D&D 5E cancelled 5e announcement at Gencon??? Anyone know anything about this?

[Pentius]

I don't think there's such a thing as taking this too far. Good on ya!

Of course, the 15-minute adventuring day can have other meanings too: in my previous campaign the first thing the party did one day resulted in a near-TPK; the game log reads "By 9:30 a.m., S'nel'be* is all that's left of the party." Best 15-minute day ever!

* - realizing there would be no survivors, this character grabbed whatever valuables he could carry and teleported out. He later traded said valuables for a wish to undo what happened...

Lanefan

Wait, if he undoes what happened, does that reset time so that he never wished it and they get the valuables back?

 

[wrecan]

Sooooo ... I heard there was a rumour from GenCon ... Morrus tweeted it, it appears.

Anyone know anything about THAT?

Yes. morrus posted on this thread that he doesn't think it was a 5e announcement that got canceled. Either he misunderstood the rumor his contact gave him, or his contact miscommunicated something.

Which should have ended the thread, except the Edition Wars will not be denied.

 

[MrGrenadine]

Now, in either of these cases, the Dm certainly could have created a pressure, ad-hoc, by adding in another group of adventurers after the jewel, for instance, or another exit to the crypts we didn't know about. Were I DMing(or rather, were the me of today DMing, example one was actually me DMing, so many years ago) I probably would have added just such an element, to keep the players on their toes. But does that not go against your stated idea of the world not revolving around the PCs?

I said the story does revolve around the PCs. But not the world. Its a subtle distinction. The adventure above is good for a starting point, but at some point there needs to be, I think, a bit more conflict, besides monsters waiting to be killed, in order to create excitement.

Exactly, Wicht. The world turns whether the party decides to go adventuring or to sleep all day.

And regarding conflict--whats also missing from your examples, Pentius, is any sense of stakes. High enough stakes will keep the party fighting far beyond the 15 minute adventuring day, using whatever resources they have at their disposal. Simply put, if there's no stakes, there's no drama.

For example, the story of a gem hidden in a temple could be fun, but there's nothing driving the story to get folks invested. Does the party want the gem just because its valuable, or is there some greater purpose behind its acquisition? Do they want the gem to pay off the moneylender and save the family farm? Or to use as ransom for the kidnappers who took the Mayor's daughter? Or to stop a local cult from using it in a vile ritual? All of those stories continue whether the party pushes on and gets the gem, or takes weeks to acquire it.

The same with the undead in the graveyard--adding a second exit, or otherwise having the monsters escape while the party is resting is good, but having that happen on a feast day when the townsfolk gather outside the town under the light of the full moon is better. And right when the town's children are performing the story of the town's founding, between the graveyard and the townsfolk? Now we're talking.

 

[Pentius]

Exactly, Wicht. The world turns whether the party decides to go adventuring or to sleep all day.

And regarding conflict--whats also missing from your examples, Pentius, is any sense of stakes. High enough stakes will keep the party fighting far beyond the 15 minute adventuring day, using whatever resources they have at their disposal. Simply put, if there's no stakes, there's no drama.

For example, the story of a gem hidden in a temple could be fun, but there's nothing driving the story to get folks invested. Does the party want the gem just because its valuable, or is there some greater purpose behind its acquisition? Do they want the gem to pay off the moneylender and save the family farm? Or to use as ransom for the kidnappers who took the Mayor's daughter? Or to stop a local cult from using it in a vile ritual? All of those stories continue whether the party pushes on and gets the gem, or takes weeks to acquire it.

The same with the undead in the graveyard--adding a second exit, or otherwise having the monsters escape while the party is resting is good, but having that happen on a feast day when the townsfolk gather outside the town under the light of the full moon is better. And right when the town's children are performing the story of the town's founding, between the graveyard and the townsfolk? Now we're talking.

Yeah, I didn't lay out those examples to show what perfect DMing looked like. I laid them out to show what average DMing I have encountered during my time in the hobby looked like. I know that a good DM can keep the tension high and the pacing quick, and thus avoid the 15mwd. I've never actually seen it happen, but I'm quite willing to believe it can.

What I'm saying is that in the absence of this sense of pacing and/or tension, which is not by any means universal(or in my experience, even common), the 15mwd pops up, and can have drastic effects on the game*

*Incidentally, while I'm aware I've been primarily discussing my issues with 3.5 here, this post applies to every edition I've played.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, I believe it is a solution. Why should the NPCs stop what plans they had in motion because the PCs decided to stop and rest? PC actions should have consequences - both good and bad.

Keep in mind, most DMs that run this way will have shown they do since level 1, so it isn't like a dynamic that changes only at the higher levels. I know in our games our actions as PCs always have consequences on the world as a whole.



In games I have played in the others in the party certainly would have had a say as well. Either agreeing to rest or teleport out or to advocate for pressing on. Still a party decision, not a decision made solely by the wizard. Many times I have seen the wizard say they were out of spells but the rest of the party insists on pushing on due to the criticalness of getting something done in a timely manner.



