Author Topic: The DM/MMX Controversy?  (Read 3220 times)

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7198
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
« Reply #20 on: December 18, 2017, 05:29:35 PM »
As in it still works, just more slowly, and you have to take a day off every now and then.
Technically speaking if you really wanted to nerf a Craplock all you have to do is read the book anyway. The part about Long Rests not being mandatory is, its self, an optional rule within a chapter that is supposed to be ignored if it doesn't help the DM.

Through I'm much more interested in the balance aspect of banking extra 5ths vs the higher once per day slots. Unshockingly I can find very little discussion on this, I even checked GitP even through I knew I'd be wasting my time. I guess I'll end up having to research it my self.

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7473
  • (un-) Amazingly Unproductive
    • View Profile
Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
« Reply #21 on: December 19, 2017, 04:36:47 PM »
Glyph 6 to make a 6th.
Glyph 7 to make a 7th.
Glyph 8 to make a Wish based 8th , xor Glyph 9 to make an 8(+1*)th
* is heightened 1 level (and perhaps not useful)

Bard has to wait 1 level for Wish.
Bard has some Bard list + 3 other spells + Wish.

Cleric has all Cleric list , Arcana has + 3 Wiz spells + Wish.
Cleric might get a very rare DMother-may-I extra 9 = Glyph 9 to make a 9th (!)
That day goes :  Glyph 8 to make a 7(+1)th , Glyph 7 to make a 6(+1)th , Glyph 6 to make a 5(+1)

Wizard Conj 2 gets way better economics early on, and generally better Wiz list.
Tight DM might require Haste to pop off a Conj 2 and make the Glyph casting, during the same round.


edit
(click to show/hide)

Conj > Wiz > Arcana > Bard > Cleric
« Last Edit: December 21, 2017, 05:51:18 PM by awaken_D_M_golem »
Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline Nifft

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
  • Bad At Lurking
    • View Profile
Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
« Reply #22 on: January 07, 2018, 12:24:36 AM »
Ehh ... err ... I think that tweet-rata just about does it.


Indeed. Apparently the designers agree that the thing needs nerfing, and thus they tweet-nerf'd it.

Hope Sore_Loss isn't too sore about the loss.  :lmao

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7198
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
« Reply #23 on: January 07, 2018, 02:06:13 PM »
Hope Sore_Loss isn't too sore about the loss.  :lmao
Huh, why would
Oooh, I see.

I think it's ok, pfft just couldn't explain him self is all. :P

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 505
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
« Reply #24 on: January 12, 2018, 09:43:42 PM »
Not controversial, but non-responsive.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that one player being too good at combat is messing up your campaign.

Why is it messing up your campaign?

Because the other players suck at combat?

Because the others players don't want to engage in combat?

Because the DM keeps trying to challenge the one player who is "too good" at combat and winds up slaughtering the other PCs?

Because the player who is "too good" at combat makes an effort to try and teach the other players tactics and those other players are getting bent out of shape about it?


Meanwhile, let's examine his "solution": combat is now less relevant to the campaign.

What replaces it?

What if the players suck at what replaces it?

What if the players suck even more at what replaces it!

What if the player who was "too good" at combat is the only player who doesn't suck at what replaces it?


And then let's consider the game design principle here.
I saw something similar in regards to BECM/Rules Compendium D&D. One of the designers got rather snippy about higher (Companion and Master) level play, pointing out that PCs weren't supposed to be doing the same sort of dungeon crawling and such that they did during lower (Basic and Expert) level play. You were instead supposed to be doing political and rulership stuff at Companion level, and plotting your pseudo-apotheosis when you hit Master level.
Of course, the published adventures really didn't support this very much, being way more combat oriented with the non-combat stuff slipped in here and there. So apparently, the designers couldn't actually write publishable adventures according to their standards.
More, why exactly would you design a game that is played one way at the beginning, another way in the middle, and a different way at the end? Triathlons, BASEketball, and Calvinball excepted, that's like playing football for the first quarter, baseball for the middle innings, and ending up with basketball at the end.

