Pathfinder 1E This is why pathfinder has been successful.

[pemerton]

It feels like people giving cars square wheels to keep them from rolling downhill in San Francisco.

You don't think that's a little pejorative? After all, making wheels square stops them from working as wheels. Whereas changing the mechanics of an RPG so that the 15 minute day goes away doesn't stop it from working as an RPG. It is not inherent to the concept of a functioning RPG that it contain a mix of PC types, some of whom are able to nova and have incentives to do so, and some of whom do not.

The problem for some folks is pacing

Perhaps the problem is that some mechanical frameworks don't support the pacing or other aspects of scenario design that those folks prefer.

as far as I can see it is GMs needing training wheels

Perhaps you are being a bit myopic, then. Plenty of examples have been given upthread, which have nothing to do with training wheels.

If a GM wants to run a scenario where the main focus is on exploration of a largely static, magically warded site (ToH would be an example), then a PC who becomes more powerful by nova-ing may overshadow one who cannot nova (depending on the balance of power between a nova-er and a non-nova-er).

And even if a GM wants to run a scenario with a timeline, if the timeline is one which does not turn on hours or days, but rather weeks and months, then nova-ing will not be de-incentivised, for the reasons that Hussar gave upthread (nova-ing will add only days, not months, onto the time needed to complete the scenario).

For a timeline to amp up the number of encounters from one or two to four or more per day, it has to be a pretty intense, almost hyperactive, timeline. It is not a sign of failing in a GM or a group to want to run non-hyperactive scenarios. It may be that they should not be trying to run those encounters in 3E, however. That is because of features - limitations, perhaps - of 3E as a system, not because of any failings (or need for training) on the part of those GMs or their players.

Realistically speaking, a subset of play styles produce the 15 minute day.

This is true only relative to a set of mechanics.

A set of mechanics in which everyone can nova won't cause a problem - just build encounters to suit nova-ing, if it's likely that the players willn nova.

A set of mechanics in which nova-ing is ineffective or unavailable or otherwise constrained won't cause a problem - just build encounters to suit the defaul power level.

A set of mechanics in which those who can nova have to do so to match the power of those who can't - and I've run RM in this style - will not cause a problem, as long as the nova-ers are free to do so.

In any of the three above-mentioned mechanical systems, the set of playstyle choices that produces the problem in 3E will not produce any problem.

If you don't want the 15 minute day, it's rather incumbent on you to eschew those play styles, isn't it? Is that somehow controversial?

Yes, what you say is controversial, because it seems to ignore the alternative which many have adopted, of changing the system in one of the ways that I have described, or one of the way [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has described, or in some further way that no one has mentioned yet.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

For a timeline to amp up the number of encounters from one or two to four or more per day, it has to be a pretty intense, almost hyperactive, timeline. It is not a sign of failing in a GM or a group to want to run non-hyperactive scenarios. It may be that they should not be trying to run those encounters in 3E, however. That is because of features - limitations, perhaps - of 3E as a system, not because of any failings (or need for training) on the part of those GMs or their players.

The timeline does not need to 'amp up' the number of encounters - all it needs to do is prevent the PCs from resting after a brief period of activity. Kill some goblins, hole up, kill a troll, hole up, quick as a wink three days have passed, and in that time the bad guys can be busy.

The timeline does not care if the PCs have one, three, or a dozen encounters in a day, just that during that day X things happen. Better is to have two timelines, what a friend of mine called 'The Dungeon Timeline and the Town Timeline' So that if the party is in Town then things are happening in the Dungeon (or castle, monastery, orc encampment) and if they are in the Dungeon than things are happening in Town.

If the party is holed up in the inn for three days then they are not keeping an eye on sweet old Vicar Williams as he goes out into the woods on the night of the full moon. And that they don't see Ranger Ronnie poisoning the deer with wolfbane in the same area into which Vicar Williams has gone, all they know is that Vicar Williams died, naked, in the woods.... (Funny thing is that no human ever ended up dead on those full moons, just deer....)

Meanwhile, they also don't see the hill giant that has been hired by the orcs to aid in next week's attack on the harvest. Their first clue will be the enormous rock that brings the church steeple crashing down. (Sleep through that! why dontcha?!)

If the party has been well and truly thumped then I may give them a bit of leeway, unless it is something that is hard wired, like the tides and the full moons.

Not random examples, by the way. This is what happened to that one group that decided to go Nova on some goblins.

The ranger was working with the orcs, and the werewolf was one of the good guys.... (Eberron.)

