D&D 5E So 5th edition is coming soon

[TwoSix]

You keep talking about narrative. This really has nothing to do with narrative.

Do you never have a dungeon with 12 or more encounter rooms in it?

No, because that would mean I'd have to prep 12 encounters ahead of time. Or improv it, which I can do, but I'd rather not. 4e encounters are usually more fun when you have a few minutes to plan them.

I have the strong feeling from your examples that you run sandbox games, where the story line is directed foremost by the player's actions. I know that many people hold that as the holy grail of how D&D games should be. Personally, I'm not a fan.

As the DM, my games have always run better when I've been the director, not merely the adjudicator. That's why I keep referring to narrative, because to me, that's what the game is.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Agreed.

Really have no issues with that. Actually, feather fall should be exactly this kind of ritual...

Bind magic into the feather (the good old material component), and if you need it, it activates... this is really nothing that belongs into a utility spot.

To be honest, would even allow binding fireballs into your sulfur and bat guano, to be used as a standard action... this would be nothing different from an alchemical item... i also see no reasons, why not allow this... if it is expensive enough, and the magic does not hold forever... why not...

Since I am converting an old adventure to 4e, i face the problem, that you can´t have/use scrolls in 4e for fireball, etc...

My simple solution is allowing the mage to read scrolls to switch out a daily/encounter for that day, and the magic fades... and to honor past editions, i really think about allowing the thief to read scrolls as well... (for a feat, as a PP feature, or just with skill training arcana, i am not sure)

I want my magic back!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Until you fall into a pit with water in it, suck at Athletics, and your heavy armor is weighing you down. A 10 minute ritual cast time in that circumstance is really tough, especially if you are not a ritual caster.

Course, some DMs wouldn't put that situation into the game system because the PC powers and abilities are designed to do damage, not help out in a drowning scenario.

This is the basic flaw of the ritual system. It severely limits the possibilities.

Solutions like I mentioned earlier like a "10 minute casting time ritual in a can" (be that a scroll, potion, power, or whatever) where the PC can gain the benefits of the ritual with a Standard Action would open the game up quite a bit.

It puts magic back in the word magic. With the 4E rules, the PCs are handcuffed pretty heavily as to cool magical effects in combat shy of "hit and do damage".

Just quoted you here, because i am too lazy to edit it into my last post...

Of course, i would use pits of water, even if the fighter sucks at swimming... i am not that kind of DM that has its decisions decided by which skills players take...

also, I think, circumventing hp with non damaging effects seems abusive... save or die was less fun, than you think...

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

My group has experimented a little with having spells/powers bound to scrolls, which are then used as a standard action (plus the minor action to retrieve it). Our cleric used a scroll of Colour Spray while we were trying to defend the mage (me) from hordes of minions so that she could complete the Linked Portal ritual and get us the heck out of dodge.

It was fun. Mind you, I was playing the NPCs for this fight, and if I hadn't been doing that, it would have been pretty boring for me.

Based on that experience, I don't think it will be a problem, but there is definite potential for abuse, so care must be taken. There needs to be some kind of "cost" so that you can't just bust off scrolls of powerful spells and rituals all day long. Maybe it eats healing surges, or APs, or maybe it gives you a good use for the Item Daily tickbox.

Maybe throw in a few more conditions; it has to be your level or lower, casting "across power source" will have you make an Arcana/Nature/Religion check or it fizzles, etc.

 

[KarinsDad]

No, because that would mean I'd have to prep 12 encounters ahead of time. Or improv it, which I can do, but I'd rather not. 4e encounters are usually more fun when you have a few minutes to plan them.

I have the strong feeling from your examples that you run sandbox games, where the story line is directed foremost by the player's actions. I know that many people hold that as the holy grail of how D&D games should be. Personally, I'm not a fan.

On the contrary. Our DM comes up with all of the major plots, subplots, and basic storylines. He decides most of the major directions towards which the PCs go. But as players, we merely reserve the right to just ignore a plot completely and head off in a different direction.

There are 6 people at our table, not 1.

We don't often ignore a plot or head off in a weird direction, but an enviroment where the player's actions and decisions have no real bearing on the overall outcome of the campaign feels railroaded. Personally, I'm not a fan of the DM limiting his campaign to a few select encounters per session and no way for the PCs to go do something other than his limited plan for the day.

As the DM, my games have always run better when I've been the director, not merely the adjudicator. That's why I keep referring to narrative, because to me, that's what the game is.

A pet peeve of mine is something like:

Player 1 (myself): "Let's go to the mine and search it. We might find a clue."
DM: "The PCs found out last session that the mine is flooded."
Player 2: "Let's not go to the mine. It'll be a waste of time cause it's flooded."

As a player, I remembered that the mine was flooded, but that doesn't mean that I don't want to go check it out for myself. By interjecting himself here, the DM is effectively railroading the game away from the area that he did not prepare. He isn't really letting the players decide what the group does, he's strongly influencing the direction of the story by strongly influencing some of the players (and DMs have a lot of influence). It's ok for the mine to be completely flooded (a bit heavy handed by the DM, but no big deal) and the PCs go there and find that out, but there's a problem with the DM just backhandedly cutting it short completely.

If this is what you mean by "being the director", then you can keep it. No thanks.

If this is not what you mean, then fair enough. I personally prefer group story telling without the DM's narrative taking center stage all of the time, but I understand different strokes for different folks.

Let me ask you a different question though.

For those players and DMs who enjoy the occasional dungeon crawl, do you think that the rules should allow for those possibilities?

I'm not talking about forcing you to play a different game style here. I'm talking about allowing for game styles other than the average 5 encounters per day one that WotC more or less forced (shy of the DM going way out of his way to augment resources and/or make encounters so easy that they aren't a challenge at all).

