Confirmed: Magic items and summoned monster stats in PHB

[Hella_Tellah]

I'm used to the DM defining what I see as setting-specific things. What creatures exist, what spells exist, what magic items, and so on. Not "interventionist" in terms of plot or mechanics so much, but in defining the setting, yes.

Yeah, that's cool, and I've tried both ways of DMing. I find I like giving the players agency in defining the setting as well, although I paint most of it with broad strokes. They have an idea of where things are, what sorts of races are native to those lands, and get the general "feel" of the place, but they're free to declare that there's a village outside Tsushima City where an old witch sells magical potions (provided their Knowledge: Local check was high enough).

 

[Wormwood]

So, I've not had the luxury of always DMing in 'high trust environments' with long established friends and shared expectations. If you have, then alot of what I say probably sounds like nonsense to you.

I would never use the word "nonsense", but I believe I understand why your experiences seem so different than mine.

My core group has been playing for fifteen years---in some cases going on 20---and our tastes and expectations have evolved* together comfortably.

In all honesty, I had not taken that into account.

edit: Exposure to dozens of RPG systems and a willingness to explore diffferent play styles will do that to a group.

 

[Celebrim]

PC: "You...you just made that up to foil our plan."
DM: "Yeah. I did. You can't beat this game. May I suggest you try to enjoy just playing it."

Because unless he's a total tool...

Clearly we have different definitions of the word 'tool'.

 

[JohnSnow]

If my players show cleverness, ingenuity, and creativity, I'm not going to punish them for leaping off the Plot Train and running into the green hills beyond. I'll just make sure there's something cool waiting for them to find in the hills.

I'm not going to punish them either. But the game is Dungeons & Dragons, not Merchants and Moneymaking.

As I said, there's going to be an "in-game" reason why nobody's done that before. But I'm not going to try to make it up on the spot. I'll just say "Interesting question. I'm sure there's a reason if you really want to dig into it, but for now you have other concerns."

If the players want to revisit it later, I'll come up with an adventure worthy of heroes to make their scheme work, like the aforementioned "within the desert, there's no access to the elemental plane of water" or "the magical devastation destroyed the crops and water not just in this reality, but in the adjoining planes as well."

Then if the PCs want to journey to the elemental chaos to repair the damage, that's an adventure worthy of heroes.

Whereas whipping up 50 decanters of endless water to become water merchants...isn't.

 

[Celebrim]

Caliban: I don't know why you think Ken needs you to defend him. My impression of Ken's experience is based on his statements. Specifically, he said:

"Seriously, no player in one of my games would even consider trying to game the system in such a way."

And that's fine. Good for him. But that is an admission that his experience is more limited in some ways than mine, because he's saying, "I've never had to deal with these sorts of situations."

 

[Dragonblade]

Heck, WotC even intends to sell randomized virtiual minis on the DI!

I thought this particular rumor had been debunked by someone from WotC?

 

[Celebrim]

As I said, there's going to be an "in-game" reason why nobody's done that before. But I'm not going to try to make it up on the spot. I'll just say "Interesting question. I'm sure there's a reason if you really want to dig into it, but for now you have other concerns."

I try really hard not to tell my players what thier concerns ought to be.

 

[Voss]

If that's what you want to do with the system more power to you. The impression I have of 4e, as presented, is that the combat mechanics will be easier, allowing for smoother game play, and will therefore encourage more role-play. The stated goal is to make combat take longer in rounds (i.e. game time), but less time in real time. No where has there been anything that can properly be construed as the new ediiton being 90% combat.

Its not what I want to do. But there is a reason to construe it as being 90+% combat: the total and complete lack of previews on *anything* that isn't associated with combat. There is, in theory, a social system floating around somewhere, but at this point, I'm not convinced it isn't vaporware.
Heck, even traps are part of combat encounters now.

Many posters choose to take game mechanics they have decided that they will not like, contrue them in the cheesiest manner (the most antithetical to role-playing) possible, and then to argue against their strawman interpretation as if that were the way it was described by the designers. This type of argument is misleading at best, downright deceptive and malicious at worst.

I'm not going to speculate on the motives of other posters. For myself, I'm legitimately concerned about the possibility that 4e is going to be crap, or at least D&D Lite. Or, at best, Advanced DDM. At which point, its back to the BXCMI.

 

[Caliban]

Caliban: I don't know why you think Ken needs you to defend him. My impression of Ken's experience is based on his statements. Specifically, he said:

"Seriously, no player in one of my games would even consider trying to game the system in such a way."

And that's fine. Good for him. But that is an admission that his experience is more limited in some ways than mine, because he's saying, "I've never had to deal with these sorts of situations."

*shrug* I don't think Ken needs me to do anything.

But don't expect to get much traction with your "you don't have the experience to understand what I'm talking about" line. It's not true, and it really makes you sound a bit arrogant and condescending.

And yes, I know some people have that opinion of me, so I probably know what I'm talking about.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

As I said, there's going to be an "in-game" reason why nobody's done that before. But I'm not going to try to make it up on the spot. I'll just say "Interesting question. I'm sure there's a reason if you really want to dig into it, but for now you have other concerns."

I try really hard not to tell my players what thier concerns ought to be.

The point of his statement, as I understand it, is not "you have other concerns," but "there's going to be an 'in-game' reason." I think John and I DM in somewhat similar ways, and were I DMing the hypothetical Decanters in the Desert game, I'd probably do the same. Tell the players that there is a reason if they want to look for it, and if they decide to do so, there will be a fun adventure and a rational explanation. As a DM, I can keep my players from breaking the game down or moving into territory I find boring without breaking the verisimilitude of the setting. I can continue to say "yes" to the possibility of creating Endless Decanters, even while I'm saying "no" to the creation of Endless Decanters right this second. I find that kind of storytelling agility a necessary, challenging, and rewarding aspect of GMing D&D.