However, I will admit that I was a trifle heated this morning. It does sometimes feel like some folks would rather hobble my game than try to fix their own.

Even the few times I used Rappan Athuck there was a timeline, where either a bonus went away (500 GP extra if you bring me the Headpiece of Frinn by Thursday!) or the person that they were trying to rescue got et. (*Burp!*) The party didn't always succeed, but they didn't shilly shally much either.

The Auld Grump

 

[pemerton]

Kill some goblins, hole up, kill a troll, hole up, quick as a wink three days have passed, and in that time the bad guys can be busy.

<snip>

If the party is holed up in the inn for three days then they are not keeping an eye on sweet old Vicar Williams as he goes out into the woods on the night of the full moon. And that they don't see Ranger Ronnie poisoning the deer with wolfbane in the same area into which Vicar Williams has gone, all they know is that Vicar Williams died, naked, in the woods.... (Funny thing is that no human ever ended up dead on those full moons, just deer....)

Meanwhile, they also don't see the hill giant that has been hired by the orcs to aid in next week's attack on the harvest.

But does all this stuff happen every three days? I mean, a full moon is going to happen once a month or so (assuming a roughly earth-ish world).

When I was GMing an RM game where the focus of play was exploration of an ancient ruin, magically warded, the PCs would (i) wake up in the morning, (ii) teleport from the imperial palace where they lived to the exploration site, (iii) break through the wards, (iv) search around a bit, (v) deal with whatever new thing they came across, then (vi) teleport back to the palace. The afternoon would be spent sorting out debates over imperial policy, but these moved slowly enough (ie on timelines of days and weeks, not minutes and hours) that resting up to regain spell points every afternoon and/or evening didn't pose a major obstacle to participation.

There are things to be said for and against this sort of scenario - I enjoyed it at the time, but it may be that once is enough - but I don't think it's some bizarre out-on-a-limb thing. But for it to work at the mechanical level, it required all the PCs to be able to contribute to maximum effect at step (v). This was achieved by having all the PCs be spellcasters of some form or another (we had a sorcerer - something like a D&D warlock, an archmage something like a D&D summoner/evoker, and a warrior-mage as the main PCs).

It does sometimes feel like some folks would rather hobble my game than try to fix their own.

I don't think anyone wants to touch your game. But they (including I) are trying to explain how the 20 minute day is a system-relative phenomenon, in that some systems don't produce whereas other do (while holding scenario and playstyle constant).

 

[TheAuldGrump]

But does all this stuff happen every three days? I mean, a full moon is going to happen once a month or so (assuming a roughly earth-ish world).

As I said, the point is that something is going to happen. Sometimes it is minor, sometimes it is major, sometimes it is even to the PCs advantage.

When I was GMing an RM game where the focus of play was exploration of an ancient ruin, magically warded, the PCs would (i) wake up in the morning, (ii) teleport from the imperial palace where they lived to the exploration site, (iii) break through the wards, (iv) search around a bit, (v) deal with whatever new thing they came across, then (vi) teleport back to the palace. The afternoon would be spent sorting out debates over imperial policy, but these moved slowly enough (ie on timelines of days and weeks, not minutes and hours) that resting up to regain spell points every afternoon and/or evening didn't pose a major obstacle to participation.

That would drive me crazy - the closest to that I can remember running was a Pavis/Big Rubble RQ game. (And, yes, I added a timeline, but only to the Pavis portion.) I like time having consequences, in this case the Big Rubble served as a distraction or red herring - the main plot was Lunar activity in Pavis. (If you don't know what I am talking about... the Lunar Empire was an expansionistic empire in Glorantha, a bit like a Chaos tainted Roman Empire. The Big Rubble are some Giant ruins, adventuring parties learned to keep a ransom banked, to give as surety for being released when taken hostage - trolls would do the same thing, surrender is a viable option in the Rubble.)

There are things to be said for and against this sort of scenario - I enjoyed it at the time, but it may be that once is enough - but I don't think it's some bizarre out-on-a-limb thing. But for it to work at the mechanical level, it required all the PCs to be able to contribute to maximum effect at step (v). This was achieved by having all the PCs be spellcasters of some form or another (we had a sorcerer - something like a D&D warlock, an archmage something like a D&D summoner/evoker, and a warrior-mage as the main PCs).

I don't think anyone wants to touch your game. But they (including I) are trying to explain how the 20 minute day is a system-relative phenomenon, in that some systems don't produce whereas other do (while holding scenario and playstyle constant).

