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

[Hussar]

Another thought occurs to me on the whole playstyle vs systemic problem issue.

Why is it that this only comes up with 3e D&D? I mean, if it was a playstyle issue, then shouldn't people who have this issue have this issue with every game they play? After all, resource conservation and tracking is hardly unique to 3e D&D, it happens in many RPG's.

Yet, I never hear Vampire players complaining about this issue. I've recently been system hopping for the past couple of years and tried a bunch and, funily enough, this only came up in 3e. (well 3.5 to be very specific)

If this was all down to my playstyle, shouldn't I have had the same issues playing something like Savage Worlds, which, honestly, isn't that far from a d20 system.

How about those who play other d20 systems as well? Isn't one of the basic premises of E6 that casters are an issue? What about d20 Star Wars? I'm honestly not that familiar with the system, I've never played or read it. Did people who played that system encounter the same issues, presuming they had these issues in 3.5 D&D?

Now, if, as GamerPrinter says, the issue is hard coded into the mechanics, then we're down to different solutions. That's fine. I got no problems with that. And certainly what Gamer Printer and others (Wicht, and others, sorry, it's late and I'm not going to go back and fact check names) have said will solve this issue.

But, if I have to adopt a specific playstyle to resolve a mechanical issue, I'm not really sure I want to play that system. I think I'd rather play a system that allows me to choose whatever playstyle fits a particular campaign at a particular time. I like the flexibility.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Another thought occurs to me on the whole playstyle vs systemic problem issue.

Why is it that this only comes up with 3e D&D? I mean, if it was a playstyle issue, then shouldn't people who have this issue have this issue with every game they play? After all, resource conservation and tracking is hardly unique to 3e D&D, it happens in many RPG's.

It might be hard to cross into other games, because I have seen people adopt different playstyles with widely different games. But I agree that I've only had this problem with 3.5D&D. The problem has not occurred for me in OD&D, BD&D, 1E, 2E, 3.0* or 4E. My playstyle has remained relatively the same** over the 28 years I've DMed, so I think you pose a good question.

*IMO this was only because we didn't hit the same level of supplements as we did in 3.5. It would have eventually resulted in the same issue if WotC never released 3.5.

**Including the use of each new shiny supplement as it arrive on our bookshelves.

 

[Umbran]

I mean, if it was a playstyle issue, then shouldn't people who have this issue have this issue with every game they play?

I don't think so. I am pretty sure folks generally don't actually use exactly the same playstyle across all game systems. There may be some similarities in style, but I suspect most of us do a lot of adapting to fit the style of the game we are playing. Perhaps more than we realize.

But, if I have to adopt a specific playstyle to resolve a mechanical issue, I'm not really sure I want to play that system. I think I'd rather play a system that allows me to choose whatever playstyle fits a particular campaign at a particular time. I like the flexibility.

But that requires a game to be all things to all people. There's something to flexibility, but if you try to be too flexible, you end up with a game that highly resembles a wet noodle. Games, to me, are best done al dente

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

What about d20 Star Wars?

It depends on the system.

Saga Edition, IMO, lacks enough healing resources to have more than a 15-minute adventuring day routinely. The remainder of your resources, however, are effectively per-encounter resources, so there's little pressure to have a 15-minute adventuring day.

d20 Revised ties Force-usage to your current HP, and thereby pushes fairly hard towards the nova-retreat-rest paradigm (or, alternatively, towards the never-use-the-Force-retreat-anyway-rest paradigm). This is complicated by fairly common critical hits bypassing the hit point system nigh-entirely, making combat even swingier than it otherwise would have been.

In either system, depending on how you read things, two Jedi with Vital Transfer (IIRC the power's name) can provide effectively infinite downtime healing given enough of a breather, which makes 15-minute adventuring days meaningless. (EDIT: This "feature" has a particularly Eric's Grandma-unfriendly name.)

 

[BryonD]

Yes. Critical portion bolded above.

Right, because we were talking ABOUT YOU here. So bolding that doesn't change anything.

