Of all the complaints about 3.x systems... do you people actually allow this stuff ?

[kitcik]

I am coming late to this party, but here are a couple of personal observations:

1) I have played in three 3.X campaigns. Never had an issue with the "20 min workday" until the current campaign. Now, it is the DM that encourages it. We like the risk and immersement presented by multiple-encounter days, but the DM generally only presents one encounter with little or no possibility of another before resting. I guess I game in bizarro world.

2) I strongly believe in the existence of a wide power disparity between casters and non-casters at mid to high levels, and I agree with those that have said it is a heavy burden on the DM to counter this. However, it has never been a problem in my actual games because:
- experienced / optimizer players voluntarily (with no encouragement) create lower tier characters. It is more of a challenge and allows for more RP.
- casters focus on buffs / saving party members that are in trouble / occasionally casting the "save our bacon" spell when needed. While they are still carrying a bulk of the load, it is not as obvious and allows others to shine.
- neither of those things has required much effort on anyone's part, it just seemed like the natural way to work together as a team.

 

[pemerton]

No, it is not a non-sequitor.

Here is what I was replying to:

That idea seems to suggest that if it controls then no choice ever has a long term significance (for better or for worse).

That is, you asserted that "no failure off-screen suggests no choice ever has a long term signficance." (Or I think you did. There is no object for the verb "controls" in your sentence. I assume you mean something like "If the idea of no-failure-off-screen is the controlling basis for encounter design, handling ingame passage of time, etc.")

This is a non-sequitur. That is, it does not follow from using no-failure-off-screen as the controlling basis for encounter design and the like that no choice ever has a long term significance. There is no reason in the abstract to think that it would follow (because operational planning is not the only dimension of signficance). And I gave several examples from my campaign which illustrate, concretely, some events having long term significance despite being grounded in an "only on screen" approach.

You electing to ignore your premise in select, trivial circumstances does not provide a defense for the premise itself.

I don't know what you mean, here. I am not defending any premise. I am explaning an approach to RPGing - the "only on screen" approach.

I will agree that you can trump that rule on a selected case by case basis. But if you followed the rule as you described it and you wanted them to get there "just in time" to save that prisoner then the de facto reality would be that they would. That is nothing more than simply restating the premise you provided.

They will get there on time. They may or may not save the prisoner. When I actually GMed that scenario, they saved one of two prisoners. That is the long-term consequence.

if I has suggested leaving an alternate factor out then you would have a point here. But we are not choosing between factors. I'm advocating keeping all important factors in play.

You are telling me your apple pie doesn't need apples because there are a lot of ingredients and apples are just one of them.

I don't understand your metaphor. Are you asserting that operational play, and meaningful choices that turn on the possibility of off-screen failure, are essential to RPGing? Or to satisfactory RPGing? If you are, then I know your claim to be false, because I play a satisfactory RPG in which operational play is a minimal concern and in which failure is not going to happen offscreen. (And I also know that I am not the only RPGer doing this.)

I'm not interested in operational play. I find it mostly tedious, and even when not tedious I find that it distracts from the more interesting stuff. So if you are asserting that meaningful operational choices can be inserted into a game without diluting other dimensions of signficance, than I disagree. Every minute of play spent with the players worrying about their 10' poles and iron spikes, or spent worrying about optimising their route to try and get to the prisoners on time, is a minute not spent by the players worrying about other things - the things that I find more interesting for them to be worrying about.

I imagine that there is a range of techniques to make operational play go away. Robust scene-framing, in accordance with the "only onscreen" approach, is the one that I use. (And of course, by Forge standards my scene framing isn't that robust at all - it's robust only in comparison to traditional D&D.)

Do you think you are a good representative of what supports wide fan support?

I have no strong view on that. But that wasn't the context for my comments upthread. I was't giving advice on anyone on how to design a marketable game. I was explaining why the "time pressure" solution to the 15-minute day is confined, in its utility, to a certain range of scenarios and of playstyles.

 

[BryonD]

That is, you asserted that "no failure off-screen suggests no choice ever has a long term signficance."

I was more specific than that and I was was replying to a more specific comment from you.

You stated that no matter what the heroes would arrive "just in time".
To which I replied that the unavoidable consequence of this is that no failure on the part of the PCs will ever prevent them from arriving in time and thus no success on the part of the PCs may ever contribute to their actually achieving getting there on time.
Further because you described this as a fundamental part of good DMing, scenarios that fall in this same category will have the same pattern.
I assume you assure the PCs "arrive just in time" every time it is important.
Thus the PCs can never fail to arrive on time.
Thus the PCs can never win credit for arriving on time through their own success.

