I'm not sure why it is that DMs have such a hard time getting their groups to avoid the 15 minute workday. It's not even a matter of punishing them for using rope trick. Their adversaries don't need to know where they are, or what they're hiding in. What needs to happen is that the party's enemies continue to act during the 24 hours of time the party is hiding in order to get their trigger-finger wizard his spells back.
Unless we're talking about random encounters in a wilderness area, 24 hours of no party progress should further the plot along at a huge advantage to the enemy. D&D isn't a static game world. Things should be happening while the characters sit and twiddle their thumbs. Even with just 8 hours of time, the bad guys can have finished whatever they're doing, headed out of the dungeon, crypt, ruins, castle, etc and be off doing all kinds of evil elsewhere, and the characters hop out of their rope trick and wonder where everyone else went.
Plot should be the biggest motivator to keep the party moving forward. Create a plot so thin and bereft of drama that something like popping into an extradimensional space for 8+ hours just 15 minutes after popping out of your 8+ hour coma, and I'll show you a game so boring I won't be returning for a second session.
This.
Yeah, this. Exactly this. You see, all the talk of adversarial DM and anti-5MW tactics, scrying, anti-invisibility spells and all that is distracting us from the real issue. And the real issue is exactly this.
The 5MW forces you to shape your adventure around a mechanic - daily recharge mechanisms - and modify your plot in such a way that forces your characters to press on. In short, it limits your possibilities as a DM to create stories. It "shapes the metagame", if you want, in that it shapes the potential games you can run, effectively negating possibilities.
This is why I hate it.
Sorry you've had issues, but we never have. Never experienced a 'work day' issue, never had balance issues, never had fun issues. We loved every second of basic, 1st, and 2nd edition play, and most of 3rd edition even (though to a lesser degree).
I'm not claiming you (or anyone else) never had issues, only reminding you that they're YOUR issues, not innate in the system since others have had entirely different experiences. That means it's a subjective perception, not an objective one. An objective one is 'some people have trouble with it and don't like it, others have no trouble with it and do like it'.
You can claim that others have had the same issues you've had, suggesting it's mechanical, and I'll show you that others haven't had the issues just like me, suggesting it's subjective again. In the end, there's no 'winning' here, only offering our personal preferences and experiences.
Mine have generally been, the older the edition, the better it was. There is no such thing as balance issues, there is no such thing as a vancian issue, there is no 'work day', there is only the fun of roleplaying. Again, to us.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
Sorry you've had issues, but we never have. Never experienced a 'work day' issue, never had balance issues, never had fun issues. We loved every second of basic, 1st, and 2nd edition play, and most of 3rd edition even (though to a lesser degree).
I'm not claiming you (or anyone else) never had issues, only reminding you that they're YOUR issues, not innate in the system since others have had entirely different experiences. That means it's a subjective perception, not an objective one. An objective one is 'some people have trouble with it and don't like it, others have no trouble with it and do like it'.
You can claim that others have had the same issues you've had, suggesting it's mechanical, and I'll show you that others haven't had the issues just like me, suggesting it's subjective again. In the end, there's no 'winning' here, only offering our personal preferences and experiences.
Mine have generally been, the older the edition, the better it was. There is no such thing as balance issues, there is no such thing as a vancian issue, there is no 'work day', there is only the fun of roleplaying. Again, to us.
I've already posted this once, but here it goes:
I envy you. Really, I do. You didn't have issues and had tons of fun with the system? Awesome. That's really cool. But you see, the issues are still there. They can be encountered or not, and you're lucky you didn't encounter them, but they are still there. In the rules. The issues can happen. It's not that they always will, it's even possible that some groups won't have such issues in any occasion. Cool for them, they (you) are lucky, and I envy you for this.
But I do not want, nor will accept, a game system that works only for a lucky few. Life may not be fair, but my gaming shall be. I want a game that works for everybody, not just for those who are lucky enough to be spared by the mechanical problems of the system.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Sorry you've had issues, but we never have. Never experienced a 'work day' issue, never had balance issues, never had fun issues. We loved every second of basic, 1st, and 2nd edition play, and most of 3rd edition even (though to a lesser degree).
I'm not claiming you (or anyone else) never had issues, only reminding you that they're YOUR issues, not innate in the system since others have had entirely different experiences. That means it's a subjective perception, not an objective one. An objective one is 'some people have trouble with it and don't like it, others have no trouble with it and do like it'.
You can claim that others have had the same issues you've had, suggesting it's mechanical, and I'll show you that others haven't had the issues just like me, suggesting it's subjective again. In the end, there's no 'winning' here, only offering our personal preferences and experiences.
