goal of uniting the D&D commnunity to be a complete failure.

What the hardcore AD&D crowd wants is the original rules and materials reprinted and kept in print. They couldn't give a crap about a new edition of D&D.

But they are dwarfed by gamers who just like the simplicity and feel of older edition D&D and happily use any material that fits that in their campaigns. Those are the ones that Wizards can turn into customers through D&D Next.

(Re: releasing an OGL 4E clone)

Quote from: estar;518793It will be difficult not just for legal reason but also because it is a ton of work. Like designing a complete set of magic the gathering cards, a handful may be fun but a whole set is way more time than most folks are willing to invest.

I don't think that the clone would have to replace the whole set of all powers to be successful.  The point of a 4E clone would be that it would act as support for 4E players in combination with existing 4E material.  Particularly since we live in the era of PDFs and other electronic material, the existing 4E material can live a long time.  (Especially if someone stores a copy of accessible DDI data to make a pirate version.)  

Note that the OSR clone games are not exact matches of earlier edition D&D or AD&D.  Rather, they are (1) in the same style as those editions, and more importantly (2) compatible with those editions.  

Some people might keep playing with the 4E core rules, and some people might switch over to the new cloned core rules - but both could use out-of-print official 4E supplements as well as new clone supplements.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518776To that I would add that I think if the AD&D crowd was given everything they want, the end result would be offensive to a large enough group of people for WotC's goal of uniting the D&D community to be a complete failure.

I agree.

Mega-quote incoming:

Quote from: estar;518789It is going to lose the wizard. The wizard uses vancian magic. They may have a warlock that uses the same spells but it not going to be the wizard.

For me, such wouldn't be a deal breaker by itself(like a return to 3E style imbalcne would), but would be the first of three strikes before I walk away. I want to be able to play anything without dealing with Vancian mechanics, and I want to remove it entirely from my campaign when I DM. I already have an edition that can do this, if 5E can't I'm likely to stick with 4E.

Quote from: estar;518789Despite the fact that I am in the playtest. I have no clue as to how they are going to cater to 4e fans in a substantial way. Right now they haven't released that portion of the rules.

Like has been said on the rules catering to Old School, at lot of what the game must do to appeal to 4E players is fundamental, not something tacked on later. Take balance, for example, as I really don't see how balance is something you can tack on later, and instead needs to be built into the system from the ground up. If 5E can't satisfy the 4E desire for balance on a fundamental level, its unlikely any amount of modularity is going to do any good.

Quote from: jhkim;518800(Re: releasing an OGL 4E clone)

I don't think that the clone would have to replace the whole set of all powers to be successful.  The point of a 4E clone would be that it would act as support for 4E players in combination with existing 4E material.  Particularly since we live in the era of PDFs and other electronic material, the existing 4E material can live a long time.  (Especially if someone stores a copy of accessible DDI data to make a pirate version.)  

Note that the OSR clone games are not exact matches of earlier edition D&D or AD&D.  Rather, they are (1) in the same style as those editions, and more importantly (2) compatible with those editions.  

Some people might keep playing with the 4E core rules, and some people might switch over to the new cloned core rules - but both could use out-of-print official 4E supplements as well as new clone supplements.

I think its more likely 4E holdouts will rally around DDI for as long as its available, or if that is taken away rally around the pirated version of the old character builder, which isn't that hard to get a hold of.

Quote from: jhkim;518790It seems to me that if they don't include anything like 4E in the core books, that they are then going to lose the current 4E players - who will stick with 4E and refuse to make the switch.  Probably someone will come out with an OGL 4E clone within a year or two.  

I suspect that for this to be accepted among a majority of 4E, 3.X/Pathfinder, and OSR fans - that the fans will have to accept that the core rules can support what they want, but also will contain optional elements that they don't want.  I don't think any of those three groups will be satisfied by having core rules with nothing distinctly from their preferred edition.