 

[KarinsDad]

Just quoted you here, because i am too lazy to edit it into my last post...

Of course, i would use pits of water, even if the fighter sucks at swimming... i am not that kind of DM that has its decisions decided by which skills players take...

also, I think, circumventing hp with non damaging effects seems abusive... save or die was less fun, than you think...

I agree. I wasn't talking save or die spells. Those suck.

I was talking Potions of Water Breathing when the Fighter falls into the pit of water, Tokens of Feather Fall when the Cleric falls off a cliff, a clay disk of Tensor's Floating Disk to get the unconscious Rogue out of combat when the Leader is low on heals, a key of Knock when nobody has Thievery in the group and they want to retreat through the locked door mid-combat, etc.

I did add a house rule of "Power Scrolls" (i.e. relatively inexpensive scrolls of Encounter or Daily powers that could be cast via a Standard Action in combat) and "Ritual Scrolls" (i.e. scrolls of 10 minute rituals that could be cast via a Standard Action in combat) when I was running last year and the year before, but none of my players really took me up on it. They crafted a few, but for the most part, didn't really use them a lot. As a player though, I would be all over this, just to get the versatility when I deemed it necessary.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I thought about using it in addition to your usual spells, but then i think, it would be unfair and leads to 3.5 bag of scrolls...

so i just allow the mage to use different spells he could not put into his spellbook, but still want to have sometimes...

 

[triqui]

As the DM, my games have always run better when I've been the director, not merely the adjudicator. That's why I keep referring to narrative, because to me, that's what the game is.

The best narrative games out there (i'm thinking about things like Dresden Files, Feng Shui, or Dogs in the Vineyard) heavily rely on the players contribution to the narrative, even allowing them to make changes on the plot, or assessments in the narration or descriptions on the scenes. Otherwise it's not a narrative game, it's a slideshow.

 

[TwoSix]

The best narrative games out there (i'm thinking about things like Dresden Files, Feng Shui, or Dogs in the Vineyard) heavily rely on the players contribution to the narrative, even allowing them to make changes on the plot, or assessments in the narration or descriptions on the scenes. Otherwise it's not a narrative game, it's a slideshow.

Agreed. But those games have rules that support spur-of-the-moment improvisation to drive the plot, like FATE's aspects. And none of them feature abilities that let you go to places or encounter things that the DM couldn't possibily anticipate (well, in Dresden you could), and then have to fight a large scale tactical battle against them.[/QUOTE]

 

[TwoSix]

On the contrary. Our DM comes up with all of the major plots, subplots, and basic storylines. He decides most of the major directions towards which the PCs go. But as players, we merely reserve the right to just ignore a plot completely and head off in a different direction.

And I tend to find that (ignoring a plot completely and moving in a different direction) pretty annoying unless I get some heads-up that such a move will be coming into play.

Now, I'm not saying I sketch the entire game in advance and make giant mountains appear in the west when I want you to go east. I throw out lots of story hooks in the beginning, ideally with some tailored to the character's backstory. I see which ones the characters take a liking to and run with those. I also have a major arc running in the background that will smack the characters eventually, even if they turn a blind eye towards it. How they choose to grapple with the major story is up to them.

But if we're in the middle of a story, and then decide "Hey, I can turn invisible and fly! Let's drop this and go rob people in Major City X!," then I get perturbed. I'm fully aware that "Don't play with those kind of players" is the best advice, but even good players can have a bad night and flake off.

A pet peeve of mine is something like:

Player 1 (myself): "Let's go to the mine and search it. We might find a clue."
DM: "The PCs found out last session that the mine is flooded."
Player 2: "Let's not go to the mine. It'll be a waste of time cause it's flooded."

As a player, I remembered that the mine was flooded, but that doesn't mean that I don't want to go check it out for myself. By interjecting himself here, the DM is effectively railroading the game away from the area that he did not prepare. He isn't really letting the players decide what the group does, he's strongly influencing the direction of the story by strongly influencing some of the players (and DMs have a lot of influence). It's ok for the mine to be completely flooded (a bit heavy handed by the DM, but no big deal) and the PCs go there and find that out, but there's a problem with the DM just backhandedly cutting it short completely.

If this is what you mean by "being the director", then you can keep it. No thanks.

I guess my thought process is different on this. What is the mine? Why did I (as a DM) introduce it? Is there something important there? Was it just intended as flavor?

If I introduce something as flavor, and the players decide to interact it with anyway, I try to think ahead a bit. Maybe I had been planning on them deciding to kill the vampire lord that had been stalking them for revenge. An abandoned mine shaft might be a good time for an ambush by some spectres or some dominated townfolk. Maybe the vampire decides to flood the mine while the party explores it. Maybe the mine is already flooded because the vampire flooded it, because deep within its bowels it holds the entrance to an abandoned lair of a lich who is an old rival of the vampire, and the vampire fears the lich may be freed by the miners (or the party!)

Now the key is, depending on what I decide in those few seconds between the party's decision and my reply, I can control their access. They can't just swim to the back of the mine before I'm ready. The powers that control progression are in my hands.

I never cut my players off from exploring what they want to explore. But everything they do is going to tie back into the major arc.

Let me ask you a different question though.

For those players and DMs who enjoy the occasional dungeon crawl, do you think that the rules should allow for those possibilities?

I think that they already do. The number of encounters I'm setting up is no limitation on what you can choose to do in game. The mechanical restrictions are merely telling you not everything will be easy, or solvable by magic.

Your "warrior in a well" example is telling. Why does that situation require water breathing or levitate? Why aren't you tying a rope to the halfling and throwing him in after him?