None. That's why during my later run of 3.5 I looked for ways to solve this unacceptable problem in ways that satisfied everyone invilved in my game. I did not find a satisfactory method for us. The method that you used to avoid the issue and others used to fix it could be satisfactory to your preferences while being completely unsatsfactory for ours.

You are not following the train of the conversation here.

You complained about how it you were being accused of "doing it wrong". I pointed out that, by your own statements some actions avoid the problem completely and yet YOUR actions failed to avoid an extreme example of the problem. So this is entirely your own words about your self.

You don't want BMX Bandit and in my game there is no BMX Bandit. Problem solved. Now you are waving a wand and declaring that the solution in my game would be completely unsatisfactory for you. Which is silly on multiple levels. First, the problem is GONE. What is there to be unsatisfactory? Second, how could you POSSIBLY think that the solution would be a problem for you? What have I said that would provide the slightest suggestion of that? This is as perfect an example of an "I can't get it, therefore with no other knowledge I declare it bad" sour grapes.

shrug

 

[Mournblade94]

I would suggest going back and reading some of Wicht's and my posts again during the portion of the thread we covered this. Every adventure *doesn't* need to have a time element to it. The PCs generally aren't always going to know how time sensitive things are. Sometimes it will be obvious, other times it will not. That unknown factor is what allows you to sprinkle in the time sensitive type adventures to help add that unknown factor (or some of the other plot options that I believe BotE listed).

I would agree. It seems some points are being purposefully ignored.

I cannot speak for how others run the game, but my worlds continue in motion not to counter casters, but to keep the world interesting (again, purely my opinion as GM and player). I like it when the world moves forward while we, the PCs, make decisions. Or sometimes we choose to investigate one particular plot of many only to find that the two we did not address moved forward and in some case are more dire or possibly even solved themselves.

So - no, every adventure does not have to be time sensitive and no, this world in motion theory is not dictated by mechanics but by a desire for world verisimilitude.

I bolded those parts. That is exactly why my campaign world is time sensitive. In fact I have a rather dumb houserule in my game, that on a characters birthday they get a +1 luck bonus on saves. (a reward from the gods for surviving another year. I am not suggesting it, but my players goofily look forward to it). I like to see the time progression in the campaign. I honestly beleive that it is cool for Players to see when they were level 1, how long they have been adventuring, and how the world has changed because of them (or not )in thier time.

I propose that it is PERHAPS because of my time keeping and eye for versimilitude that I have not run into the disparity problem. That does not imply that you cannot run into the problem enforcing time keeping, and I am not implying that playing in a static universe is BAD.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Another thought occurs to me on the whole playstyle vs systemic problem issue.

Why is it that this only comes up with 3e D&D? I mean, if it was a playstyle issue, then shouldn't people who have this issue have this issue with every game they play? After all, resource conservation and tracking is hardly unique to 3e D&D, it happens in many RPG's.

I heard remarkably similar complaints for:
AD&D
2e AD&D
Runequest
Call of Cthulhu

So, umm, yeah... it does happen in other games with consumable character resources. Spells, spell points, it does not matter. 3e just has enough players that the grumbling becomes more noticeable.

For the nonce, I never noticed it when either playing or running those games any more than I have for 3e, except for that one game. Maybe it is symptomatic of the same folks who prod the floor with a 10' pole every time they move? Who expect monsters to wait quietly until the PCs reach them?

Again, being overly cautious is likely to cause problems even as being overly incautious.

If the players come to expect a dynamic, as opposed to static, world then they are likely to feel time pressure, even if there is none. For me this is worth doing in its own right - there is no reason not to do it with 4e, it can make for a more enjoyable game. Having monsters just sitting around playing pinochle until the PCs show up does not sound like much fun to me, regardless of system.

The Auld Grump

 

[gamerprinter]

Now, if, as GamerPrinter says, the issue is hard coded into the mechanics, then we're down to different solutions. That's fine. I got no problems with that. And certainly what Gamer Printer and others (Wicht, and others, sorry, it's late and I'm not going to go back and fact check names) have said will solve this issue.

