[FULL] OOC: Dichotomy's Age of Worms Redux [FULL]

[TiCaudata]

This is the EXACT same discussion as before. As I see it, the question is whether or not advancing from level 1 to level 20 in less than a year is feasible or not.

I say it isn't reasonable and that in this situation in particular it should be easy to build in downtime. There is no apparent reason why we couldn't just build in "we take a week for Kushnak to craft the item and then follow Allustan" or after we get done doing whatever Allustan wants we say "we spend a week in X location while Kushnak crafts an item and Bazrim studies a book and everyone else practices fighting." It doesn't have to take any extra posting time and it gets the same result without making a house rule to a major part of the game engine.

If we changed the rule and then were in a time crunch situation where someone wanted to suddenly craft a +2 sword while we were in a dungeon there are probably 15 ways that the DM could get around that without thinking too hard and the sword wouldn't get crafted anyway. So I don't see the benefit of changing this rule either I guess.

 

[michael_noah]

The reason is, with the rule as it is now, there is a strong possibility that you will just never get to use your feat. A rule that requires the DM to fake a thing in a story in order for you to even use an ability is a bad rule.

 

[TiCaudata]

A story that forces a DM to move at a breakneck pace is a bad story. Especially if it is just to keep the players' attention.

I think we are getting down to the crux of our different viewpoints here again...

 

[Dichotomy]

So, I'm going to try to look at this issue differently than I did last time (since it IS the same issue).

A rule that requires the DM to fake a thing in a story in order for you to even use an ability is a bad rule.

Novel idea.

Some guy: "Hey! There's this dungeon/tower/swamp/thing over there!"

Some other guy that wants to craft: "Cool! But we just got done clearing out that other thing. I'm gonna make some potions/wands/armor/things before we head out."

First guy: "Sweet! I'll hang out in the bar/rob a house/practice my tai chi/learn some new spells/buy some equipment/do some random role-playing thing in the meantime."

Don't really see much DM faking a thing there.

Point being, your characters, as people with certain skills, no how to use them. Kushnak knows that if he wants to craft something, he'll need to take the time to do it. It's obviously not always feasible, but is it feasible often enough for him to just say "Hey, I want to make something. Let's take some downtime."?

 

[michael_noah]

My point is that it is necessary for the DM to provide a story specifically structured such that there is not a significant reason to do stuff. He has to decide that if the party does not loot a dungeon, no one else will. He has to decide that the bad guys don't hire more bodyguards. He has to decide that the kidnappers don't get scared and kill the victim.

Yes, it is possible for the DM to do this. It's also possible for the DM not to do this, or for the story simply not to allow it. This possibility means that the feat might have no use at all.

To say, "Well, just have the DM build in the stuff, then," or, "Well, just make all the players agree that they'll allow the crafter to take downtime," is the same as saying, "there are no bad mechanics in DnD because you can always house rule them."

A story that forces a DM to move at a breakneck pace is a bad story.

That's just BS.

Edit: Ok. It's not. Here is the only reason though - The DM isn't the one forced to move at a specific pace. The players can easily be in situations that force them to move quickly if they want the characters to succeed, though. The DM can just have them fail.

 

[Dichotomy]

My point is that it is necessary for the DM to provide a story specifically structured such that there is not a significant reason to do stuff.

Why? Can't the DM do the opposite? Can't the DM decide that, in fact, someone else DOES loot the dungeon? Or that the bad guys DO hire more bodyguards? Or the kidnappers DO get scared and kill the victim? Can the DM use situations (like time pressure and competing goals) to make the characters have to face tough choices that will lead to consequences for their actions, give them more interest as moral decisions-makers, provide more IC interaction between them?

Sounds like drama to me.

The DM doesn't necessarily need to build stuff in, though he sometimes probably should. And while there should certainly be some understanding between the players, to some extent isn't it about the characters, too?

The players can easily be in situations that force them to move quickly if they want the characters to succeed, though.

I think you are presenting a dichotomy that isn't necessarily there. You can be forced into situations where you must move quickly if X, Y, or Z. To label it as "success" or "failure", though, is misleading.

Sure, there are consequences, but isn't that part of the point?

 

[o3caudata]

I certainly agree with Di's last post. That when the situation fits, you can take the time.

But.... it's stupid for a dm to be put in a position where his players make him decide between simply pausing a storyline that's already in motion or modifying it on the fly to fit his players random decisions to stop for 2 weeks to craft something....

It's a mess, just like the spell thing, but probably more so because it takes longer. If this is going to turn into that same argument again, this is my "solution":

The game makes the option available to characters who have the time. A DM could inform his PC's whether he expects there will sufficient downtime to craft items in the campaign. If not, PC's shouldn't take the feats. Just because you want to be able to make something, doesn't necessarily mean you'll have the means to. The story should take precedent over the desire of the players to save some coin.

To be honest, MOST games we play are more like a season of 24 than say a season of star trek. Time is important. If it isn't in a particular game, i say leave it up to the DM to mandate that his players use the downtime created by those activities to flesh out characters. Make up small inconsequential subplots which can entertain or otherwise occupy the time of the players who aren't crafting.

 

[michael_noah]

You're exactly right, Di. However, the situation with crafting is of a divergent nature. Say you have Power Attack, you need to decide, based on the situation the DM presents, whether it should be used in any given situation.

Same goes for the tumble skill, or a specific spell.

In order for any of those to not ever be useful, though, your DM would have to specifically try to hose you. In order for crafting to never be useful, you need to go through a game like the one we have to this point so far (and for who knows how long), under the current rules.

 

[TiCaudata]

This is totally a circular argument. The only reason that crafting is never useful is because the players have never attempted to take the time to make it useful because they see it as unuseful. Di isn't going to say "Well you guys suddenly have 3 weeks to burn, how do you want to spend the time?" Crafting and profession at least have to be character/player driven rather than story/situational driven like many of the other feats.

Maybe it's time to try to make it useful by using the rule instead of changing it. We're level 4-5 of 20, no reason we can't change the in game pace a little without seriously compromising our real world pace. Well, outside of spending time arguing about any changes.

 

[michael_noah]

Ok, so, I thought we all agreed on this before, and didn't think it would be an issue this time.

I seriously think that with the rules as they are, no person choosing feats which they would like to have benefit them would ever choose crafting feats. If you'd all like to keep them the same, is it ok if I change my feat? I've obviously not used it at all...