This is a non-sequitur.

It absolutely follows.

They will get there on time. They may or may not save the prisoner.

I am saying if you use the rule "they will get there on time" then it is absolutely true that no action will have any consequence against or for that. And because you present it as a perpetual guide for good DMing, it is clear that this will happen over and over.

Thus when A:B.
Now, you point out that they may not save the prisoner and this has a long term consequence and claims that demonstrates that I am wrong.
It does not.
When A:B is still true and the implication remains that A is still very common.
But all you have said is "when not A, maybe not B". That doesn't contradict "when A:B". It just says that "getting there on time" was a goal for which you used A and saving the prisoner was a goal for which you didn't. I'm saying A is bad and you attempt to contradict that is to provide an example of how it isn't bad when you don't use it.

This following is speculative, but I think it is fair. If you are the kind of DM that is going to use "they will get there no matter what" AND it was true that the prisoner surviving was really critical to the future of the campaign then you may very well also apply the same "they will... " control. The fact that you didn't is a very good thing. The less you use a bad rule then the less the badness of the rule matters. But not using a bad rule in a given situation does nothing to make it any less bad on its own merits.

I don't understand your metaphor.

Getting there on time is the apples. Saving the prisoner is the sugar. You are saying you still have sugar, therefore your apple pie is still fine. I'm saying that your sugar is very nice, but without apples, you don't have apple pie.




Again, I jumped in here when you very specifically made a comment critical of simulation and the point was about a fast hero. The context was calculating the speed of the hero to see if he could get there in time or not. I believe you called not getting there an off-screen failure. You declared it a bad thing and said the hero should always get there in time.

I'm disputing THAT statement. And I'm including any other situation under which it may apply. For example, if saving the princess later required that the prisoner be saved now then failure to save him now would be an off-screen failure with the princess later on just the same as not getting there on time is an off-screen failure now. The fact they they were unable to get there on time now is the result of on-screen actions taken before, just as whether or not the prisoner lives is the result of on-screen actions now. If the actions now should have long term consequences, such as being unable to save the princess, why shouldn't actions that happened before have long term consequences such as not being able to get there on time?

At best you are saying that the long term consequences of actions at at the DM's whim. If you might say that nothing will prevent them from getting there, then you might say nothing will prevent them from being able to save the princess. Failure to save the prisoner doesn't have a consequence because it has no more implicit consequence than whether you were able to get there on time or not. The only difference is the DM whim allowed one thing to matter and the other to not.

No comment on how or why that makes the game more fun to you. I'm not arguing that.

But in the end it is simply logical that in a game in which the players actions control whether or not they got there on time they have more credit for saving the one prisoner than in a game in which getting there on time was predestined. And regardless of what you prefer, it should be clear enough for you to see why someone would prefer that.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I am coming late to this party, but here are a couple of personal observations:

1) I have played in three 3.X campaigns. Never had an issue with the "20 min workday" until the current campaign. Now, it is the DM that encourages it. We like the risk and immersement presented by multiple-encounter days, but the DM generally only presents one encounter with little or no possibility of another before resting. I guess I game in bizarro world.

2) I strongly believe in the existence of a wide power disparity between casters and non-casters at mid to high levels, and I agree with those that have said it is a heavy burden on the DM to counter this. However, it has never been a problem in my actual games because:
- experienced / optimizer players voluntarily (with no encouragement) create lower tier characters. It is more of a challenge and allows for more RP.
- casters focus on buffs / saving party members that are in trouble / occasionally casting the "save our bacon" spell when needed. While they are still carrying a bulk of the load, it is not as obvious and allows others to shine.
- neither of those things has required much effort on anyone's part, it just seemed like the natural way to work together as a team.

Not bizzaro world, my experiences are basically identically, as I lengthily explained above. IME players don't want to 15MAD or 20MWD or whatever you call it, they came to play a game and have fun, they want to press on if it's not suicidal to do so, not fight, then rest, then fight, then rest. The only hindrance to getting in multiple combats I've ever seen in actual play has been the DM.