But, if I have to adopt a specific playstyle to resolve a mechanical issue, I'm not really sure I want to play that system. I think I'd rather play a system that allows me to choose whatever playstyle fits a particular campaign at a particular time. I like the flexibility.

I never said it was hard-coded, in fact, I'll go as far as saying until I started visiting RPG forums, I've never heard of the 15 minute adventuring day, or a disparity between casters and martials classes. The concept seemed alien to me.

In learning that such a condition exists in some games, I'm using my best judgement on how the game should be played to avoid those issues.

But I don't see what I do as coming up with some solution to avoid the problem, as it is how I've always played D&D (1e, 2e, 3x and Pathfinder). I have known no other way. The concept of Nova and rest had never happened in my games. I wasn't aware that others playing differently encountered this problem at all.

I don't think a system necessarily leads to such problems - only certain playstyles achieve that. So I don't see it has a problem hard-coded in 3x, rather 'hard-coded' to those that play a 'nova and rest' playstyle only. Which I don't see as the default way to play any game, let alone 3x.

I don't mean to say, if you 'nova and rest' in your playstyle, that you're playing the game wrong - however, by playing that way, you are destined to engender disparity and problems.

Its not the system, its the playstyle only.

 

[Mournblade94]

I have no idea what I was talking about there.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

To quote a silly/stupid/funny movie: "And then?" What if your players don't care that she was killed?

Ask them who they are, and what have they done with my real players.

Following the interrogation I track down the place where the vegetative pods have been hidden, and burn out the infestation. Damned pod people. (Hey, a silly movie gets a silly movie.)

I have never had that problem. And I have been running games this way since '81. Somehow... I don't think that it will be a problem.

The Auld Grump

 

[Mournblade94]

I never said it was hard-coded, in fact, I'll go as far as saying until I started visiting RPG forums, I've never heard of the 15 minute adventuring day, or a disparity between casters and martials classes. The concept seemed alien to me.

I have to quote you for truth here.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Here's a perfect example of satisfactory solutions that are unsatisfactory, for me.

I started DMing with OD&D/BD&D/AD&D where buying anything but minor magic items, in my campaigns, was unheard of. In those days you made use of what you found. There was no magic item economy. And it worked for us.

We tried this approach in 3.x but it seemed that characters were more dependent on magic items, so our old method of play had to change if we wanted 3.x to work for us. I tried exactly what worked for Wicht, but it felt arbitrary and uneven to the group. I ended up using the 3E DMG guidelines and allowed just about any purchase under the limit for whatever settlement they were in. It was the best solution for us, but who knows, maybe it added to our issue?

I think that 3e codified things - that previously magic items were kind of arbitrary in their distribution.

If you look at published adventures for AD&D 1 and 2, there were a lot more magic items than you were likely to see for 3e.

They also made CR a means to plop appropriate critters in place for a given level. CR gets a lot of flak, sometimes deservedly so, but it was better than what had come before, which was essentially nothing.

I use time as a limiting factor on magic items - you can buy them, up to the price limit, but other than pretty much standard potions you have to commission their manufacture. It will take the standard amount of time, so, buy now for the next adventure, unless it is heading on toward winter. The pace of life slows down when the snow flies.

Unless it is The Iron Kingdoms, or maybe Eberron, it is unlikely that a +2 flameburst broadsword is just sitting there on the shelf. (And in Iron Kingdoms it would be Glyph plates, the sword is just a chassis, you will have to wait for delivery, but we can order the parts for you today. We can sell you the +2 right away, and add the flameburst plate after it gets here, for a small extra fee...)

The Auld Grump, in Eberron go look at the Army/Navy Surplus store....

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

You don't want BMX Bandit and in my game there is no BMX Bandit. Problem solved.

Only if your solution fits my group's play style.

Now you are waving a wand and declaring that the solution in my game would be completely unsatisfactory for you.

Since you won't share because you expect everyone here to have read every post you've ever written, then no, I can't say your solution would be, but it could be.

Which is silly on multiple levels.

The larch.

First, the problem is GONE.

