What to do about the 15-minute work day?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Was that answered? Did I miss it?

Someone who has no clue what he was talking about because he's never read the "rule," never used it before, and in fact only learned about it today explains why it is ridiculous and should be kept far away from Next.

This happens a lot in 4E-related discussions. "I don't / have never played 4E, but I don't like ..." "I never really got in to 4E, but [X] doesn't work because ..."

I'm sorry - I thought the point was pretty patently obvious.

"player-generated magic-item wishlists" ARE nonsensical

Please explain - especially when, as I believe you are, you're coming from a 3.XE background where player-generated magic-item wishlists are often turned into player-generated magic items through the relatively easy magic item creation rules.

 

[steeldragons]

Someone who has no clue what he was talking about because he's never read the "rule," never used it before, and in fact only learned about it today explains why it is ridiculous and should be kept far away from Next.

This happens a lot in 4E-related discussions. "I don't / have never played 4E, but I don't like ..." "I never really got in to 4E, but [X] doesn't work because ..."

I'm sorry - I thought the point was pretty patently obvious.

Sooo...4e doesn't have player generated wish lists? That's interesting. I've been misinformed.

But...huh. yeah. Just thick, I guess...who am I to argue with a guy with a patent?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sooo...4e doesn't have player generated wish lists? That's interesting. I've been misinformed.

Of course it has player-generated wishlists. Please see the rest of the thread after CNN's post on how they work.

And please see my follow-up question as to why they're "nonsensical."

I mean, I know even back in the 2E days I'd say things to my DM like, "Hey - I want to go on an adventure to find a magic sword. Can we do that?"

 

[Hussar]

Heh, it's funny. We had wish lists way back in AD&D. Only, then, we called them "sages" and we had to "research" in game to find out where those items were and then we could go get them. Yet, funnily enough, if we the players actually spent some time and resources, those items almost always fell into our hands.

Completely, and utterly different from how 4e wish lists are supposed to work...

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Never had a problem with this so-called "5/15 minute work day" thing. Thirty+ years of playing, never a problem because it never came up I guess. If the party takes out a few kobolds, then an ogre guard, then opens up with a (what do the kids call it now?...nova?...) as the kobold chieften and his two giant lizards investigates the commotion...so be it. But they always knew that if they get a bad wandering monster roll, or didn't scout enough and get attacked from behind by the kobold army and we get a TPK...it's *not* the games fault. That is squarely on the players heads.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[pemerton]

So today, in this thread, was the first time I had ever heard of a "wish list," and it was described to me as a player expectation, not as a DM suggestion. Clearly I interpreted it wrong.

You didn't misunderstand the way I use it - ie directions from the players to the GM as to what items they want. I regard items in 4e as bascially one component of PC build.

My objection to your "example" wasn't that it got the power relation wrong, but that it got the method wrong - the players don't have a power to rewrite the GM's narration. They have a power to direct the GM to include certain items, which the GM then narrates into the game.

You could think of it as somewhat analogous to a game the has relationships (eg Burning Wheel, maybe HERO?) - the player pays points for a relationship, and thereby directs the GM to include that NPC in the game. That doesn't mean that the player gets to override the GM's descriptions of encoutered NPCs - just that, if the GM never narrates an encounter or dealing with that particular NPC, s/he is not going along with the game rules.

 

[pemerton]

I try and give my players cool things but some players can get a little greedy and want things that are either to powerful, to game breaking or it does not fit in the campaign.

Items in 4e have a level, which plays an important role in regulating when the PCs are eligible to recieve them. (If you're using the pre-4e treasure-placement rules as written.)

There's no time requirement on a wish list.

In combination with the above, this works!

Heh, it's funny. We had wish lists way back in AD&D. Only, then, we called them "sages" and we had to "research" in game to find out where those items were and then we could go get them.

This is an area of the game where I'm pretty happy to cut out the middleman!

I don't know if I would have the heart sunder a weapon that took 2 years of loot to get.