Actually, given that there is a fellow in this very thread that has tried to claim that folks having things like random encounters, or who don't have a 15 MAD, must be playing the game wrong... Yes, there are folks that seem to think that I should change my game so that I have the same problem they do.

In short, if I am not having a problem, and they are, then I am not running the game wrong, they are.

Other folks don't seem to mind the 15 MAD even if it does happen to them, and if it is not a problem for them, even if it happens, then they are not playing the game wrong either.

It is only if the game is not being fun that there is a problem.

There are ways to prevent 15 MAD if you consider it a problem - I have seen a GM that trims experience if you go Nova/play Turtle on these boards. Not a solution that I would recommend, but if it works for him then it works. I might suggest a bonus to XP for encounters past the first in a day, but I prefer the carrot to the stick in that regard.

I like timelines and intelligent foes. (And I love it when the PCs figure out the timeline. There is one scenario in particular when the players will sometimes shout 'The tide!', which sends them running to some sea caves in the area. Most groups do figure out that Vicar Williams is a werewolf, some even figure out that he wasn't one of the bad guys.)

Other GMs like the carrot and/or the stick.

But sitting around and complaining about the 15 MAD is unnecessary, and I think my method makes for a better game, even if running a game where is no possibility of a 15 MAD. (Fantasy Craft, like 4e has spells and abilities that recharge per encounter rather than day. Not fond of that, but some folks are.)

The Auld Grump

 

[billd91]

Yes, what you say is controversial, because it seems to ignore the alternative which many have adopted, of changing the system in one of the ways that I have described, or one of the way [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has described, or in some further way that no one has mentioned yet.

Yeah, and changing the system has worked so well that they're already changing it again to try to appeal to all of the market share they lost.

Honestly, no, it's not that controversial. Whenever you select a tool, you accept its limitations if you use in a manner it doesn't support as well. I can use a wrench as a hammer in a pinch, but I have to accept it won't do as good a job as a hammer. Craftsman shouldn't be expected to change their wrenches because I don't want to shift to using a real hammer. I need to adjust my expectations and accept either it as a less effective hammer or get myself a hammer.

D&D is a very broad and flexible tool, but it's not everything to all play styles and play circumstances. It never has been.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, and changing the system has worked so well that they're already changing it again to try to appeal to all of the market share they lost.

You seem very condifent that their market research and intuitions this time round are much better than they were last time round.

I think it will be interesting to see.

The way WotC describe the virtues of 4e, it seems to me to lose a lot of what many 4e posters on this board seem to value in the game (ie more than just "the math"). WotC presumably are confident that those posters are not representative of their current 4e market. But presumably, last time around, they were confident that those who were wedded to simulationist mechanics were not representative of their then-current 3E market.

As I said, it will be interesting to see whether they are right or not, but I've got no special reason to think they've become better in this department.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

You seem very condifent that their market research and intuitions this time round are much better than they were last time round.

I think it will be interesting to see.

The way WotC describe the virtues of 4e, it seems to me to lose a lot of what many 4e posters on this board seem to value in the game (ie more than just "the math"). WotC presumably are confident that those posters are not representative of their current 4e market. But presumably, last time around, they were confident that those who were wedded to simulationist mechanics were not representative of their then-current 3E market.

As I said, it will be interesting to see whether they are right or not, but I've got no special reason to think they've become better in this department.

At least this time they are doing marketing research, and hopefully listening to the research and paying attention to playtesters. (Yes, the debacle with the skill DCs still ticks me off.)

Deep down, I suspect and fear that 5e will fail. I don't want it to fail, but I think that WotC broke their market with 4e and the way they rolled it out. I don't think that they can mend the divide.

Still no word, as far as I know, on what I consider the most important piece - the license. And the longer they wait the more I suspect that it is going to be another attempt at the GSL, rather than a return to the OGL.

I like the Pathfinder rules better than 4e, but I do not blame the rules for the divide - I blame the marketing during the run up to 4e, and the attitude in some of the books, rather than the rules themselves.

Pathfinder, especially since the APG, fits my needs better than 4e - I would have to work around the rules in 4e to get the results that I want (much as some folks claim for 3.X/3.P). It would be awkward and unnecessary, since I have Pathfinder to hand.

The failure of marketing for 4e worked to my advantage - had they done their job right in regards to marketing then I would almost certainly not have Pathfinder.

And I know that Paizo listens....