But then it is the fault of the players and DM for not getting it right?
Which sounds a lot like their rhetoric during the roll-out for 4E, blaming players of 3.5 for not knowing the right way to have "fun".

Offline nijineko

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2286
  • two strange quarks short of a graviton....
    • View Profile
    • Ask me
Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
« Reply #25 on: January 13, 2018, 11:19:31 AM »
More, why exactly would you design a game that is played one way at the beginning, another way in the middle, and a different way at the end?

Which sounds a lot like their rhetoric during the roll-out for 4E, blaming players of 3.5 for not knowing the right way to have "fun".

Because Gygax and Arneson read the same books (conan, vance, john carter, tarzan, LotR, fafhrd, e.e. doc smith, etc.,) and agreed that that was how things were supposed to progress. Heroes naturally become rulers, and rulers naturally deal with different kinds of problems than heroes. Ergo, the ROLE in your ROLEplaying game is a moving target, and you (the players) are naturally supposed to agree and adapt accordingly. Gygax was rather vocal about it, iirc.

In short, Heroes just defeat bad guys, loot treasure, and other minor stuff; while Rulers rule kingdoms and empires dealing with politics and dynastic crap, so they recruit sacrificial goats... er, i mean... "heroes" to deal with the piddling problems of new up and coming bad guys, the same way you were recruited way back when. Once you hit levels 6-12, you have to start setting an example for the masses, and ruling them for their own good, after all. and once you hit levels 20-30, you're supposed to be watching over the entire world, or maybe your prime material plane and dabbling in intra-planar politics. And on beyond 40+ you're supposed to be thinking about how to ascend and take over your own planes, and defend your local planar cluster against the real outsiders from beyond, etc..

Look at earlier versions of D&D to see when all the Leadership stuff automatically kicked in (became a feat in 3.x). That's when your game play was supposed to "naturally mature" and move beyond the dungeon crawl. It became a kingdom crawl instead... followed by an empire crawl... followed by a planar crawl... and topped with ascension. The Birthright campaign setting even gave action types for possible actions taken on a large geographic scale.

Too bad they didn't read enough wuxia novels back then, or they might have kept on going on beyond small change like deities and overdeities.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2018, 11:33:57 AM by nijineko »
http://crystalballsoft.com/cblite.html  The best dice roller on the planet, bar none. Read the FAQ to see why.

https://www.box.com/s/du6s5uysdwfony9dfd3p  The Official Complete Psionic Errata.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dbmkg8efcbn4eak/AABSjyTbZIEDdIWm0I_uVFkpa?dl=0 The Archive.

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7473
  • (un-) Amazingly Unproductive
    • View Profile
Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
« Reply #26 on: December 29, 2018, 03:14:40 PM »
Glyph Of Warding trick minor update :

Ravnica has the guild spells.  Izzet has Glyph at level 3,
now available to all caster classes ; 'cept 4 elements monk  :P

Warlock and Sorc (especially Divine Soul) are somewhere a fit
with the previous ranking.  Land Druids can kinda do it too.


edit ...
Lock 17 / Sorc 3 uses the 9th to make an 8 gylph , the 7th to make a 6 glyph,
uses 3 points and rips a 5th into 7 points, to make 3 twin 5 glyphs
short rest, makes 2 twin 5 glyphs and 1 empower 5 glyph, repeat ~ twice
14 glyphs in 17 hours , need to not make 3 every 4th day
« Last Edit: December 31, 2018, 04:36:13 PM by awaken_D_M_golem »
Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 505
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
« Reply #27 on: January 01, 2019, 11:51:53 PM »
Because Gygax and Arneson read the same books (conan, vance, john carter, tarzan, LotR, fafhrd, e.e. doc smith, etc.,) and agreed that that was how things were supposed to progress. Heroes naturally become rulers, and rulers naturally deal with different kinds of problems than heroes. Ergo, the ROLE in your ROLEplaying game is a moving target, and you (the players) are naturally supposed to agree and adapt accordingly. Gygax was rather vocal about it, iirc.

