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

[billd91]

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?

Well, duh. Of course I added it. Do you really think encounters are supposed to be static regardless of what goes on in a module as it plays out? I can't think of a single time in which that is some kind of mandated behavior, even with published mods. Creatures REACT to things that stimulate them, alarms get raised, smart leaders lead in smart ways, dumb ones in dumb ways...
I'm a little giddy thinking of the welcome reception the fire giants and "handlers" have prepared for the PCs when they try their standard tactics in the Hall of the Fire Giant King!

And A1 is Slave Pits of the Under City.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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

I can only base it off of the "terrible player/DM" threads and people I've spoken to at conventions. I tend to take people at their word unles they are being obviously facetious, so it's possible they aren't being completely truthful, exaggerating, or constitute a majority of players.

And we are both right.

I can agree with that.

 

[Hussar]

Well, duh. Of course I added it. Do you really think encounters are supposed to be static regardless of what goes on in a module as it plays out? I can't think of a single time in which that is some kind of mandated behavior, even with published mods. Creatures REACT to things that stimulate them, alarms get raised, smart leaders lead in smart ways, dumb ones in dumb ways...
I'm a little giddy thinking of the welcome reception the fire giants and "handlers" have prepared for the PCs when they try their standard tactics in the Hall of the Fire Giant King!

And A1 is Slave Pits of the Under City.

Ahh, right, I always get those two confused.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I can only base it off of the "terrible player/DM" threads and people I've spoken to at conventions. I tend to take people at their word unles they are being obviously facetious, so it's possible they aren't being completely truthful, exaggerating, or constitute a majority of players. .

More that exceptional events get noted, while mundane events pass unremarked.

If 1,000 people play 3e with no problem, but the only one who makes comment is the one who has players addicted to the 15MAD, it will be the one remembered.

If one GM is running 4e, and has two hours of excruciatingly dull combat, while 1,000 breeze through the combat in 15 minutes, it will be the exception that will be remarked, and therefor remembered.

There is a term for this - availability heuristic, a form of cognitive bias. If a particular occurrence is what comes to mind then there is a tendency to consider it common. So, if folks had seen Jaws they might think that shark attacks are fairly common. Ditto for plane crashes - it makes it into the news more frequently than a car crash, gaining national coverage, but is actually a whole lot less common than a Chevy being flattened by a semi.

No lying or exaggeration is needed, it is simply that the exceptions are more likely to be remarked upon.

Truth by TheAuldGrump, on Flickr

The Auld Grump, you are more likely to be killed by a bit of scrap falling from an airplane than being eaten by a shark....

 

[Votan]

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.)

Maybe I am just unlucky, but I see both issues in games that I participate in. In 3.5 D&D/Pathfinder, there is a clear threshold where the party calls it a day. Spells dictate part of it, but so does healing. Time pressures can't do anything if the party honestly thinks (and often with good reason in Paizo adventures) that the next encounter is a hopeless TPK.

On the other hand, the grind of 4E can be murder. I have often figured out the result of a battle an hour before the end of the encounter. The last hour is determining the precise number of healing surges that the battle will cost: is it n or n+1 surges.

It hasn't stopped me from having fun playing these games. But it does suggest that all attempts to model reality have limitations. For example, Axis and Allies plays very differently than the SSI computer game War in the Pacific -- yet both are simulating the second world war. Both are going to have quirks and both will show odd features in edge cases.

However, I think it is reasonable to consider ideas for improving features that may not be optimal. For example, I have been wondering for a while if 4E would play better if one divided hit points by two? Or if combat healing no longer restored players who drop (otherwise it feels like weebles wooble but they never fall down).

But in 3.5, I had enormous problems with the 15 minute adventure day (before I even knew the term). But we also had some of the most exciting and tense battles ever. Ones that people talked about for days later, or would show up as Facebook posts because they were cool.

So I tend to think that all sides are right, here. Issues exist with how different games simulate a fantasy world. You can have fun with a lot of different approaches. On average, these games have many more good points than bad.

 

[Piratecat]

Bryon, Vyvyan, time to stop bickering at one another, please. You don't agree; that's okay. Getting snippy isn't exactly going to change that. "Aha, I have changed his mind through the power of my sarcasm!"

Thanks to everyone who has stayed on topic.

 

[billd91]

However, I think it is reasonable to consider ideas for improving features that may not be optimal. For example, I have been wondering for a while if 4E would play better if one divided hit points by two? Or if combat healing no longer restored players who drop (otherwise it feels like weebles wooble but they never fall down).

But in 3.5, I had enormous problems with the 15 minute adventure day (before I even knew the term). But we also had some of the most exciting and tense battles ever. Ones that people talked about for days later, or would show up as Facebook posts because they were cool.

So I tend to think that all sides are right, here. Issues exist with how different games simulate a fantasy world. You can have fun with a lot of different approaches. On average, these games have many more good points than bad.

There is, most definitely, a trade-off here. And whichever the right one is depends, ultimately, on WotC's goals and how well the choice made supports those goals.
From the standpoint of us fans, it's a question more of art than anything else... and I appreciate some forms of art more than others.

 

[Wicht]

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.

I haven't done a homebrew in quite a while, apart from playtesting my own modules/material, and have primarily been running Paizo adventures, so I don't think thats the issue. I approach the modules in the same way I would approach my own homebrew adventures.

 

[BryonD]

nevrmind

 

[Lanefan]

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."

I too am susprised; throwing a curveball like this at the DM's plot is fair game 'round these parts.

Of course there'd be consequences stemming from the princess' death but the party might well ignore those too.

Lanefan