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

[IronWolf]

But in 3E even low level casters can easily make wands and scrolls. Wands will tend to ensure they don't run out of spells. And scrolls will tend to ensure that they have ready access to a much wider range of spells than those memorised.

Does either of you use any particular techniques to control the proliferation of wands and scrolls in your games?

I do not limit the creation of scrolls, wands or potions in games I run beyond time requirements to make said items. i.e. the world moves on even when they take downtime to churn out wands and scrolls.

 

[Umbran]

I rest my case: Hussar hears what he wants to hear. He ignores everything else. Anyone who thinks they can actually have a discussion with him on this topic is deluding themselves.

Folks, this ad hominem stuff really isn't acceptable. Don't go there.

BotE will not be a part of this conversation going forward.

 

[pemerton]

In my experience combat causes three things to occur that inhibit roleplaying (not attacking 4e here, this is from my 2e and 3e experience mainly):
a.) Focus on powers/abilities/numbers like hp, etc...Focus on the rules.
b.) Turn based play.
c.) Lack of meaningful character decisions.

<snip>

c.) Lack of meaningful character decisions. Of course the decisions you make in combat affect life and death. That's not what I'm referring to here. I'm referring to character decisions. Give two players the exact same character sheet, but with totally different backstories and personalities. In combat, assuming they have similar strategies, you won't really notice a difference. Out of combat, you will see them make a number of very different decisions on how to approach NPCs, problems, what to do, where to go, etc.

Interesting. My view tends to be that - if the PCs are different, then this should be reflected in the character sheet. In practice, some games get closer to this than others - eg I think HeroWars/Quest, or Rolemaster, get closer to my ideal than do 4e or Runequest. But 4e still goes some way towards it, I think - the selection of powers and feats says something about the PC.

And an important consideration for me, both in designing encounters and in playing my part in resolving them, is to try to create scope for meaninful decisions - by deploying my NPCs/monsters in certain ways, and therefore opening up the space for the players to respond. I personally find 4e works well at this (eg because of the way it tends to pace combat encounters), but I'm sure with a bit of work it could be done in 3E also.

PC build and action resolution come together here - a well-designed encounter should create the scope, in actionr resolution, for those differences on the character sheet to emerge. Again, I find that 4e supports this, but other games do also (eg Rolemaster, and I imagine 3E at least if played in a certain way).

Conversely, "filler" encounters are the enemy of roleplaying, in my view. I'mnot interested in them. (And also, therefore, not interested in random encounters as a "solution" to the 15 minute adventuring day problem.)

The thing I probably like least in gaming is when there is a "combat mode" and a "noncombat mode".

<snip>

I also want the line dividing combat and non combat to be erased.

I know of some "lite", scene-based RPGs that erase this line - HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, and at least to an extent The Dying Earth. I'm not sure if there are "crunchy" examples.

 

[Wicht]

Does either of you use any particular techniques to control the proliferation of wands and scrolls in your games?

I don't purposefully do anything to control it. Yet there are two factors that help keep it in check: time and money.

There is seldom enough money to make all the magical items that everyone wants and our wizards seem to have a propensity for enchanting swords. I guess I tend to be a bit sparing on treasure. I don't point out where all the treasure is, they have to find it and sometimes, if they are in a hurry, they do not loot every body and they miss things. This keeps them just at or under the expected wealth per level. Wealth is also often found in items, not coin, and as often as not, if a particular item seems useful, they won't sell it. (A fancy chair owned by the evil duke worth 3000 gp will as likely as not end up in a PCs living room.)

I also control the ability to easily buy and sell items to some degree, especially buying magical items: there is always a waiting period for high end magical items (generally made up on the spot). "You want xyz? Sure the merchant thinks he can find one, he'll let you know in a week." "The merchant found an xyz, and if you pay him now, he can have it for you in 3 weeks." This plays into the time part of the game again, forcing the players to allocate time as well as resources.

Additonally, in relation to time, crafting items takes time and so long as the story is moving along well, often there is not the time necessary (or taking the time is percieved to have negative connotations). In between episodes, sure there is more crafting, but again, the amount of resources available (and the penchant for saving up for really big purchases) helps limit what is made.

As well, when it comes to fashioning wands, a lot of times the casters, in actual game play reason as follows, "Why spend the money on a wand of find traps, when Kyle is so good at finding them on his own. I should spend the little money I have on something else instead of wasting it on something we don't actually need."

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Did you or did you not say that BMX Bandit / Angel Summoner was a "not BS" example of what consistently happened to you?

Yes. Critical portion bolded above.

What shades of "acceptable" apply to that?

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.

True, but to declare there is a built in disparity problem (as some do claim), because there is no rule to prevent one from going Nova then resting does not mean that that is the implied way to play - thus disparity is built in. If you run your games to allow for nova to happen, it's a problem at the DM level, not the system.

A well-designed game will accomodate many styles of play. I can't really speak directly to the nova problem as I never encountered it, but I can sympathize with those who did encounter it. I believe I avoided this issue because my friends bought into the same style of play as I do and because I specifically addressed the issue when people started posting threads about the issue in the mid-life of 3.x. My players and I agreed that we did not want that to occur in our game. Not every group has that kind of open understanding.

To the exact same degree that 3E fans are cancer-ridden addicts.

