Where is my Freaking Mule?!

[Hussar]

It's not a case of the group only having party goals, but that individual goals should be structured in such a way that everyone has a chance to participate. Note, I'm saying that each player should have a chance to participate, not necessarily each character. It could be that the DM sets up the situation so that the other players can pick up the other NPC's for example.

In all honesty, I'm not sure how to deal with this at the table. For my own games, I take the personal goal stuff to play by post. If you want to lone wolf, don't do it at the group meet up. Or, if you want to pursue your character's goal, convince the rest of the party to help you and I'm all for it as a DM. Otherwise, I'd rather not have five players each playing five different games at the same session.

I really wonder if this has to do with amount of time played. I play three hour sessions. Figure someone being fifteen minutes late or a bit of catching up time at the beginning and that three hour session is probably closer to 2 and a half. That's just not enough time to entertain a bunch of unrelated personal quests. I know that when I used to play longer sessions - 4 to 6 hours, this thing never bothered me at all. Either I'd sit and watch, or go get some munchies, or whatever.

It does bother me now though, both as a player and a DM.

Imaro, out of curiosity, how long are your sessions?

 

[Imaro]

Imaro, out of curiosity, how long are your sessions?

My sessions are once a week for 5 hours... I do find your observation about the time factor interesting.

 

[pemerton]

Imaro, I don't at all object to personal goals on the part of the PCs. But (maybe a bit like Hussar - it's always so hard to tell how one's playing just from these short descriptions! but I can certainly relate to his change in the time factor - 20 years ago it was 5 hours a week, and now it's more like 3-4 hours a fortnight) I don't like these to chew up a big part of the playtime at the expense of other players. Therefore the other players have to be dealt in somehow.

One way to do this is to make the personal goal into a party goal. Another way is to have the personal goals all interact in some fashion (either conflicting or complementary) so that the collective play endeavour satisfies multiple goals at once.

Hussar's idea of having players pick up NPCs is one that probably wouldn't work well at my table, as my players are pretty keen to play their PCs.

Posting this has also made me realise that in my earlier post I used "party goals" in a way that runs together the PCs and the players. My mistake. As I've tried to clarify, diverse PC goals are fine, provided that they can be accomodated within a more-or-less unified play experience for the players.

 

[GnomeWorks]

...so, I have to ask, how do you avoid the whole group suffering when you choose a character that cannot contribute to combat? IME, 3e combat is LETHAL.

As I mentioned, my non-combat character is in a d20 Traveler game, which is a different ball of wax.

In standard d20 D&D, it depends on the DM. If they strictly adhere to CR/EL and wealth guidelines, then you're right, playing a non-combat character is asking for trouble. If they're more flexible, then it shouldn't matter - they can adapt to the party's composition.

As a DM, I gleefully ignore CR/EL and wealth guidelines. I don't remember the last time I used a monster from the MM/SRD, and I will throw things at the party that make sense in terms of the world, rather than what the mechanics tell me I should throw at them. Learn to run away or fight better, or die.

It's not a case of the group only having party goals, but that individual goals should be structured in such a way that everyone has a chance to participate. Note, I'm saying that each player should have a chance to participate, not necessarily each character. It could be that the DM sets up the situation so that the other players can pick up the other NPC's for example.

IMO, characters should have goals that do not involve the party. They don't need to, but if they do, I want the player to be able to explore that. Not all personal goals correspond to party goals, and some players want their characters to explore their goals by themselves. This is a reasonable thing, in my mind, and switching between players who are doing this simultaneously isn't that big a deal.

In all honesty, I'm not sure how to deal with this at the table. For my own games, I take the personal goal stuff to play by post.

I - and my players - don't generally have time for PbP. We're busy people, and we're already stretching how much time we have available for gaming.

I really wonder if this has to do with amount of time played.

I play the following...

• Sunday: 7 hours, with a 30 to 45 minute break in the middle.
• Wednesday: 6 hours.
• Friday (Alternating): 4 to 7 hours.
• Saturday: 6 hours.

I generally play on Sundays (I DM for four months out of every sixteen), and I always play on the alternating Fridays. I DM Wednesday and Saturday.

 

[Hussar]

Gack! Gnomeworks, I want whatever schedule you got. You find you're too busy for play by post, but you can spend darn near twenty hours a week around a gaming table. O.O I'm SOOOO jealous. I've had to battle to keep my three hours a week free. Managed to add a second three hour game late Sunday nights after everyone else is in bed. But that's a fairly recent development.

But, yeah, I wonder if the time at the table makes the difference in perspective. If I had a seven hour session, I don't think it would bother me overmuch to sit back and let someone else drive the bus for a while.

 

[Lanefan]

Gack! Gnomeworks, I want whatever schedule you got. You find you're too busy for play by post, but you can spend darn near twenty hours a week around a gaming table. O.O I'm SOOOO jealous. I've had to battle to keep my three hours a week free. Managed to add a second three hour game late Sunday nights after everyone else is in bed. But that's a fairly recent development.

Once you accept the fact that sleep is vastly over-rated and really a complete waste of time that could otherwise be spent gaming, you'll be fine.

Lan-"it's 2:18 a.m. as I type this"-efan

 

[Rechan]

I can't decide if I should be surprised or nonplussed that this thread has continued as long as it has.

I also am continually stunned people care about this kind of thing. Prices of non-magical mundane gear? Wut?

It must be that whole "SNG" thing cropping up again. Me? I don't make them account for buying ale. We don't haggle over inn prices or account for trail rations. I don't make them count ammo.

Unless it's story relevant then I don't care.