It's gone if I play 4E too, but I hear many complaints that the "baby has been thrown out with the bathwater."

What is there to be unsatisfactory?

That my group may have to adopt a style of play that we don't enjoy to achieve the same solution you have.

Second, how could you POSSIBLY think that the solution would be a problem for you?

Because I looked for solutions at the time and none fit my group's style of play until 4E came along.

What have I said that would provide the slightest suggestion of that?

Unfortunately nothing.

This is as perfect an example of an "I can't get it, therefore with no other knowledge I declare it bad"

I can't "get" what you refuse to share. I'm not going to pore through old threads looking for the Wisdom of Byron, sorry. And even if I didn't find your solution satisfactory (here's those key words again, pay attention) for me, I have made it quite clear that I do not consider them bad. Just not right for me. Just like 4E is not the right solution for you.

sour grapes.

Now you're just making stuff up. I've specifically said I'm happy that others' found solutions that work for them. Maybe if you quit putting invisible sarcasm tabs around everything I type you can read my real message.

I have never had that problem. And I have been running games this way since '81. Somehow... I don't think that it will be a problem.

I haven't either. But I've heard enough gaming group horror stories to feel sympathy for those who feel stuck in these situations. I know that for me gaming is my chance to blow off steam from a busy week, and if my choice was to game with sociopaths or not game at all I would not be happy with either choice.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I haven't either. But I've heard enough gaming group horror stories to feel sympathy for those who feel stuck in these situations. I know that for me gaming is my chance to blow off steam from a busy week, and if my choice was to game with sociopaths or not game at all I would not be happy with either choice.

Heh, you were supposed to concentrate on the quip about pod people.

I am never sure how often these problems come up in reality - I suspect that is less often than people think.

For what it is worth, I suspect that the 'grind' in 4e is also overstated - that it may be an effect of inexperienced GMs, and maybe WotC adventures. Experienced GMs will compensate, and have a better game.

The grind in the two sessions of 4e I played was... incredibly dull, combat took forever, with a whole lot of pushing and pulling to limited effect. The GM was using a WotC adventure, I forget which one. Either way, I blame WotC, but I would prefer to say that is mostly because they do a horrible job writing adventures, and have since before 4e was a glimmer. (I.e. not entirely, or even mostly, a 4e problem.)

A good GM will not have that problem, may never have that problem, and may not even think about how they changed things - they just did it and it worked.

And if someone pulls the 'grind' out as a problem, then like as not the GM will think that there is no problem, because for him there isn't.

I have experienced it, and know that it is a problem.

And we are both right.

I also think that the 'grind' is where a lot of the boardgame accusations and WoW snark come from, the combat can take long enough that it becomes more noticeable. If you avoid the 'grind' then you know that it isn't true....

The Auld Grump

 

[Pentius]

I'm a little surprised at all the responses from people whose players would never let the princess die. Makes me wonder if I've been gaming with the bottom of the barrel or something, but I have no trouble picturing most any group I've gamed with letting the princess die. Definitely not every time, but every group I've played with has those sessions where the group never quite gets into it. Maybe there are too many interruptions, or someone's having a bad day, or the adventure relies on tropes the group just isn't interested in, but for one reason or another sometimes the group doesn't get invested enough to not say, "Screw it, Dave, let the princess die."

 

[MoxieFu]

I'm a little surprised at all the responses from people whose players would never let the princess die. Makes me wonder if I've been gaming with the bottom of the barrel or something, but I have no trouble picturing most any group I've gamed with letting the princess die. Definitely not every time, but every group I've played with has those sessions where the group never quite gets into it. Maybe there are too many interruptions, or someone's having a bad day, or the adventure relies on tropes the group just isn't interested in, but for one reason or another sometimes the group doesn't get invested enough to not say, "Screw it, Dave, let the princess die."

Wow! This REALLY makes me appreciate the guys I have played with over the years!

 

[pemerton]

I'm a little surprised at all the responses from people whose players would never let the princess die.

<snip>

for one reason or another sometimes the group doesn't get invested enough to not say, "Screw it, Dave, let the princess die."