Mine have generally been, the older the edition, the better it was. There is no such thing as balance issues, there is no such thing as a vancian issue, there is no 'work day', there is only the fun of roleplaying. Again, to us.
I've already posted this once, but here it goes:
I envy you. Really, I do. You didn't have issues and had tons of fun with the system? Awesome. That's really cool. But you see, the issues are still there. They can be encountered or not, and you're lucky you didn't encounter them, but they are still there. In the rules. The issues can happen. It's not that they always will, it's even possible that some groups won't have such issues in any occasion. Cool for them, they (you) are lucky, and I envy you for this.
But I do not want, nor will accept, a game system that works only for a lucky few. Life may not be fair, but my gaming shall be. I want a game that works for everybody, not just for those who are lucky enough to be spared by the mechanical problems of the system.
By 'lucky few' you mean the millions upon millions of players that discovered and LOVED D&D in all it's early 30 year glory? The ones that, together with this 'broken game', launched an ENTIRE genre of gaming and entertainment which has become THE iconic trend of an era? The ones that are here on these forums now helping forge an edition reminiscint of earlier games because such a large number of people wouldn't touch the version made to fit your playstyle? You mean the few that in polls roughly match your numbers but feel the opposite of you?
Strange definitions you have.
Anyway you're free to accept or play anything you want. So are we. Now where are we?
Edit: As I've said in NUMEROUS threads, I'm all for allowing modular adaptation so that everyone can have, as you say, a game that works for everybody. If you have a system without vancian magic it doesn't work for some. Period. That means that there MUST be an option for them that is at least equal to what the non-vancians get. You must have a system for those with no work day issues that doesn't change the game to overcome what doesn't exist in their reality, just in the same way that there must be a system that solves your (and others) work day issues. Since we're polar opposites we cannot coexist. Therefore there must be a neutral generic base, and then modular options for both of us in order to achieve what this edition proposes. I don't see any other option, do you?
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
Why Monte Cook? Because like it or not his books have been some of the best selling of all time. If there's anyone to bring into the construction of a new edition it's Monte. Hopefully other heads in the project can balance him out.
The threat of it happening any time is sufficient to keep my wizards from wasting their spells when they don't really need them.
What threat? You scout out a particular threat, teleport/planeshift in and then teleport/planeshift out (or go to your pocket dimension, pocket castle, whatever). Except for the very lowest levels (which I think is what a lot of you remember) there isn't a good reliable way of stopping the 15 min work day except by DM fiat (no you can't teleport, planeshift, Magnificient Mansion, etc, etc) which while valid and acceptable once in a while do not solve the problem (unless you do it all the time in which case it's being a jerk/adversarial DM that's effectively changing the rules to cover a mechanical hole....at which point Oberoni applies).
-Polaris
what don't you understand about there are always consequences to your actions. I'm not going to tell you how to deal with ever contingency you can come up with. I can come up with them as they arise in my games you can too. Also there are means within the game world that don't involve changing or breaking any rules to accomplish what you want to do. Also if the party figures out a loophole in the design and manages to do the teleport options like you say then yes they will have some time before the consequences arrive, but the consequences will arrive. They with smart play figured out a way to make it so they could go into this obviously very important combat without having to run through a gauntlet first. Good for them they get to have a 15 minute workday today. I don't consider it a problem because the players are being rewarded for smart play. However they will have associated consquences to deal with later. Due to the fact that anyone they try to do that to in the future will have dfenses in line against what they did before. My big bad guys aren't regularly morons and can do research on the party as much as they can research the BBEG. heres a fun hint: sometimes I do that on purpose. And that fight that they just stumbled into way before I expected them to gets changed on the fly to be a bit harder so they actually feel the challenge of the one encounter day. No rules change no Oberoni Fallacy just playing the game as intended.
Due to the fact that anyone they try to do that to in the future will have dfenses in line against what they did before.
Who says? In many cases, there won't be any reasonable way for monsters to get the intelligence that the players even DID this (especially if the players leave no survivors which is the typical case reaslly). If the monsters couldn't reasonably know how they did it, then you are cheating as a DM. Also if you are telepathically transmitting knowledge from one group of monsters to another in order to specifically thwart what you think is an unfair exploit, then you as a DM are cheating.
My big bad guys aren't regularly morons and can do research on the party as much as they can research the BBEG.
Not reliabley. In fact you CAN'T scry into a non-dimensional space usually, and then there is non-detection and other abilities that thwart this.
In short, you are using your club as a DM to thward a bad mechanic and that's bad, bad bad.
