Something that 4e's designers overlooked? -aka is KM correct?

[Garthanos]

Blink, blink, Downtime for characters != Downtime for players.

May haps the players already get that time is a resource for the characters eh.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sounds like your players would like 4E!

I have one or two players who enjoy 4e, but not nearly as much as they enjoy what they are currently playing. Chaffing at restrictions means that they are engaged. Soft impediments to getting what you want actually increase your desire to get at what you want....for most people, anyway. Removing those restrictions, IMHO, is a poor decision.

And, you probably wouldn't like the way they describe the "game feel" of 4e, either. "It's like playing a video game with your friends" is what one of them actually said. OTOH, I'm not sure who is actually running the 4e games they are playing in, and the GM element is an extremely important one (IMHO and IME) to how gameplay satisfies or fails to do the same.

I haven't even convinced them to playtest through a 4e adventure yet.

@ Hussar: Others have already answered your question better than I would have.



RC

 

[Garthanos]

I will say that interesting tid bits should be inserted in to character down time...I would have players describing how there character "stays busy" how they train and make contacts and then insert some more cool role playing that doesn't involve dashing about with fancy swords glowing armor and sparkling wands. Winter time is a time of story telling let the pcs get some of that hero worship so levels are fame not just skill....etc etc.

If you can successfully create a connection to a place (and its people)... then fighting to protect or fighting to avenge them will mean so much more.

 

[LostSoul]

EDIT: I just read your longer post. Interesting. With the random determination of lairs, and the mechanical constraints on the activities of monsters in the lairs, how much room remains for GM discretion in designing the campaign? Is there any danger of random determination producing a somewhat lacklustre setting, or do the Lair rules guarantee that each lair is inherently interesting on its own terms, regardless of who is around for it to interact with?

The DM should add in enough elements at the start to make sure it's interesting. When I went through this process I used the Nentir Vale. This meant I had a few dungeons and towns to deal with already. I also had some other facts - orcs live in the Stonemarch, ogres in the Ogrefest Hills, goblins in Harken Forest, etc. When a lair came up in the Stonemarch I knew it was going to be orcs, so I didn't roll on the other tables. No lair came up in the Ogrefest Hills, but a couple of settlements did, so I figured that the ogres ruled the human settlements.

There isn't anything interesting in the Lair rules; it's just a list of monsters by level. I decided not to get too complicated, though now that I think about it, it might be a good idea to load lairs with some kind of hook...

 

[Hussar]

If the players have any goals, time is something they need to achieve them.


If the players don't have any goals, complaining about the DM introducing goals is stupidity.


Either the players have time-limited goals for their characters, or the DM introduces time-limited goals. No matter what, goals will exist, that are time-limited.

I agree that some goals may be time dependent. However, it does not follow that ALL goals will be time dependent. I would go so far as to argue that many goals aren't. "Become the greatest swordsman" is not time dependent. "Become king" is not time dependent. "Become a god" is not time dependent. Other than doing it before you die I suppose.

And how is it railroading to say "there's a dragon in the north ruling the nation of Arkosia, and slowly replacing his human subjects with dragonborn and kobolds?"

What does this have to do with Raven Crowking's example? In his example, it's not "slowly replacing"; it's rapidly slaughtering. AND, there's the bit that you've ignored. In RC's campaign, you deal with this now or, if you let it go, it will be much, much more difficult later.

How is punishing your players for not following your storylines not textbook railroading?

And, again, how is this a resource for the PLAYERS? In RC's example, you either put off any of your personal goals to stop the ongoing plot, or you get whacked with a big old punishment stick.

Even in your example, if I, as a player, decide to pursue a personal goal and put off dealing with your dragon, I get smacked with the big old punishment stick because the dragon now has a much larger force than it did before.

Punishing PC's for not following the DM generated plot is pretty much the textbook definition of railroading. And, it's still not a resource for the players.

Yes, time can be a resource of the DM. It's always been thus. But, I want to make it a resource for the PLAYERS.

 

[Kingreaper]

I agree that some goals may be time dependent. However, it does not follow that ALL goals will be time dependent. I would go so far as to argue that many goals aren't. "Become the greatest swordsman" is not time dependent. "Become king" is not time dependent. "Become a god" is not time dependent. Other than doing it before you die I suppose.

Those all take time to achieve, and any time spent not trying to achieve them decreases the chance of achieving them.

They're all time-dependent.

What does this have to do with Raven Crowking's example? In his example, it's not "slowly replacing"; it's rapidly slaughtering.

10 people a day is VERY slow for a kingdom, slowly replacing for a kingdom >>>>>> rapidly slaughtering for an individual

AND, there's the bit that you've ignored. In RC's campaign, you deal with this now or, if you let it go, it will be much, much more difficult later.