My "solution" to this problem is to make sure the "princess" is an NPC (or PC!) in whom the players are emotionally invested. Given that, though, I'm a bit surprised by the posters who seem prepared to kill the princess off-screen even if the players have made it clear that they're having their PCs do what they regard to be the best they can to save her.

The last time I ran this sort of "rescue" scenario, it was the slave-rescue from Thunderspire Labyrinth, with the slaves inside a magic circle being sacrificed to power a ritual.

In the end, one slave did die (the other was saved) - but not offscreen. Rather, the players made tactical choices in the fight that favoured their own defence against taking the risks necessary to rescue the slave. This is my preferred approach to "rescue" scenarios - make it a situation where the players have control, rather than having the events unfold behind the scenes at the dictate of the GM - but it doesn't solve the rest/nova problem. Which is why I prefer a mechanical solution to that mechanically-engendered problem.

 

[Hussar]

Y'know, thinking about this, I wonder if some of the issue stems from playing modules vs playing home made adventures? I'll freely admit that most of my 3e experience (and, really, D&D in general) has been using modules. We play a lot of modules. Yes, we intersperse them with home made stuff, but, in the groups I've either played or DM'd, I'd guess about half or maybe a bit more of the adventures were modules.

If you're using modules, there typically isn't a huge time pressure. Most modules (and yes, there are exceptions) usually give you mountains of time to resolve things. Nothing is really pushing the party forward particularly. This might be one explanation for the difference in experience.

For my own personal experience, it's almost never been the wizards that are an issue, but the clerics. When the cleric ran out of healing, you stopped or you died. We run very by the book combat, with all die rolls in the open and 3e combat is very, very lethal at any given level. We were generally killing a PC every three sessions or so and a lot of those were through straight up hp attrition.

When we introduced wands of healing, in the last campaign we played in 3.5, suddenly we were bulling through five to seven encounters per rest period as opposed to the two or three we would do previously. For me, the 15 MAD has always been an artifact of the healing system, not so much the wizards.

 

[billd91]

Y'know, thinking about this, I wonder if some of the issue stems from playing modules vs playing home made adventures? I'll freely admit that most of my 3e experience (and, really, D&D in general) has been using modules. We play a lot of modules. Yes, we intersperse them with home made stuff, but, in the groups I've either played or DM'd, I'd guess about half or maybe a bit more of the adventures were modules.

If you're using modules, there typically isn't a huge time pressure. Most modules (and yes, there are exceptions) usually give you mountains of time to resolve things. Nothing is really pushing the party forward particularly. This might be one explanation for the difference in experience.

It hasn't been a particularly significant issue in my 3.5e classic modules campaign. The mods are all classic 1e modules, except for the 2e Return to the Keep on the Borderlands. I just make it clear to the players that time marches on if they retreat and that potential encounters will react to them. On one retreat from the slaver stockade (moodule A2), they were harried by hobgoblin patrols led by some of the principle NPCs. It really vexed them for a while and they had to find alternate routes into the stockade at least twice to avoid the increased fortifications put in after their last foray. They make their plans accordingly.

I can see how the healing need can press toward retreat (and a short day if injuries come fast). But 3e's easy healing (spontaneous healing, easy healing wands, more healing spells with bonuses) works against that tendency in earlier editions by making it easier to stay in the field.

 

[Hussar]

But, Bill91, "the increased fortifications put in after their last foray" is something you added to the adventure. There's nothing in the module that says anything about that. You've used your playstyle to adjust the way the module works and adapt it.

When I played that module, they slept inside the hidden area to the west (where the basilisk was, once they killed it) so, we're only talking a single night of rest. It's not like the defenders could make much of a change in one night.

Just to be super, super anal, isn't Secret of the Slaver's Stockade A1?

Added more - It really does depend on a lot of things. Most modules, particularly classic ones, had areas inside the dungeon where you could rest pretty easily. Secret doors, areas that no one goes to, that sort of thing. So, I've never really understood why groups felt the need to retreat back to town.