What I want is to be able to build any character concept I can think of without having to use mechanics I hate. As long as there is a Wizard subclass that isn't Vancian, I'm good, but if the only option for playing the Wizard concept is to use Vancian magic I'm not going to be happy. I also want to be able as a DM to be able to remove Vancian magic from my campaign without removing important parts of the game(I consider the Wizard class important, and Vancian magic unimportant).

If I'm going to switch they are going to need to do this from the start. If its in a supplemental book instead of the main book, thats disappointing but not a big deal for me since I tend to buy everything regardless. If I have to wait 6 to 9 months after launch to get mechanics to run the D&D I want, I'm going to stick with the edition that already does what I want. In addition, the rules for non-Vancian magic need to be as robust and supported as the rule for Vancian magic. If non-Vancian magic is gimped or a second rate choice(like it was in 3E), then I'm a lot less likely to embrace the new edition.

Quote from: estar;518794What the hardcore AD&D crowd wants is the original rules and materials reprinted and kept in print. They couldn't give a crap about a new edition of D&D.

But they are dwarfed by gamers who just like the simplicity and feel of older edition D&D and happily use any material that fits that in their campaigns. Those are the ones that Wizards can turn into customers through D&D Next.

What about the Pathfiner/3E crowd? I wouldn't say they fit your description of wanting the simplicity and feel of older edition D&D any more than the 4E crowd.

Quote from: jibbajibba;518787but again its presentation.

If you present some core classes then give the DM a tool kit that shows how these can be created from a list of 'powers' and the option of letting the Players build their own custom classes using those powers ....

If you explain HP as they are explained in 1e it really only makes sense that they recover quickly so if you rebrand healing surges somehow because you aren't actually healing you are just regaining "energy" whcih is what HPs amount to if you are lookign for a simple parallel.

You could be right because I come to realize I dislike 4e almost purely on presentation alone.  There are other things but that one is huge.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518814What about the Pathfiner/3E crowd? I wouldn't say they fit your description of wanting the simplicity and feel of older edition D&D any more than the 4E crowd.

Speaking for myself, I'd be very very happy with a game that had the flexible character building of 3x with much better math (which pathfinder couldn't pull off for compatibility reasons). Also, with the ease of prep and use that other editions tend to have.

I'll be the first to admit my favorite system doesn't quite do everything I want yet, but 4e does a bunch of stuff I do not want, and prior editions lack some stuff I happen to like. So 5e really could fill an unfilled niche for myself and (I would imagine) others.

Yeah, I would be very happy with a 5e that traded some but not all of the flexible building 3.x offers for ease of use, and so far it seems like that's exactly what they're doing, so it all looks pretty good to me. I just can't fuckin' play 3e anymore, it's too top-heavy and I'm tired of building every single thing out of legos.

Strangely, I found 3e games run much smoother when you start stripping the legos out.

3e provided two main things I really wanted from D&D back in the day.  Sensible mechanical framework that didn't look too frequently like it was utterly arbitrary (I'm looking at you Saving Throws!...also positive and negative armor class....ugh...), which I got, though not without its own warts.

The second thing was the elimination of the creative straight jacket. I want an elf that doesn't toss spells... done! Now that was the move from Basic to AD&D, but frankly AD&D's classes were strict and multi/dual classing was incredibly painful.  3e... solved! More than solved, they went almost overboard with feats and shit!

And it took a few years, and a metric ton of poorly concieved splat books for me to realize just how mucked up the construction was.

In metaphorical terms, so I'm not easily mistaken: The foundation and frame were well made, but the drywall is crooked, the wires are shoddy and the pipes knock horribly if you try to run more than one faucet at a time.

But gosh durn it if it wasn't my dream version of D&D when it came out.



Says the guy who had long before ditched D&D for greener pastures... I feel like an abused spouse sometimes...

Quote from: Imp;518835Yeah, I would be very happy with a 5e that traded some but not all of the flexible building 3.x offers for ease of use, and so far it seems like that's exactly what they're doing, so it all looks pretty good to me. I just can't fuckin' play 3e anymore, it's too top-heavy and I'm tired of building every single thing out of legos.