And yes, in actual play, myself and most others players that seem to know how to optimize seem to prefer non-casters, whether for the challenge or the fact they can "get away with" more nasty combos and tricks without disrupting game balance or whatever. Or sometimes they'll ostensibly play a caster, but use its casting to supplement the character's physical attack routine, like a cleric archer, rather than traditional spell-slinging. I have seen some exceptions of course, though most of the time when I saw a skilled optimizer try and make and PLAY a caster as a caster, it was either because: 1) The DM had nerfed melee on numerous occasions (saying a RAW valid ability was unrealistic; severely limiting the magical items melee needs; introducing critical fumble rules; etc...) and ended up just frustrating the veteran player or 2) The game has already been clearly shown to be a complete broken mess and the player just feels like screwing around for fun (one of my first 3E games, DM allowed ring of 3 wishes to grant more wishes, wishes for templates did not add LA, +6 int items boosted BONUS by +6, and other insane/stupid houserules; so one guy made a nigh invincible half celestial half troll half dragon sorcerer whose lowest stat was 40 and his brother made a caster that researched epic spells to turn various metals into platinum and back and completely destroyed the in game economy).

Again, just my experiences, but you're certainly not alone.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Oh, I also agree with others that not being a "killer DM" helps. If the players know you're not just going to throw a hellacious encounter they need every resource possible to survive, they're far more likely to be willing to press on.

 

[Rechan]

It's not about "good DM" or "bad DM". It really isn't. The 15 MAD, to me, is just D&D. It always has been D&D. We did this since pretty much day 1 in D&D. The cleric runs out of spells, you stop. If you don't stop, you die. I've never seen a very good explanation for how groups manage to do 5-8 encounters without dying.

Lots and lots of wands of CLW.

These take the pressure off the Clerics to use their slots for healing spells. Running out means just a little gold to get a new one.

 

[Rechan]

I think there is enough evidence that there are people who have had issues with the imbalance between casters and non-casters at mid to high level, just as there is enough evidence that a DM or group can mitigate this problem through social pacts and game management.

To put this another way:

A game system that is built on the assumption that all DM/groups have strong social pacts/management is like a legal system that is built on the assumption that everyone is a honest and good person on their best behavior.

A game that assumes that you need to be a Good GM to make it work is not going to work for the Average GM.

 

[kitcik]

A game system that is built on the assumption that all DM/groups have strong social pacts/management is like a legal system that is built on the assumption that everyone is a honest and good person on their best behavior.

Bad analogy. Gaming groups are formed by choice. Legal systems are built to include everyone.

If you can't trust everyone in your group, you can switch groups or drop the problem player(s). If you can't trust everyone in your society, you hire police (etc.).

A game that assumes that you need to be a Good GM to make it work is not going to work for the Average GM.

The average GM IS a good GM. Poor GMs usually are not GMs for long.

Note that the bit above about the group also applies to the game system - if you don't like it, change it or play something else.

 

[Rechan]

The average GM IS a good GM. Poor GMs usually are not GMs for long.]

I'm not taking about a GOOD GM in terms of say, being a jerk or not. But purely system mastery/skill in order to compensate for system issues. You also have newbies/inexperienced DMs, casual DMs, Dms who are good at Y but not at X, etc.

There are systems out there that are not user friendly, that do require a lot of effort on the GM's part and if he doesn't bring his A game then it falls apart.

It's a bad idea to say "The system isn't broken in that manner because no one who's reasonable will exploit that rule. Since everyone at the gaming table is reasonable, they won't do it".

For instance the longest time I've played with one group was two years. 75-90% of my gaming is done online; playing with strangers, and having games break up after a month at least, is the norm for me. The social pact isn't instant, you don't know who you're getting when you start, so it's impossible to have trust off the bat. There are also things like con games/games at the FLGS, etc, which are inherently with strangers. If the only safeguard from abuse is the assumption everyone is reasonable, then there's no protection in these situations.

Simply put, you need to have some idiot-or-jerk-proofing. Complete proofing is impossible, but if you can nip the most egregious system-related issues in the bud, why wouldn't you?

 

[kitcik]

For instance the longest time I've played with one group was two years. 75-90% of my gaming is done online; playing with strangers, and having games break up after a month at least, is the norm for me. The social pact isn't instant, you don't know who you're getting when you start, so it's impossible to have trust off the bat. There are also things like con games/games at the FLGS, etc, which are inherently with strangers. If the only safeguard from abuse is the assumption everyone is reasonable, then there's no protection in these situations.

Sorry about that - different perspectives and all.

Other than trying "Encounters," I have never been in a group that lasted less than 3 years, although we have had the occasional bad egg that got booted.

I go to Mohonk occasionally and always stop in New Paltz - is that dusty old game shop still there, like a block off main street? Seemed like a decent FLGS.