|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 6:08AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
For Space
Show
Even though I know that the 5MWD is supposed to be "BAD"... I've always considered it realistic. The only time it seems like you'd soldier on is when you actually had to... but usually there is just an expectation that the party should go on.
If I'm tapped out after killing something (or someone), why wouldn't I call it a day? ... doesn't it seem worse to go back out looking for something else to kill before the blood even dries on your sword?
- If it doesn't cause a problem in your group, more power to you. See my second paragraph.
- If it does cause problems then consider the intent of the designers, and realize that regardless of how realistic you think it is it isn't how the game is designed to be played. Your individual perception/experience isn't particularly relevant in the face of the game designers' intent.
... but if the designers intended to include a resource management mechanic
... and resource management seems to default into a 5MWD
... then couldn't you also interpret that their intent was to default to a 5MWD?
Therefore, you could argue that the 5MWD isn't against the designers' intent
... and if it isn't against their intent, then it isn't "wrong".
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 7:04AM
#32
|
|
|
... but if the designers intended to include a resource management mechanic
... and resource management seems to default into a 5MWD
... then couldn't you also interpret that their intent was to default to a 5MWD?
Therefore, you could argue that the 5MWD isn't against the designers' intent
... and if it isn't against their intent, then it isn't "wrong".
Your logic is faulty. 5MWD isn't resource management it is the antithesis of resource management. It is resource mismanagement. Besides the rule books pretty clearly outline the "intent" of the designers, and there have even been rules that make it more clear; like the rule that states that spells cannot be recovered more than once in a 24 hour period, or the action point aquistion rule. These were attempts to design rules to address the 5MWD, and more than just rules to address it (however successful) they also clearly communicate the designers' intent that a 5MWD is not playing the game correctly.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire Concerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 7:38AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
What I am saying is that the 5MWD occurs as a result of efforts to enforce resource management... and since the developers seemed to be using the same methods to try to enforce resource management, then they should have expected those methods to still result in a 5MWD... therefore, even if they said that they didn't want people taking a break after each fight, they kept reusing the mechanics that resulted in people taking breaks after each fight.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 7:43AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
I tend to fall more on the side of "mod to your heart's content." It's wrong when the fun stops, really. My particular group is so fractous and argumentative that even amongst ourselves, the rules change depending on who's the DM that week. The strongest argument for a unified ruleset that nobody deviates from is that a community doesn't have time to hammer out a concensus, but I seem to remember when I started playing in the early 90's that folks would go to conventions and discuss the house rules they used. You'd approach a table and the presiding DM would sort of hit you with a disclaimer and fly in the face of some things, next table over they'd let those things ride and other things were unwelcome. The variety exists within the community and has for a long time. One of the things that turned me off of public games later on was I noticed a growing sentiment that everyone had to play the same rule set no matter what, and that's culminated into a split that, frankly, just strikes me as totally bizarre. I've read archived blog posts about how good friends stopped talking to each other because they didn't want to play whatever edition... where's the sense in that? It was just a blog post so who knows how true it is, but if it is true then those people are playing the game wrong. It's just kinda tragic that these sorts of petty acts that were belittled in the core books from AD&D and 2e AD&D are somehow held up as good examples now. Like they're somehow "holding the game together." Sorry folks but I don't buy it. The onus is on the presiding DM to find a way to effectively communicate changes from the outset and the players must then decide if it's their bag. If it's not their bag and they walk away, then the DM must respect that player's decision. Really, the game is being played wrong when changes are not made clear and/or people get angry about it. Everyone at the table has an obligation to make sure neither of those things happen.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 9:35AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
What I am saying is that the 5MWD occurs as a result of efforts to enforce resource management... and since the developers seemed to be using the same methods to try to enforce resource management, then they should have expected those methods to still result in a 5MWD... therefore, even if they said that they didn't want people taking a break after each fight, they kept reusing the mechanics that resulted in people taking breaks after each fight.
Not quite: The 5MWD occurs as a result of efforts to enfore resource management - on players who have no interest in managing their resources.
It is the result of players saying: "Ok - I have this many spells to last the entire day. So.... I"ll just blow them all in the first encounter and force everyone else to rest while I get them back."
True resource management would result in asking whether they really need to use that spell for that encounter or should just hold back and use some lesser spells or even let the fighters handle it.
But many people don't want to do that - either because it doesn't fit their image of a blasty wizard or they just want the glory for themselves - or even because they are afraid that the fighters can't handle the encounter if they don't nova.
And the desire to rest comes from players being afraid that if they aren't at tip top condition, bad stuff might happen. Even if the tension comes from being forced to push on past the point where you feel safe.
But ultimately, safe is boring.
Carl
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 9:43AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
"Palm slaps forhead" I said I didn't want to start this frigging debate over again you guys. Not "Cry havoc and slip the dogs of war"! I guess this was bound to happen. Puts on hat and heads toward the door tripping over the kiddies legos along the way. lol
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 11:52AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
Guys, do we really need another 5MWD debate?
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 12:01PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
So, I've been observing another "ur doin it rong" complaint, which has to do with the "munchkin" label being thrown around.
Can we agree that "powergamers" to use a less hostile term aren't doing it wrong?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 12:12PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
So, I've been observing another "ur doin it rong" complaint, which has to do with the "munchkin" label being thrown around.
Can we agree that "powergamers" to use a less hostile term aren't doing it wrong?
Powergamers do get into a separate area.
If everyone at the table is a powergamer they are not doing it wrong.
However, I've been in the situation (most noteably in 3.5) as a DM where one or two players are serious powergamers (Ok, technically one was a real powergamer and the other a wannabe powergamer who copied builds from CharOp) who came to the table with powerful optimized characters - and others were players who had no interest in powergaming and chose their feats and classes according to what sounded fun and interesting.
Both of these are valid approaches and I'm fine with DMing for either approach.
But put these both at the same table and it screws up the game balance. If the creatures can hit the optimized characther, they shred the unoptimized ones; if the creatures are tought for the optimized character, the unoptimized characters can't touch them. It is equivalent to having characters many levels apart in power.
So yes - I'll say that if you are the only one powergaming at your table you're doing it wrong (and likewise if you are the only one not powergaming at your table, you're doing it wrong). Part of 'doing it right' is to work within the group to determine what is expected of the players and the characters (and the GM).
Munchkins, on the other hand, are always doing it wrong. But that's because munchkins, by definition, are only concerned with their own character and never care about anyone or anything else.
Carl
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 12:16PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
If everyone at the table is a powergamer they are not doing it wrong.
But they are doing it wrong if there's a mix? Why aren't the non-powergamers doing it wrong?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