You never saw Legolas sweating about how many arrows he had left. We didn't see Sam and Frodo counting their coppers for the Inn - money, equipment, etc never was relevant, except at one point: when Sam and Frodo are down to their last bit of rations and Sam is fretting about starving. That's it. A throw-away bit of RP. And unless the genre is "Survival Horror", equipment and rations and precise amounts of treasure are never relevant to success/failure.

If the PCs are under siege, or lost in the wilderness, then their supplies become important. But when they're near civilization, and can stop by the store in between adventures, then it just makes sense to assume the characters take care of that stuff rather than make the players bookkeep.

The only reason why GP is in the game is because it's part of the magical item economy. If GP were separated from buying magical items, then it would no longer have a recognized use. I mean back in 1e, the only thing Gold was good for was XP.

 

[Rechan]

Some how this turned into an edition war. No, 4e doesn't do more than combat well. But saying that is assuming that prior editions did it much better. No. 3e may have sucked less at doing it, but that's not a compliment! We're here saying that the feces smell of 4e is worse than the vomit scent of 3e. Neither are pleasant.

I firmly believe that D&D is a niche game, designed with the intention to do one thing and do it well: killing things and taking their stuff. That is what the lionshare of the rules has revolved around since the Boxes. Trying to make D&D do all other kinds of things, or EXPECTING it to, is trying to turn a round peg into a square peg so it fits in the square hole, or expecting the round peg to go in the square hole in the first place.

Let's say I want to run a game where Everyone is a Diplomat/Courtier in a king's court. I couldn't attempt it with 1e, period, nor 2e. With 3e, it would be reduced to Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy vs. DC, Charmed Person, and Profession: Diplomat. The end. 4e is no better. Compare that to all the combat options that existed, compare all the rules-relevant info on a character's sheet that relates to combat vs non-combat. Now convince me that D&D is a robust system that obviously can handle Diplomats and Dandies for session after session with lots of rules to make their characters different. This is not a flaw of editions, this is a flaw of relying of D&D.

If System X is not build to facilitate Gameplay A, I do not try to make System X do Gameplay A, nor do I rage about X's inability to do A. Instead, I find System Y, which was built to do A well. Much simpler and easier than gnashing my teeth. And I believe that folks' unwillingness to go outside of D&D to do things that D&D doesn't do is the chief issue, not the fact D&D (or edition X) can't do it in the first place.

 

[Imaro]

I can't decide if I should be surprised or nonplussed that this thread has continued as long as it has.

I also am continually stunned people care about this kind of thing. Prices of non-magical mundane gear? Wut?

It must be that whole "SNG" thing cropping up again. Me? I don't make them account for buying ale. We don't haggle over inn prices or account for trail rations. I don't make them count ammo.

Unless it's story relevant then I don't care.

You never saw Legolas sweating about how many arrows he had left. We didn't see Sam and Frodo counting their coppers for the Inn - money, equipment, etc never was relevant, except at one point: when Sam and Frodo are down to their last bit of rations and Sam is fretting about starving. That's it. A throw-away bit of RP. And unless the genre is "Survival Horror", equipment and rations and precise amounts of treasure are never relevant to success/failure.

If the PCs are under siege, or lost in the wilderness, then their supplies become important. But when they're near civilization, and can stop by the store in between adventures, then it just makes sense to assume the characters take care of that stuff rather than make the players bookkeep.

The only reason why GP is in the game is because it's part of the magical item economy. If GP were separated from buying magical items, then it would no longer have a recognized use. I mean back in 1e, the only thing Gold was good for was XP.

You do realize everyone's story isn't based upon the LotR... right? In alot of Sword & Sorcery fantasy, money is a very real concern for the protagonists. Even the Sorcerer-emperor Elric had times where he had to scrape and scrounge to afford the drugs and supplies he needed. You assume alot about what constitutes heroic fantasy, and not all of it may be correct.

 

[Imaro]

Some how this turned into an edition war. No, 4e doesn't do more than combat well. But saying that is assuming that prior editions did it much better. No. 3e may have sucked less at doing it, but that's not a compliment! We're here saying that the feces smell of 4e smells worse than the vomit scent of 3e. Neither are desirable.

I firmly believe that D&D is a niche game, designed with the intention to do one thing and do it well: killing things and taking their stuff. That is what the lionshare of the rules has revolved around since the Boxes. Trying to make D&D do all other kinds of things, or EXPECTING it to, is expecting the round peg to go in the square hole, or trying to turn a round peg into a square peg so it fits in the square hole.

Let's say I want to run a game where Everyone is a Diplomat/Courtier in a king's court. I couldn't attempt it with 2e, period, nor 1e. With 3e, it would be reduced to Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy vs. DC, Charmed Person, and Profession: Diplomat. The end. Compare that to all the combat options that existed, compare that to all the rules-relevant info on a character's sheet that relates to combat vs non-combat. Now convince me that 3e is a robust system that obviously can handle Diplomats and Dandies for session after session with lots of rules to make their characters different. 4e is no better. This is not a flaw of 4e, this is a flaw of relying on D&D to do it.

If System X is not build to facilitate Gameplay A, I do not try to make System X do Gameplay A, nor do I rage about X's inability to do A. Instead, I find System Y, which was built to do A well. Much simpler and easier than gnashing my teeth. And I believe that folks' unwillingness to go outside of D&D to do things that D&D doesn't do is the chief issue, not the fact D&D can't do it in the first place.

Whose edition warring at this point in the thread?

I know I haven't compared 4e to 3e at all, however I certainly expect more from 4e than 3e, seeing as how there have been 8 years to evolve and change the system. I honestly find the "past editions didn't do it better" line to be a weak justification and crutch when trotted out as a reason a current edition shouldn't be criticized or improved in certain areas... that's the point of a new edition. Oh, yeah and just to clarify... I'm in no way talking just D&D.