You don't think that's a little pejorative? After all, making wheels square stops them from working as wheels. Whereas changing the mechanics of an RPG so that the 15 minute day goes away doesn't stop it from working as an RPG. It is not inherent to the concept of a functioning RPG that it contain a mix of PC types, some of whom are able to nova and have incentives to do so, and some of whom do not.

In my estimate it makes it a less entertaining RPG - there is a reason that I don't play 4e. If it results in a game that I don't want to play then it does have square wheels, as far as I am concerned.

I hated what they did to spellcasters in 4e.

However, I should possibly mention that there was (once upon a time) a comedian that did a routine on parking in San Francisco, and part of the routine was to suggest square wheels so that the car wouldn't roll downhill, even with the parking brake on....

Given that I saw that routine on TV something like thirty years ago, I think that it is fair to say that I have fumbled my roll for Pop Culture References.....

The Auld Grump, as I have said many times before, I never repeat myself....

 

[pemerton]

At least this time they are doing marketing research

What do we know about this? I know they collect a lot of info from DDI, but presumably that's not a very good guide to PF players' preferences.

Deep down, I suspect and fear that 5e will fail.

<snip>

I think that WotC broke their market with 4e and the way they rolled it out. I don't think that they can mend the divide.

I came back to D&D for 4e, after having left AD&D for greener pastures. If I'm going to play 5e, it has to offer me a play experience comparable, at least, to 4e. So far I'm getting no indications of that.

In my estimate it makes it a less entertaining RPG - there is a reason that I don't play 4e.

Whereas I find that difference or similarities in basic class architecture - eg do we all have AW/E/D - don't do much for me one way or the other. It's how the PC actually plays (both mechanically and in the fiction) at the table that I care about, and at least my experience with 4e has shown that to be quite different for different PCs despite the similarity of architecture.

On an unrelated note, you might remember our conversation about the Avalon Hill Mystic Wood game a week or two ago. I pulled it out yesterday and "played" a game with my two young daughters (well, the 3 year old chose a knight and rolled some dice but otherwise left me to do all the heavy lifting for her while she went out and danced on the verandah). One thing that struck me was that my older daughter's default instincts were cooperative rather than competitive - so even when the younger one's Saint George had defeated the dragon, the older one thought that rather than leaving the wood (which is the win condition after fulfilling you quest) George should hang around and explore the forest to help her knight - Britomart - find the prince (her quest).

The older daughter then expressed a desire to play a roleplaying session at home . . . somewhat controversial, as my partner is worried that I will overly nerdify the kids. But I would be lying if I said I hadn't already thought about how I might use Robin Laws' HeroQuest rev ed as an introductory RPG for my kids . . .

 

[Hussar]

Realistically speaking, a subset of play styles produce the 15 minute day. A subset of styles do not. If you don't want the 15 minute day, it's rather incumbent on you to eschew those play styles, isn't it? Is that somehow controversial? Isn't that something you'd have to do in any game system to avoid potential results you don't want?
.

Or, conversely, change the ruleset so that I don't have to eschew anything and those whose playstyle don't match the new ruleset can change their style. Funny how that works.

Yet, if you change the system so that 15 MAD goes away (such as playing AD&D or 4e D&D) you can still service everyone else as well.

I think ByronD is flat out mistaken when he claims that 3e services a broader playstyle. I really do. 4e is simply more flexible because it doesn't dictate your playstyle to you the way 3e does. I can't play 3e without 15 MAD unless I choose a certain playstyle. I can play 4e without 15 MAD with any playstyle. I can play AD&D without 15 MAD with any playstyle.

Thus, IMO, 3e loses out here on flexibility. Too many things are hard wired into the mechanics to allow other playstyles.

 

[Hussar]

On the issue of time.

I've done this before, in another thread, but I'll do it again here. You cannot possibly increase the pace of your groups that time will actually make any real difference over the long run. To go from 1st to 20th level in 3e takes about 260 encounters (give or take). So, the Slow Group, doing 1 encounter/day takes 260 days. The fast group, doing 4 encounters per day, takes 65 days.

The difference, and this is the absolute maximum difference you can get is about 6 months from levels 1 to 20. And the actual difference is going to be a hell of a lot less because the Slow Group dies a whole lot less than the fast group, meaning that it's not losing levels to Raise Dead and the like.

Your campaign world, unless you're running D&D 24 will not change that much in that amount of time. Heck, even going back to Keep on the Borderlands, it takes WEEKS for a cleared out cave to come back to even half population. Spending an extra four or five days clearing a cave? Makes zero difference.

It never did.