Of all the complaints about 3.x systems... do you people actually allow this stuff ?

[pemerton]

Is that a good thing?

For whom? Me - yes, I think so. It's a deliberate GMing choice that I'm making, informed in part by experience, and in part by reflection on that experience in light of the passage I quoted upthread.

By assuring that characters will always get there in time, the game would completely deny them the potential for actually achieving "getting there in time".

Well, yes. But it would thereby guarantee them the possiblity of "failing in what they hoped to achieve by getting there". So it seems to be a question of which possibility of failure is going to be foregrounded in the game, and what mechanical and other techniques are going to be used to achieve that. Different groups, and particularly different GMs, are going to make different choices here.

That idea seems to suggest that if it controls then no choice ever has a long term significance (for better or for worse).

This is a non-sequitur. I already mentioned, upthread, the choice of the PCs (which is to say, the players), when confronting a gnoll demonic priest performing a ritual with two innocent prisoners ready to be sacrificed, to approach the encounter in a defensive manner. Which resulted in one prisoner dying as the ritual progressed - the PCs then changed their tactics, a couple of them pushing forward to try and rescue the second prisoner.

That is a choice with a long term consequence - namely, the PCs did not succeed in their goal of rescuing both prisoners.

And there are all sorts of other ways for choices to have long term consequences - for example, the players chose to give Kas back his sword rather than try and fight him to keep it. And also promised Kas to let him know when they found the necromancer who trapped him in a tower for 70-odd years. I'm not sure yet what the long term consequences of these choices might be, but they're likely to be signficicant!

Good planning is not rewarded because you would have arrived "just in time" anyway and bad planning has no consequence because you still get there "just in time".

This is true, although planning can factor in in other ways. But operational planning is only one of several possible dimensions of planning, and planning is only one of several possible dimensions of signficance.

In the game I run, the most important dimension of signficance is not planning, but thematic/moral choice. That the PCs favoured their own safety, over the safety of the prisoners of the gnolls, and therefore let a prisoner die. That one of the PCs executed a rescuee (who was also a devil-worshipper) in cold blood. That the same PC executed unconscious hobgoblin prisoners in cold blood. That the same PC donated most of his spare money to a priestess of Pelor, so she could take care of refugees from the hobgoblins' depredations. That the PCs (except perhaps for the Paladin) made a solemn promise to help Kas. And so on.

As far as planning is concerned, 4e is not a game that is strongly oriented towards operational planning, and I do nothing to push against this. Planning by my players tends to be mostly out of character (or in that amporphous "we talked about this around the campfire last night" zone of in-character-but-not-really) - in author stance - and involves thinking about who to ally with, who to betray, what place to go to next, what to do when they get there, and so on. As a GM, I respond to this in two main ways: (i) using it to get ideas about what situations to present; and (ii), by pushing the players in various ways - sometimes playing an NPC, sometimes just as metagame interventions by the GM, jibing them or egging them on, but always trying to keep them aware of the stakes of their decisions.

A tight simulationist treatment of ingame time and space is fairly peripheral to most of these goals as a GM. The one time in my current campaign that I can think of where it was crucial was in relation to a contract: the PCs had negotiated with some duergar slavers to redeem a number of prisoners in exchange for payment, the actual redemption to take place one month in the future. The players made sure that they kept to the date. And I made sure that I didn't set up any situations that would create external obstacle to the PCs keeping to the appointment. I wanted them to be free to honour the contract, or not, as they saw fit. As it turns out, they honoured the contract, and so did the duergar, and the players (as their PCs) are now trying to work out whether the duergar are reasonable people that they should be trying to work with, or evil slavers whom - in due course - they should be trying to crush. Or both.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It's not part of our "plan" for the campaign either that this stuff happen quickly (nor that it happen slowly). But most of it is stuff that the PCs have no reason to hesitate or delay about doing - every day's delay is potentially more lives lost to marauding armies - and the mechanics of the system don't mandate lengthy rest periods. (I should add - this is not a facet of 4e. In Rolemaster or AD&D, magical healing would take the place of extended rests, and would add no more than a day here and there to the time required for these adventures.)

Anyway, that's quite a few encounters, and the XP rules are what they are. The levelling is not too fast - 5 levels per year when playing every 2 to 3 weeks is about right (ie 3 to 4 sessions per level). And as I stated upthread, cognitive dissonance between real time and game time means that verisimilitude is threatened only when one of the players (and it is always one particular player) draws attention to how little time is passing in the gameworld.

Oh, it wasn't an insult or anything, it's just so different from what I'm used to. The last set of characters leveled three times (hit die 7½-11) in about five years in-game. My campaign is a sandbox, and so oftentimes there's a "continue doing this unless something happens, or X time has passed" mindset that is normal for my group. Plus, long range teleportation is out of the question, so trips can last two months at times (potentially longer without horses).

It's just different, that's all. I'm actually not sure which I prefer, personally, I was just noting how it was so different from my personal experiences! Thanks for sharing though, pemerton, I do find your replies interesting. As always, play what you like

With the amount of time per month I play D&D, I'd have to have to play 14 years to get 1,700 hours. I can't imagine playing a single campaign for that long. I can't imagine having the same circle of friends for that long.

I'd still like get to level 20 once and awhile though.

Well, we did used to play so much more often. Perhaps up to 40 hours a week, or peaking a little higher on really strong weeks. Also, I've had the same group of friends for the last 13 or so years, and we all started playing RPGs together. We're just used to one another, I guess! Closer than family, really.

Again, I wasn't trying to say any other way is wrong, or anything. I guess my games just have more traveling and/or downtime. PCs tend to level about once every 4-5 sessions, and we play weekly (about 9-10 hours per session). It's not that we try to go slowly, it just ends up that way, I suppose.