-Polaris
so i think i figured out your problem here you keep thinking i ever mean that the enemies they are facing are unintelligent past 5th level. At that point the unintelligent monsters are minions to intelligent beings the BBEG is a guy with an int score more than likely better than anyone in the party. Unless that was specific request from one of my players to be playing a guy that wins by outhinking his opponents, and even then that means hes as intelligent as the smartest member of the party. Also stories spread when you just ghost in and heroically kill the BBEG using teleports. Then the next BBEG in line does research and possibly gathers some info on how you beat the last guy and says hey I'm not going to let that happen to me. No magical scrying needed just story telling.
one problem with discusuin to me is the folowing. the magical arms race forces the evil guy to be a wizard or at least to have gatherd many high level casters. you can't have the big evil guy be a level 30 orc fighter who leads hordes of humanoids.
at high lievel it strictly becomes a magic vs magic game. the reason that in 2nd and 3rd edition the martial type charac ters where usualy reired between level 7 and 11 becouse from that point they where no longer needed to guide the casters trough their hard early levels.
a 3rd edition wizard would have easely taken care of Gandalfs ring problem within 15 minutes. as magic users are a rare thing in middle earth.
you can't run a campaign where magic is very rare. where kingdoms the size od france might have a max of about 10 wizards that will ever be higer then level 5ish if you have a player wizard this means your world has to be filled with powerfull spell casters all over the place.
By 'lucky few' you mean the millions upon millions of players that discovered and LOVED D&D in all it's early 30 year glory? The ones that, together with this 'broken game', launched an ENTIRE genre of gaming and entertainment which has become THE iconic trend of an era? The ones that are here on these forums now helping forge an edition reminiscint of earlier games because such a large number of people wouldn't touch the version made to fit your playstyle? You mean the few that in polls roughly match your numbers but feel the opposite of you?
Strange definitions you have.
Anyway you're free to accept or play anything you want. So are we. Now where are we?
Edit: As I've said in NUMEROUS threads, I'm all for allowing modular adaptation so that everyone can have, as you say, a game that works for everybody. If you have a system without vancian magic it doesn't work for some. Period. That means that there MUST be an option for them that is at least equal to what the non-vancians get. You must have a system for those with no work day issues that doesn't change the game to overcome what doesn't exist in their reality, just in the same way that there must be a system that solves your (and others) work day issues. Since we're polar opposites we cannot coexist. Therefore there must be a neutral generic base, and then modular options for both of us in order to achieve what this edition proposes. I don't see any other option, do you?
I totally agree with you. Vancian should be an option, and receive the same care as non-Vancian. Not more than that, and not less than that. I won't touch it with a 3 ft. pole since I think it's 100% sure to be trapped, but you are free to enjoy it.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Sorry you've had issues, but we never have. Never experienced a 'work day' issue, never had balance issues, never had fun issues. We loved every second of basic, 1st, and 2nd edition play, and most of 3rd edition even (though to a lesser degree).
I'm not claiming you (or anyone else) never had issues, only reminding you that they're YOUR issues, not innate in the system since others have had entirely different experiences. That means it's a subjective perception, not an objective one. An objective one is 'some people have trouble with it and don't like it, others have no trouble with it and do like it'.
No, they're innate in the system, a design flaw. It doesn't mean you've ever had it come about though. it's like a car that, instead of airbags has a bag of snakes.
You didn't get into a car accident, great. Some people drive D&D down bumpy roads and when an accident occurs, they get a bag of snakes in their face. The bag of snakes isn't a design feature, it is a flaw that you have been fortunate enough to not experience. Removing the bag of snakes to install an actual air bag will not harm your driving experience.
Monte has name recognition, especially amongst edition warriors. That's why he's on board. His name is associated with things they like, and they want his name to attract those lapsed customers back. That is why Monte is associated with D&DN.
@Bodyknock I agree with your optimism about 5e. I am optimistic too.
@OgreBattle If by "removing" the snake bag you mean removing vancian magic then I think you need to check these boards out a little better. The vancian camp doesn't seem very compromising about getting rid of their system. If I were designing 5e I wouldn't remove it entirely if money is important to the company.
@theMormegil I agree we all play what we want. I think the difference for me is that I'd rather have a fun game that I have to be cautious with as a DM than an easy to DM game that is less fun. Obviously having both would be nice so I hope.
@edwin_su I agree totally. It is why in my worlds npc's level 1 to 5 are very common. Npc's 6 to 10 are uncommon but plentiful in a big city. Npc's 11-15 are rare but present in every large city. Npc's 16+ are legends and extraordinarily rare. D&D was never predicated on a low magic world. Not one edition of the game really supports low magic. I might support a module for it but I would probably say it shouldn't even make it in the first three books. Just have another book for such campaigns. Most people though really do want a good bit of magic in their games. You are also right that at high level the monsters tend to all be magical or have at minimum a lot of spell-like abilities. That fact doesn't bother me either.