This is my objection to a whole range of mechanics, including some forms of SoD: if the GM doesn't have the heart to do it - ie if the mechanic runs a danger of breaking the game if the GM actually plays it heard - then what is it doing there?

I don't want soft-hearted GMs, nor players who worry about the integrity of the story. I want rules that will allow GMs to push hard, and players who push back with their PCs, to produce a great play experience, with a story that works for them, even though no one has that as their goal at any particular moment of action declaration.

 

[steeldragons]

Apologies for not the most prompt of responses. It was..oooo very late (like "sun coming up early-late") in my neck of the woods.

But here I am!

Please explain - especially when, as I believe you are, you're coming from a 3.XE background where player-generated magic-item wishlists are often turned into player-generated magic items through the relatively easy magic item creation rules.

Actually I am coming from PRE-3e land. So crafting items was never that common a thing and if it did come up probably involved a lengthy side-quest (if not main plot) to find the materials needed to make it.

Of course it has player-generated wishlists. Please see the rest of the thread after CNN's post on how they work.

And please see my follow-up question as to why they're "nonsensical."

The idea that the players should or would be told, in the rules, that they can tell the DM what items they should be getting and when is, as I said, the antithesis of a D&D experience...to me. So to my eyes, it looks pretty nonsensical that it would happen at all, let alone be condoned in the rules.

But I see from the earlier post (I did go back and read that it is in the DMG as a "suggestion"? That it rather interesting as that is never how I have ever read it portrayed anywhere. It's spoken of as a given...a "gimme given"...and that just irks me.

I mean, I know even back in the 2E days I'd say things to my DM like, "Hey - I want to go on an adventure to find a magic sword. Can we do that?"

Sure. That's normal...did it in Basic did it in 1e...2e...sure. "Would be nice if..." or "Could we research and go on a quest to find..." Great!

That is not the same thing as "I'm third level! I'll take my +2 shield of screaming whininess now. Pony up DM." [or whateaver items there are to choose in 4e]

But the fact it is a "suggestion" makes it all kinda moot.

...but then one comes across something like the following...

You didn't misunderstand the way I use it - ie directions from the players to the GM as to what items they want. I regard items in 4e as bascially one component of PC build.

-snip-

- the players don't have a power to rewrite the GM's narration. They have a power to direct the GM to include certain items, which the GM then narrates into the game.

Yeah, see this makes it sound significantly less like a "suggestion."

And the bottom line, really, is it doesn't fly for my kind of play. As the DM, of COURSE I am going to give players things they can use! My players understand that...and even things that seem kinda "useless" at first often turn out to be useful at some point.

They do not need to "direct me" to improve their "PC build." It's just not in the way we think/play...and strikes me as mildly amusing and slightly confusing way to desire playing...I simply don't get it. a.k.a. it strikes me as "nonsense."

Of course, to each their own, play what you like and all of that.
--SD

 

[Sadrik]

This seems like a very simple solution. Provide both aspects one in the form of a rules module. Easy peasy.

For instance, the module might say after a short rest recover your HP and for casters recover your caster level in spells 5th level caster recovers 5 levels of spells. Bam and done. Rules module I would even be tempted in trying. This would be a good option for campaigns where combat is a major focus. This system has problems with spell recovery (take a bunch of or short rests and recover all of your spells) but in a game where combat is a focus and constant threat it may be ok.

 

[CleverNickName]

Someone who has no clue what he was talking about because he's never read the "rule," never used it before, and in fact only learned about it today explains why it is ridiculous and should be kept far away from Next.

This happens a lot in 4E-related discussions. "I don't / have never played 4E, but I don't like ..." "I never really got in to 4E, but [X] doesn't work because ..."

Remember though, liking/playing 4E is not prerequisite to being able to discuss it (or laugh at it). Some of us have played it, decided it was not our cup of tea, and moved on. That does not make our opinions of the system invalid or less important (or even "ridiculous.")

One of the primary design goals of 5th Edition is to unite all gamers under a common edition. They cannot achieve that goal if certain opinions are "kept far away from Next."