I love 3e but I agree that's it's  just too much work for me anymore given RL commitments. It's why I'm starting to get interested in OSRIC stuff, at least enough to give it a look.  I definitely have issues with pre 3e stuff but with modern mechanics that lessens considerably, 5e seems to be going in a mix and match direction I so prefer.  Like a Fantasy Craft built on 1e instead of 3e, big win for me.

Thing is, its far easier to start with a simple system and then add complex modularity to it, than to start with a complex system and then try to strip it down to what's simple.  You can try to simplify 3e or 4e, for example, but since so many powers, feats etc, depend on complex rules, you can't just get rid of those rules without revising tons of those feats and powers (or eliminating them entirely).  

5e, if its done right, will start from what's simple, so that then you can add only those complex rules you want.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;519299Thing is, its far easier to start with a simple system and then add complex modularity to it, than to start with a complex system and then try to strip it down to what's simple.  You can try to simplify 3e or 4e, for example, but since so many powers, feats etc, depend on complex rules, you can't just get rid of those rules without revising tons of those feats and powers (or eliminating them entirely).

5e, if its done right, will start from what's simple, so that then you can add only those complex rules you want.

RPGPundit

That is only true if the complex modularity is indeed added. If the optional rules do not exist, its more hassle to create them yourself from scratch than it is to remove exiting rules. It is easier, for example, to cut out things from 3E to make something resembling AD&D than it is to build 4E out of AD&D from scratch. The quality of the modularity is also an issue. If the modulariy is on par with what we got from 2E skills and powers or many of the clunky optional rules from 3.5E, it causes more problems than it solves.

What worries me as a 4E player is that rules for generating a 4E style game won't exist at all, or won't exist in a satisfactory form.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;519303That is only true if the complex modularity is indeed added. If the optional rules do not exist, its more hassle to create them yourself from scratch than it is to remove exiting rules. It is easier, for example, to cut out things from 3E to make something resembling AD&D than it is to build 4E out of AD&D from scratch. The quality of the modularity is also an issue. If the modulariy is on par with what we got from 2E skills and powers or many of the clunky optional rules from 3.5E, it causes more problems than it solves.

4e is a simple RPG that uses a exception based design. Which means that in order to emulate 4e for any class based system is to provide classes which are based on 4e style powers.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;519303If the optional rules do not exist, its more hassle to create them yourself from scratch than it is to remove exiting rules.

Which is why 4e is shit.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;519303What worries me as a 4E player is that rules for generating a 4E style game won't exist at all, or won't exist in a satisfactory form.

A feature and not a bug if there ever was one.

Quote from: RPGPundit;519299Thing is, its far easier to start with a simple system and then add complex modularity to it, than to start with a complex system and then try to strip it down to what's simple.  You can try to simplify 3e or 4e, for example, but since so many powers, feats etc, depend on complex rules, you can't just get rid of those rules without revising tons of those feats and powers (or eliminating them entirely).  

5e, if its done right, will start from what's simple, so that then you can add only those complex rules you want.

RPGPundit

I fervently hope that is what they do because I believe in this 100%, everything is always better the more simple it can be kept.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;519303That is only true if the complex modularity is indeed added. If the optional rules do not exist, its more hassle to create them yourself from scratch than it is to remove exiting rules. It is easier, for example, to cut out things from 3E to make something resembling AD&D than it is to build 4E out of AD&D from scratch. The quality of the modularity is also an issue. If the modulariy is on par with what we got from 2E skills and powers or many of the clunky optional rules from 3.5E, it causes more problems than it solves.

What worries me as a 4E player is that rules for generating a 4E style game won't exist at all, or won't exist in a satisfactory form.

Well, I certainly hope you get the modularity to feel like it works for you.  Obviously, its not my priority to fight for that, and I'm way more concerned by hapless writers who've been doing nothing but 4e for years, not being able to simplify their way out of a wet paper bag.   So I'm a bit too busy fighting a battle to make sure the core is Old School enough and free of 4e-style junk in the Core, I really don't have time to make sure they also satisfy the 4e fan in the place they actually should be doing that, the sidelines.

RPGPundit