What to do about the 15-minute work day?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

In my defense, I don't play 4E. So today, in this thread, was the first time I had ever heard of a "wish list," and it was described to me as a player expectation, not as a DM suggestion. Clearly I interpreted it wrong.

First off, let me say a hearty "Thank you!" for admitting the misunderstanding. For some reason, it's hard to do on message boards (as I admit to knowing at least as well as most).

But I'm going to springboard a bit here, and point out why so many, many people who like 4th Ed go absolutely insane when trying to discuss it and its mechanics and its DMing tools, etc., around people who don't. (And, for the record, while I really, really like 4th Ed., I've actually played it a really, really small amount, because most of my gaming group decided they didn't want to buy all new books, and so we stuck with 3.5E and later Pathfinder for the most part. "Most" of my "4E Experience" is actually taking pieces of 4E design and philosophy and backfitting it into a sort of 3.75 framework while DMing, and it's worked, I think, really, really well in that fashion. And, because I need to use the word more often in this paragraph: really.)

Anyway, back to my point.

You, an admitted non-4E player, were introduced somewhat off-handedly to a 4E concept (player-generated magic-item wishlists) and, on the basis of that alone, felt confident enough in your understanding to lampoon the idea with a fairly ridiculous example and declare, in no uncertain terms, your opposition to it appearing in D&D Next.

Do you see why this is counterproductive to good discussion, and why it hurts the efforts to get D&D players of all stripes together and discuss their favorite parts of the various editions, in order to make Next as good as it can be?

 

[Elf Witch]

This is it exactly. Wish lists are a player's way of saying, "Hey, DM - I think it'd be really cool if Ragnar the Bloodthirster had a flaming sword."

Which lets the DM go, "Hmm ... I bet if I drop a rumor or two about a bandit king doing damage to the countryside and burninating peasants' houses with his flaming sword, I'll have two PCs buying in immediately: the paladin to stop the injustice, and Ragnar for the cool sword."

DMs are, of course, free to ignore such wish lists ... but why would you?

I try and give my players cool things but some players can get a little greedy and want things that are either to powerful, to game breaking or it does not fit in the campaign.

 

[Elf Witch]

Well, in AD&D -> 3.5 Edition they padded the page-count of the PHB with 100+ pages of Vancian Spell Lists. 4E cut that out so they had to replace it with something. They cut almost all the Magic Items out of the Essentials player's books (leaving in only a few examples) but then again they cut the words-per-page count down by like 30% or so and dropped 3 classes each - still hitting that 300+ page sweet spot.

Actually, I found it more off-putting that the mechanical balance of the monsters and challenges assumed players would get useful magic item enhancement bonuses to their attacks ranging from +1 to +6 over 30 levels or the players couldn't hit anything, and it actually restricted use by level to keep players from jumping ahead and messing up balance. It totally cut into the stingy-bloke DM and the Monty Haul DM's prerogatives. You had to do all sorts of rebalancing to compensate for not going along with the math.

Likewise 3rd Edition with its DR and AC escalation and spell output escalation was always assuming weapon-based combatants were advancing their enhancement bonuses on gear as well.

In both editions one of the worst things you could do to a fighting character was take their stuff. I once had a table nearly implode because a Living Greyhawk module has Hill Giants with Improved Sunder and giant axes. Seriously, one guy had to talk this girl back to the table when the +3 Elvencraft Longbow (the one that doubled as a quarterstaff so the ends were enchanted individually for melee too) she'd dumped 2 years worth of accumulated loot value into got turned into a pile of broken sticks in a single swing. It was crap-tacular.

- Marty Lund

I don't know if I would have the heart sunder a weapon that took 2 years of loot to get.

In most of my games I don't give a lot of powerful items. I prefer to take one item and improve it as the game goes on. The sword the cleric has bee using which looks like a plain masterwork weapon is in actuality a very special sword and will eventually become his holy sword and work its way up to being intelligent.

I don't have magic marts and most of my NPC wizards are low level. So important things are found in ruins or on quests.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I try and give my players cool things but some players can get a little greedy and want things that are either to powerful, to game breaking or it does not fit in the campaign.

There's no time requirement on a wish list.

Let's say someone's got a holy avenger on it - a relatively high-level magic item.

To me, as a DM, that's almost as good as it gets, because I can drop hints, I can plan adventure seeds, I can toss around hooks re: the story of a particular holy avenger or rumors of one resurfacing or evil things that are trying to pervert one for a long, long time - and as long as the player is making progress towards that holy avenger, they'll be really happy.

Maybe they get to the site where a demon is defiling a holy avenger just a moment too late, and now they've got a much-weakened sword, and restoring it to its true power (as a bulwark of GOOD!) is another whole series of adventures.

I mean, sure, are players going to ask for things that are too powerful or don't fit the campaign? Sometimes - but then all you do is say, "Hey, Dave - just want to let you know that the Deck of Many Things doesn't exist in my world; want to try for something else?"

 

[Libramarian]

I won't speak for LostSoul, but I agree with him on player empowerment and agency, so I'll say my own feelings on the matter.

Player agency is pretty much the one reason I have to play D&D. It's the one thing that the tabletop RPG genre offers that no other game does quite as well, except pure freeform roleplaying. The ability to have an impact on the world, particularly outside that of what my character does, is an extremely important part of that for me.

I mean, to take one example... In a recent game of D&D I've been playing, my DM let me create the entire civilization my character is from, down to every last detail. I've mostly been playing as a "stranger in a strange land", somewhat distant from that civilization, but it is not so far as to be irrelevant. I've even been asked to create a sizable number of NPCs from that civilization who could potentially show up in the game at any time. Doing all of this has been incredibly fun, and has gone a long way to really get me involved in the game and care about what has been going on it. It's way more fun this way than it might have been otherwise.