. . .

Look at earlier versions of D&D to see when all the Leadership stuff automatically kicked in (became a feat in 3.x). That's when your game play was supposed to "naturally mature" and move beyond the dungeon crawl. It became a kingdom crawl instead... followed by an empire crawl... followed by a planar crawl... and topped with ascension. The Birthright campaign setting even gave action types for possible actions taken on a large geographic scale.

Except . . .
I've read those stories too (except for ee doc smith), and . . .
That's not what happens.

Conan becomes a king and . . . promptly goes on a killing spree. Sure it is stopping a conspiracy against him, but does he defeat it by talking and hiring flunkies? No. He defeats it by schmoozing with a sweet young thing and caving in skulls.
John Carter becomes warlord of Barsoom. Does the next novel cover his diplomatic negotiations and social reforms in detail? No. It picks up with a relative running about committing mayhem. And the next. Then for variation another earthman shows up on Barsoom. Then John Carter reappears - committing more mayhem.
Tarzan? All of one chapter about how he has some problem running his estate, then the next 20 chapters he is back in his loincloth, smacking stuff silly.
Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser! No wait, they just keep going adventuring until they retire. Then, when they come back for a mid-life crisis they promptly get kidnapped and have to go on more adventures.
Lord of the Rings! Ends when it comes time to do the actual ruling, which is summed up in an appendix. Even Tolkien did not try and right an epic saga about kingdom administration! (Which is both expected and unexpected in its own way.)
Now technically Vance wrote two of the Dying Earth novels about a supreme wizard who sent a flunky out on his bidding. Of course the majority of the text of those two novels then follows the misadventures of said flunky. And the fourth novel was about a conclave of super-wizards and their infighting. But then Vance also used words like "quotidian", and copying that style, adapting the magic system, and incorporating ioun stones is pretty much all that the game gets from Vance.

Nowhere in any of them does anything even vaguely like the Companion or Birthright system for kingdom management appear. At most, you might consider the random events tables to be a vague nod to some kind of sandboxed campaign, with a die roll determining which adventure to play next rather than DM design and fiat, but that's about it.
So really no, the fiction does not even reflect that model. (Which would lead to a longer rant of mine about the flaws in trying to make the modern version of the game reflect Appendix N.)

As for Leadership as a feat in 3E, yes it is. And as a result, unless the DM starts to give out bonus feats for such background elements, character optimization is going to tank rather rapidly when it comes to getting the skills and feats needed to optimize building a kingdom. 3E has the additional "feat tax" of Landlord in the Stronghold Builder's Guide, the plethora of guild/organization related feats in later books, and a generally less-than-spectacular couple of rules sets for running a business or creating an affiliation. Pathfinder actually manages to be worse with their Kingdom Builder and Downtime rules in terms of non-optimized choices, although Pathfinder did manage to create an entire additional sub-system for intrigue - which of course requires even MORE resource expenditure to optimize at the cost of combat effectiveness.
So unless you are going to allow heavily rebuilds/retrains at "ruler level", with a "go back" option if the PCs have to do fieldwork themselves, it really is not going to work.

Well, or if you get really weird and build an entire campaign around multiple PCs per player, with the additional PCs as the cohorts/followers/hirelings of the main PCs, and some really gratuitous bonus feat distribution to the "rulers" (did someone say "bloodline"?), with the campaign flipping back and forth between leaders and followers, and the adventures representing different events (random or otherwise) needed to build/protect/expand the kingdom.
Which my players actually enjoyed quite a bit, but I wouldn't expect it is for everyone.

Again though, we have a situation where the system really does not support that kind of play without a significant amount of hacking to the point that you really are either playing another game entirely, or going with a truly divergent type of campaign that overwhelms the base system and assumptions.