(I'm not sure you've quite grasped how analogies work. If I say, "Your eyes are blue like an iceberg." I'm not saying that they are literally navigation hazards to large ships.)

"I wasn't literally calling your style narrow." Yeah, uh huh.

I didn't say anything about you. And I didn't say anything about power imbalance. Please don't lie about what I said. It's not very polite.

When one throws out generalities it is bad form to then claim "I wasn't talking about you."

This assumes that scenario design isn't a significant part of the D&D game or the balance of the system. That should be self-evidently nonsense.

(Try playing D&D without any kind of scenario. You can't. It's a necessary part of the game.)

I think many site-based sandboxers might disagree.

I do wonder if magic item creation was something done in oD&D and many AD&D campaigns. Not perhaps major items, but scrolls, potions and the occasional wand?

It was so rare in my campaigns that I might as well say it never happened.

Yes, I would kill her off screen. Sandbox or no sandbox.

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

It really depended on the adventure. First of all, not every mage that played in my game took item creation feats. Clerics almost never did. Even when they do, there is treasure as a limiting factor. Mages needed the funds to scribe spells in spellbooks, create items, buy items, it was a drag on their finances. Where the fighter could save up for his +4 sword, the mages funds could be taxed if he did nothing but create wands.

I found that there really wasn't anything the wizard needed to buy. And usually when item creation occurred in my campaigns it was the party chipping in on buffing spells and healing. I don't think it was abused in my campaigns, but I could see how it could become an issue if it were abused.

Some of your arguments is that if this happens constantly, then the situation becomes contrived. Of course that is true. However, once the wizard learns not to Nova, then you don't have to constantly put time pressures, etc into the game, the wizard doesn't Nova anymore, so no problem anymore.

Once the wizard learns that it is to the benefit of the party to pace his spellcasting to most appropriate incidents as they come to play, and save some of his combat and utility magic to pace with combat and with the varying encounters - the Nova problem no longer exists, disparity lessens; problem solved.

You game with Pavlov's Dog? Cool.

I don't think you'd be able to "train" someone who wanted to abuse nova/rest/repeat if they were determined to do so. Especially if the entire group is determined to do so.

Periodically change the pace and introduce new pressure threats as it best fits the storyline, but don't make it a constant thing - variety makes things interesting.

Agreed.

Sure - if you want this sort of play experience.

Another option, obviously, is to change the way wizard PCs resources work, so that nova/rest is no longer a mechanical option.

I don't see any reason to think that either approach is inherently more suitable for a fantasy RPG, or that either approach is inherently "narrow" or "simplistic" compared to the other.

QFT

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I also control the ability to easily buy and sell items to some degree, especially buying magical items: there is always a waiting period for high end magical items (generally made up on the spot). "You want xyz? Sure the merchant thinks he can find one, he'll let you know in a week." "The merchant found an xyz, and if you pay him now, he can have it for you in 3 weeks." This plays into the time part of the game again, forcing the players to allocate time as well as resources.

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 purhase 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?

 

[Wicht]

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

I would either find new players who weren't sociopaths or I would try to determine what I had done to fail to create the necessary sympathy with the presented world.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I would either find new players who weren't sociopaths or I would try to determine what I had done to fail to create the necessary sympathy with the presented world.

Good solution and one I would probably echo if a talk with my players still left me at the same point. But this might not be a good solution for all. That's why I can sympathize with others that might suffer this issue. What if your desire to play outweighs the inability to find new players? I have great players, I'm thankful for that. I live in an area that should have a good number of gamers, but recent searches for a new player proved difficult. I can't imagine if I lived in a more rural area.

 

[Wicht]

Good solution and one I would probably echo if a talk with my players still left me at the same point. But this might not be a good solution for all. That's why I can sympathize with others that might suffer this issue. What if your desire to play outweighs the inability to find new players? I have great players, I'm thankful for that. I live in an area that should have a good number of gamers, but recent searches for a new player proved difficult. I can't imagine if I lived in a more rural area.

I play to have fun. Playing with people like that would not be fun for me. Personally, dropping the group would be preferable to me than pressing forward anyway, even if they were the only players around.

 

[gamerprinter]

You game with Pavlov's Dog? Cool.

I don't think you'd be able to "train" someone who wanted to abuse nova/rest/repeat if they were determined to do so. Especially if the entire group is determined to do so.

Actually I never specifically trained anyone, this style described in my game has been part of the social contract of our group for the last 20 years of play. This is the style we all play by. We've had two newcomers to our group over the last four years or so - but they came to the game without any preconceptions. They just watched how we played and adapted. So nobody was ever trained in the "Don't Nova, its Wrong" concept - for us that's the way you're supposed to play.

I was just responding to the concerns or interjections of what if Nova/Rest is the way we currently play now, and we consider the disparity problem to be built in. For those thinking this way, my posts here were if you wanted to fix that perceived way of playing, then the various techniques like time pressure, etc. could be applied to lessen that playstyle and remove the disparity problem.

Again, I've never seen the disparity problem in our games, but could certainly see some playstyles leading to the problem. I was just trying to imagine, what I would do as a GM had such a player come to my table and I wanted to bring him into the groups primary play style.

I'm not saying the other playstyle is wrong, its just as some pointed out a leading element to creating a caster disparity in the game if you do play that. If the disparity is no problem don't worry about it. However if disparity is a problem then perhaps changing your style might remove it...

GP