The wizard is one voice of the whole party. If the situation calls for swift action or timely action, they need to learn to conserve their spells lest be forced to abandon the party. This precedents are generally set from the first level on when playing under DMs that keep events in the world moving forward on their own timeline.

So, pretty much the only way to keep the wizard in check is to force every adventure to be time based. Or, to put it another way, the entire campaign is being dictated by the casters. If casters weren't a problem, then you don't need to force strict time based adventures.

And this isn't a problem?

/edit - BTW, how many times did you see the party pressing on when the cleric said he was out of spells?

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]

Oh, look, another non-existent example of saying that the issue is playstyle and not systemic.

The maiden example was just an example, but its a useful example. There does not need to be a clearly stated conditional time pressure on every mission. But DMs should always act in such a way as to allow their players to know that events happen in the world around them according to a logical, progressive time. I don't fixate on the minutes and hours of the world, but I do focus heavily on the days, beginning most adventures with a mention of the date and, after camping, reinforcing the fact that it is a new day. If you train your players right, they create their own pressure, because they are not sure what the ramifications of delay might be. Who knows how long they actually have until the big bad is summoned, the girl is killed, the treasure is spent, or the dragon summons help. If they go away and leave a situation uncontrolled, they can be fairly sure that things will likely have changed while they are gone as the other side continues to act. Or at least that is always the assumption on their part, even when I, the DM, am going to change up very little.

I guess it boils down to a play style where, while my game may revolve around the PCs, the world never does.

 

[IronWolf]

So, pretty much the only way to keep the wizard in check is to force every adventure to be time based. Or, to put it another way, the entire campaign is being dictated by the casters. If casters weren't a problem, then you don't need to force strict time based adventures.

Er, no not at all. Not every adventure will be time sensitive, because not all are. The world will keep moving forward though. It makes less sense for it not to. In some cases, the world moving forward will have no effect and the group can rest as much as they want. In other cases it means the group will fail to accomplish the task they set out to do because the world moved on.

This is not being dictated by whether or not there are casters in the party. This is being dictated because the game is more fun (in my opinion as player or as GM) if you are playing in a world that is in motion around you and not static. Doesn't matter if a caster is present or not.

 

[JamesonCourage]

[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]

Oh, look, another non-existent example of saying that the issue is playstyle and not systemic.

Again, here's the claim you made (which didn't mention playstyle):

But, again, good fix/bad fix is not what's being argued.

Throughout this thread you and others have been stating that there is no problem with the mechanics. That every edition, other than 4e, the fighter has no balance issues with the caster.

And here's how I responded:

I'm just jumping in, but I've read every post in this thread. I think I missed where people argued this. Can you link me some posts where people said that fighter/wizard disparity wasn't a problem for any group?

As always, play what you like

You've then said that people have said it's not a problem for a certain playstyle. That in no way answers my question, nor does it align with your original claim. People have claimed that it's not a problem for them or for their group, not that the problem doesn't exist for others. Additionally, the posts you did link me about playstyle both implied that the problem was present for others ("the people who keep claiming this should realize that this problem did not occur for everybody"; "If the GM allows the so called '15 minute adventuring day' then it can be that the wizard is over powered"; "It is more commonly bandied about than experienced").

Again, if I missed several different posters who have said that this problem is nonexistent for every group, point me to those posts. I've never made a single claim about playstyle yet, so I'm not sure why you're trying to prove something to me about it. I've simply asked you to back up your initial claim (linked above, for your convenience).

As always, play what you like

 

[Mournblade94]

So, pretty much the only way to keep the wizard in check is to force every adventure to be time based. Or, to put it another way, the entire campaign is being dictated by the casters. If casters weren't a problem, then you don't need to force strict time based adventures.

And this isn't a problem?

No he is not saying that at all. Your really holding on to this tightly.
I have time pressures on my game, because I keep check, not BECAUSE of a spellcaster. I proposed PERHAPS because of my time keeping the disparity was not as apparent.

/edit - BTW, how many times did you see the party pressing on when the cleric said he was out of spells?

By the phrasing of the above statement I am imagining you stop when the cleric is out of spells.

In some of my games we did not even have a healer.

So when the cleric was out of spells, if that mark ever happened, the party often continued on, provided they were not on very low hitpoints.

See? Still not a problem.

My parties would make camp when:

The actual in game time was warranted Usually more than 6 hours of adventuring,

Supplies ran out and they had to resupply

The party was creamed after a combat.

If this is surprising it may just be a case of differing playing styles. The disparity of wizard vs. fighter, has N-E-V-E-R been a problem for me or the people I play with. I find it odd you are trying so hard to convince me it was.

 

[IronWolf]

/edit - BTW, how many times did you see the party pressing on when the cleric said he was out of spells?

Oops. Missed the edit.

First, assuming the party had a cleric. We've had many games where there is not a dedicated healer.

But in the cases there was one, yes, there were occasions that the party would press onwards. Usually meant they were going to have to tap into their own supplies of healing potions and such to do so, but it happens if the party felt the need to press on outweighed the fact the cleric was out of spells.