That's how life works, isn't it? Stitch in time and all that?

How is punishing your players for not following your storylines not textbook railroading?

Giving them a challenge which increases with their level, so they can face it when they wish, and giving them a downside to not facing it now?

That's not railroading, that's just building plothooks realistically, and with fun in mind.

And, again, how is this a resource for the PLAYERS? In RC's example, you either put off any of your personal goals to stop the ongoing plot, or you get whacked with a big old punishment stick.

Because the players can spend their time preventing that punishment, or they can spend it achieving their own ends.

If a world has tax-collectors, does that make money not a player resource, because they need to spend some of it on (avoiding) tax?

Even in your example, if I, as a player, decide to pursue a personal goal and put off dealing with your dragon, I get smacked with the big old punishment stick because the dragon now has a much larger force than it did before.

That's a realistic outcome, is it not?

The only alternative is that ALL plothooks are static "there's a dungeon here. It's not doing anything, no-one is being harmed, at all, but there might be some cool stuff down there"

Which is rather limiting, don't you think?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I agree that some goals may be time dependent. However, it does not follow that ALL goals will be time dependent. I would go so far as to argue that many goals aren't. "Become the greatest swordsman" is not time dependent. "Become king" is not time dependent. "Become a god" is not time dependent. Other than doing it before you die I suppose.

Kingreaper makes a pretty decent point that there could be a sort of "goal entropy," where not trying to actively accomplish your goal could simply lead to failure by default.

There's also an opportunity cost: doing Quest A precludes doing Quest B. You can't do everything.

The opportunity cost is reflected in a concrete way in the amount of time actually spent at the table. 4e makes this really explicit in the way that adventures end after about 30 levels. You have an epic destiny, and you realize it. You can't have more than one. You can't become a demigod and also become an archmage (forex). At least, not in with the same character.

If "become a king" is something like an epic destiny (maybe it'd be less "epic", but still), a mechanical effect that, as an opportunity cost, precludes doing other things with that rules slot, we're getting closer to the idea of time as a player resource.

Of course, the distinct difference between something like an epic destiny (or paragon path or whatever) and the idea of "goal entropy" is that in the latter, it is possible to fail, whereas in the former, you only fail if your character gets irrevocably killed beyond hope of resurrection (which is rare, but possible), in which case you also fail all of your other goals by default.

Hm...makes me think a little about the nature of challenges...

 

[pemerton]

LostSoul, thanks for the reply. I especially like the human settlements with ogre overlords. I might need to steal that for my game.

 

[pemerton]

The opportunity cost is reflected in a concrete way in the amount of time actually spent at the table. 4e makes this really explicit in the way that adventures end after about 30 levels. You have an epic destiny, and you realize it. You can't have more than one. You can't become a demigod and also become an archmage (forex). At least, not in with the same character.

If "become a king" is something like an epic destiny (maybe it'd be less "epic", but still), a mechanical effect that, as an opportunity cost, precludes doing other things with that rules slot, we're getting closer to the idea of time as a player resource.

But as they currently work, paragon paths and epic destinies don't relate to time at all. They're more like a player narrative resource, in the sene that by choosing a paragon path and epic destiny for his/her PC a player gets to stipulate that certain story elements will come into the game, and also gets to stipulate (in general terms, and in collaboration with the other players) the shape of the endgame.

I therefore think that your idea of trading of quests against one another is closer to time as a player resource.

A further issue - for what sort of benefit are players spending time? Is it to mechanically improve their PCs? If so, this is a bit at odds with the current logic of 4e, which tends to assume that mechanical advancement will take place regardless of how well the players spend their resources (short of a TPK). The benefits of playing well or poorly tend to be story benefits (eg getting to tell a story about the PCs winning rather than losing).

In Burning Wheel, time is factored in to conflict resolution in this way: a player can choose to have his/her PC act carefully, which gives a bonus to the roll, but on a failure authorises the GM to introduce a significant time-based complication (eg the guards arrive, the time bomb goes off, etc). This makes time a resource of a sort for the players - they can try to use it to get bonuses, at the risk of having it backfire on them. It might be possible to incorporate an idea like this into the skil challenge mechanics.

But if time is going to operate as a resource at the level of mechanical advancement rather than story advancement, I haven't yet got a clear handle on how you see that working.

 

[MerricB]

Those all take time to achieve, and any time spent not trying to achieve them decreases the chance of achieving them.

They're all time-dependent.

How is "Become the greatest swordsman" time-dependent? I'm curious - especially within the structure of a D&D campaign.