Good luck in your gaming, though. I do feel for you about leveling up... I myself haven't played in years, and never made it past level 5. Played over level 5, sure, but never from first level. I'm sure I'll play again, someday... As always, play what you like

 

[avin]

The other thing is the so called "Caster / Melee" rift. Where wizards and other casters are basically much better than every one else. Has anyone ever actually encountered this in their games? I

Your avatar is a caster, I'm assuming you play as caster and caster players never encounter this on games...

Yes, higher level games are broken on 3.5 (melee vs casters issue). Been there, done that.

 

[avin]

Even the best manipulator is a long way from Dominate Person.

That's right for a 1 x 1 situation. But the best manipulator could dominate hearts and souls of an entire nation.

Why would should the casters carefully consider their spells and spell use when they can gain everything back in 15 minutes?

Why should they carefully consider that if magic allows them to regain 15 minutes later? They shouldn't. Games are different in 3E, 4E or Storyteller. Players have to deal with the rules they're playing and never concern about something else.

Casters vs Melee can only really be measured during actual gameplay, not coming up with scenarios on internet forums (...) I always played a Wizard and while I could come up with some nasty combos, our DM was able to adapt the campaign to each of our strengths.

In my experience casters never complain about melee being underpowered...

As for the 15 minute day: in 3.5 DM may have to consider what would happen if casters use all their best spells before the big antagonist... in 4E their concern is not that big, even with all Daily spells used.

And, really, for sure, casters are always the ones that never see unbalance between them and fighters/barbarians...

 

[Phaezen]

I think there is enough evidence that there are people who have had issues with the imbalance between casters and non-casters at mid to high level, just as there is enough evidence that a DM or group can mitigate this problem through social pacts and game management.

Given that not all DMs are strong enough to be able to manage a table like this, or don't have enough time to customize opponents and scenarios so that all the class power levels can participate meaningfully I feel a system which balances the classes is preferable for the following reasons:

1. It puts less pressure on the DM to have complete system mastery and have to balance various competing rules elements so that everyone can participate in the majority of scenes, whether they are combat, social or other. The DM can instead spend more time on preparing plot and story.

2. Min-maxers can still ply their trade without being overwhelmingly powerful at the table.

3. There is no expectation for players to play their class suboptimaly to allow other players a chance to shine at the table. If it is cost effective for casters to create and carry wands and scrolls for utility spells, then there is no reason for casters not to do this, unless they want to allow other players a chance to do there thing. One player should not have this amount of control over the other players at the table.

4. There is no pressure on players to min-max, they can choose class elements for story and plot reasons and not have to worry about their effectiveness at the table.

5. Instead of relying on rules loopholes and weak spots to overpower encounters, it should encourage players to look for in game resources to gain advantages - leaning on allies, using terrain and such.

At the end of the day, a balanced system should cater for all play styles without letting one player dominate because of his class or causing another player to unintentionally hamstring himself due to the character concept he would like to play.

 

[Plane Sailing]

This seems an entirely legacy discussion, not 5e, so I've moved it.

 

[pemerton]

My campaign is a sandbox, and so oftentimes there's a "continue doing this unless something happens, or X time has passed" mindset that is normal for my group. Plus, long range teleportation is out of the question, so trips can last two months at times (potentially longer without horses).

My current campaign has all happened on a single 3 miles per hex map on the inside of a B/X Module (Night's Dark Terror), so probably a region 100 miles on a side or thereabouts, so no long trips.

And there's not been any "continue doing this" - it's been pursuing goblins, hobgoblins, gnolls etc the whole time.

 

[pemerton]

Given that not all DMs are strong enough to be able to manage a table like this, or don't have enough time to customize opponents and scenarios so that all the class power levels can participate meaningfully

Or want to do this, even if they did have the time and ability!

 

[Ragmon]

Everyone plays for there own reasons that makes "us" 3 dimensional characters.
Some like the crunch, some like the fluff...some like to hide the fact that they are min-maxing with fluff.
Some players like sticking to the rules and seek answers there and some people like to improvise and only use the rules as a guide.

We are all different.

Its all about YOU adapting and going with the flow while still having fun.

 

[BryonD]

For whom? Me - yes, I think so. It's a deliberate GMing choice that I'm making, informed in part by experience, and in part by reflection on that experience in light of the passage I quoted upthread.

OK. Do you think you are a good representative of what supports wide fan support? And I don't mean that snarky. My own ideal perfect to me game would suck on the marketplace. But I also think I have some sound thoughts on what does and does not make for larger appeal.

This is a non-sequitur. I already mentioned, upthread, the choice of the PCs (which is to say, the players), when confronting a gnoll demonic priest performing a ritual with two innocent prisoners ready to be sacrificed, to approach the encounter in a defensive manner. Which resulted in one prisoner dying as the ritual progressed - the PCs then changed their tactics, a couple of them pushing forward to try and rescue the second prisoner.

That is a choice with a long term consequence - namely, the PCs did not succeed in their goal of rescuing both prisoners.

No, it is not a non-sequitor. I will agree that you can trump that rule on a selected case by case basis. But if you followed the rule as you described it and you wanted them to get there "just in time" to save that prisoner then the de facto reality would be that they would. That is nothing more than simply restating the premise you provided.

You electing to ignore your premise in select, trivial circumstances does not provide a defense for the premise itself.

This is true, although planning can factor in in other ways. But operational planning is only one of several possible dimensions of planning, and planning is only one of several possible dimensions of signficance.

Of course, and if I has suggested leaving an alternate factor out then you would have a point here. But we are not choosing between factors. I'm advocating keeping all important factors in play.

You are telling me your apple pie doesn't need apples because there are a lot of ingredients and apples are just one of them.