Really, creating things is a very large part of the fun of D&D. Normally, the DM hoards all the fun of the former, which does little more than create potential sources of friction and the possibility of players simply being uninterested in the result. I don't like that. It even deprives the DM of the unpredictability and excitement of seeing what other players might bring to the table. I think things work a lot better when the DM is just another player who happens to run the NPCs, and everyone at the table has an equal share in creating the setting and the story. DM disempowerment and greater player involvement brings more fun than DM empowerment. It even saves the DM a lot of effort, which is a great added benefit.

I prefer a pretty hard distinction between the DM's control over the setting, the player's control over their characters, and the play's control over the story. I consider it a useful restriction to assume that the player is not going to have any control over the setting. It prods the DM to make sure the player has a feeling of responsibility and agency from an in-character perspective. To me, if a player is spending too much imagination-time at the level of the broader setting and other out-of-character concerns, that means they're feeling bored and disenfranchised on the character level, and I need to up the pace and challenge of the game to offer them more dramatic and interesting decision points from the perspective of their character.

 

[Elf Witch]

There's no time requirement on a wish list.

Let's say someone's got a holy avenger on it - a relatively high-level magic item.

To me, as a DM, that's almost as good as it gets, because I can drop hints, I can plan adventure seeds, I can toss around hooks re: the story of a particular holy avenger or rumors of one resurfacing or evil things that are trying to pervert one for a long, long time - and as long as the player is making progress towards that holy avenger, they'll be really happy.

Maybe they get to the site where a demon is defiling a holy avenger just a moment too late, and now they've got a much-weakened sword, and restoring it to its true power (as a bulwark of GOOD!) is another whole series of adventures.

I mean, sure, are players going to ask for things that are too powerful or don't fit the campaign? Sometimes - but then all you do is say, "Hey, Dave - just want to let you know that the Deck of Many Things doesn't exist in my world; want to try for something else?"

I ask my players to give me some ideas of special magic items they might like.

I have found that I get three responses the first is the player who says what ever I don't really care and I have not given it any though. The second is a list that is three pages long and worth millions of gold pieces and has a lot of relics and artifacts on it. The third is one with a few times maybe one or two special ones.

The first two drive me batty. One does not care enough the other is just greedy.

I had a player get pissy when I told him that he was not getting the legendary Sword of Kings in a Kalamar game. That I would design a holy avenger and even eventually let it become intelligent but the Sword of Kings was not in the offering.

This was for several reasons but mainly I had an entire sub plot around the sword that dealt with freeing the paladin whose soul powered it.

The Sword of Kings is a major item in the game world. It didn't fit his character at all. And since the Sword is not stated so DMs have the freedom to do what they want with it I could design one just as for him that fit his god.

Another time a player really wanted a vorpal sword and my answer was if the PCs have access to that kind of weapon then so the NPCs the rest of the players were like noooo.

Other times it is because the item is going to make their character to powerful or make them step on another players toes. If I don't fill a wish there is usually a good reason for it.

 

[Campbell]

You can pretty much lampoon any particular play style if you assume that its participants have no regard for the play experience of the other people sitting around the table. Frankly, I think that sort of attitude is harmful to the play experience no matter what sort of activity you're engaging in. Is it too much to ask too assume that basic social skills be assumed? Everyone should be stewards of the game experience - not just the DM.

 

[CleverNickName]

But I'm going to springboard a bit here, and point out why so many, many people who like 4th Ed go absolutely insane when trying to discuss it and its mechanics and its DMing tools, etc., around people who don't.

No explaination needed; it is the same reason that the people who don't like 4th Edition go insane when trying to discuss it around people who do. Nobody likes to learn that something they enjoy isn't enjoyable for everyone. I forgot that some people can be very sensitive about it.

 

[steeldragons]

But I'm going to springboard a bit here, and point out why so many, many people who like 4th Ed go absolutely insane when trying to discuss it and its mechanics and its DMing tools, etc., around people who don't.

Excellent. FINALLY!...Why?

(And, for the record, while I really, really like 4th Ed., I've actually played it a really, really small amount, because most of my gaming group decided they didn't want to buy all new books, and so we stuck with 3.5E and later Pathfinder for the most part. "Most" of my "4E Experience" is actually taking pieces of 4E design and philosophy and backfitting it into a sort of 3.75 framework while DMing, and it's worked, I think, really, really well in that fashion. And, because I need to use the word more often in this paragraph: really.)

uh...huh...

Anyway, back to my point.

You, an admitted non-4E player, were introduced somewhat off-handedly to a 4E concept (player-generated magic-item wishlists) and, on the basis of that alone, felt confident enough in your understanding to lampoon the idea with a fairly ridiculous example and declare, in no uncertain terms, your opposition to it appearing in D&D Next.

Well, knowing that much, "player-generated magic-item wishlists" ARE nonsensical and completely anathema to my understanding of a D&D experience. I certainly don't want to see it/them in 5e.

But that's neither here nor there...

...the 'why' is coming along here some...where?

Do you see why this is counterproductive to good discussion, and why it hurts the efforts to get D&D players of all stripes together and discuss their favorite parts of the various editions, in order to make Next as good as it can be?

Um..sure...but I am still not getting the, "point out why so many, many people who like 4th Ed go absolutely insane when trying to discuss it and its mechanics -snip- around people who don't."

Was that answered? Did I miss it?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I forgot that some people can be very sensitive about it.

This isn't a "sensitivity" issue.

This is a, "Please don't make schtuff up about rules you don't understand in order to rail against them" issue. It is a "Don't strawman" issue.

It's an "I don't go on long diatribes about 1E demesne ruling rules because I don't know them, so please show 4E rules the same respect" issue.