Confirmed: Magic items and summoned monster stats in PHB

[Badkarmaboy]

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

Yes, Didier Monin (D&DI Guy) said that's not going to happen.

 

[Dragonblade]

See, I don't see it as trying to "win" or "beat the system". I see it as trying to imagine that the world is real, and acting accordingly. It's the precise OPPOSITE of a video game, where the 'world' extends only as far as the edge of the screen and your actions are limited to what the programmer imagined.

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 agree with this sentiment. If the players want to bring water to the desert through the creation of decanters, I would let them. Though I would come up with some cool reason for why it had never been done before. Perhaps the Sultan had offended a Marid lord centuries ago and there was an ancient curse blocking access to the elemental plane of water or something. I would turn their desire for profit into a big quest that was both memorable and fun.

And if the players become rich potentates, well so what. That's what high level D&D is all about.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I can definately see how you'd think that. In a nut shell, the missing peice of the puzzle you aren't seeing is 'player expectations'. If you've been fortunate enough to have a single stable base of players for a long time, its probably not an issue for you.

I on the other hand have moved around alot so I pretty much have to find new players any time I want to start a campaign, because generally what ends a campaign is me moving away. 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 am lucky enough to have a stable group, but I know there are some players in there that would probably abuse any loophole he finds, provided it's not too difficult to find and not too stupid, either. But I still don't care much about what classes and abilities the players use. I tell them which supplements are okay, and if I use any house rules (like saying which classes are in or which races work differently), and otherwise I only react when something prove game-disrupting.
What is really helping me here is the fact that the 3.x rule system is pretty strong in the balance department. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better then most games. The trust I can't put in my players I can put on the rules. And the remainder is only the trust in my own ability to handle things gone awry (which is probably the least of all )

And that's the same what I hope for 4E. I don't have to worry about magical items in the PHB, because the rules are well-designed and will avoid gamebreaking elements for the most part.

One thing I've noticed the longer that 3E is out is that the younger players increasingly feel entitled to certain things.

I think the reason for this is because a lot of fun of playing 3E also comes from using and combining the mechanical elements. It isn't always about the best character build, it's about interesting build. You can design an entire character around a single weapon, or a type of spells, or define him about some oddball race. That is one of the strength of the 3E systems (from a "game" perspective), in my opinion, but it can still lead to trouble - if certain "builds" don't make sense in your campaign world, you have to tell "no" to a player.
And that's essentially saying a player he can't play the character he wants to play. Transposing this to non-mechanical game elements, it's saying a player "No, you can't play a mercenary with a shady past in my campaign".
You would probably rarely say that, but you might feel inclined to say "No Samurai/Ronin characters in my campaign!". But for the (3E) player, it feels the same. He has a character concept (maybe involving the characters story or personality, maybe involving its reflection in game statistics), and the DM says "no" to it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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."

So, I guess that if the PCs are quick enough, your scenario of

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."​

won't take place? So your players know to make sure that they make those decanters elsewhere, without telling you what they are for, and then teleport to the desert city later, because you aren't going to make up something to foil them on the spot?

Sorry, but while I have no difficulty with the idea of the DM not having his/her world fully defined beforehand, this sounds like you are taking an adversarial role that punishes the players for thinking outside the box (or off the railroad).

RC

 

[Voss]

What is really helping me here is the fact that the 3.x rule system is pretty strong in the balance department. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better then most games. The trust I can't put in my players I can put on the rules. And the remainder is only the trust in my own ability to handle things gone awry (which is probably the least of all )

I have never seen anyone assert this idea before. The 3e rule set seems to explode if you look at it funny, and it gets worse with every book. Several classes fall off of either end of the balance spectrum just with the PH.

 

[JohnSnow]

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.

Exactly. Thank you for putting it better than I could.

I suppose the players have the right to ignore the quest that I've placed in front of them. But this whole "players should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want" reminds me of a Knights of the Dinner Table strip. Which is exactly the vibe I get from the hypothetical "Decanters in the Desert" scenario. The PCs are trying to "show off" and "outplay" the DM.

As a player, I don't feel the need to show off my superiority in a D&D game by poking holes in the DM's plot. Frankly, I find that sort of behavior kind of pathetic. Being inquisitive about that sort of thing is fine (because it speaks to the verisimilitude of the setting), but assuming you can "outmaneuver the DM" is just sad.

As a DM, I won't be pressured into making up a reason on the spot. If I honestly didn't think of it beforehand, I'm not going to say "ooo...good one guys...you caught me" and let my players go off and create a new adventure. I'm instead going to say "Hmmm...good question, and one your characters unfortunately don't know the answer too. I suppose you could try to find out, but that might mean missing out on this lucrative job guarding the caravans."

At that point, it's the players' call. Most players (at least the ones I've gamed with) will take the hint and not go "free-wheeling" to force the DM to make it up as he goes. In between sessions, I'll come up with a good answer to their question about why nobody's already doing that, and (possibly) a good adventure (if there is one) for finding out what that answer is. And there's definitely another good adventure to be had for undoing the situation, if they so desire.

But allowing the PCs to engage in mass-production of Decanters to "solve" the problem just because I, as DM, didn't think of it beforehand? To me, that's rather lame. With players like that, I'd quickly stop DMing rather than subject myself to that sort of gaming experience.

The point is that gaming is supposed to be "fun" for everyone involved. Ask yourself this: is that kind of nitpicking "fun" for the DM? And is it "fun" for everyone else who just wanted to guard a caravan and kill some sand monsters?

Sure, the showoff player is having "fun." But is it at everyone else's expense?

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

It's come up more than once, and I don't believe that there's been a clear "This isn't going to happen" (although point me to it if you know of it). Everything I've read has been rather hedging, trying to imply that there would be no random virtual minis while not saying no. Rather like what WotC did about 4e itself, when they strongly implied that 4e was a long way off while planning the announcement.

At the very least, it is clear that they still intend on selling virtual minis; all that is unclear is whether or not they will be random. Having them be random was certainly something that WotC admitted to considering. And WotC also said that 4e would be published under the OGL, and that there would be no tiered licensing, although the "$5000 to get in early" is clearly a tiered license, and 4e will not be OGL.

And, while I managed to get a WotC rep to say that she didn't think there was going to be a problem with 4e materials appearing on EN World's forums immediately, she didn't say that there wouldn't be a problem in the long run, or even that there wouldn't be a problem in the short run. Lots of implying things, very few solid statements to back up what is being implied. Several of those solid statements (such as 4e being OGL and no tiered licensing) patently wrong.

Myself, I'd not be too sure that random virtual minis aren't in the WotC's business plan. They might wait to announce them until after the DI has a solid footing, however.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, Didier Monin (D&DI Guy) said that's not going to happen.

Link?

 

[Raven Crowking]

And if the players become rich potentates, well so what. That's what high level D&D is all about.

Excellent DMing attitude there!

Rather than worrying about the players trying to "show off" and beat the DM, it is important to remember that the players are trying to beat the obstacles the world puts in their path. After all, that is generally what defines success in both our real world and in the game.

RC

 

[JohnSnow]

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

Oh. Ow. The pain. I do believe I have been surreptitiously insulted.

So if I don't want to DM for the Knights of the Dinner Table, I'm a tool?

If that's your definition, then yeah. Guilty as charged.