# Where is my Freaking Mule?!



## Zaran (Mar 2, 2010)

Ok, we've had two Player's Handbooks, two adventurer's vaults, and two monster manuals.   

None of these books have stats and/or cost of a mule!  You might say, "Zaran,  don't you dare start an edition war!  We all know how you rifle through each 4e book looking for a beast of burden for which to carry your stuff for a couple levels until you get that Bag of AC-Controlled storage!"  That's not my intention.    

This is my request for a book of Stuff You Can't Kill an Orc With.

Yes that's right.  I want a book of useless stuff that I can spend my easily looted gold on.  Stuff that doesn't have anything to do with combat and is just a way to use the gold my character gets without spending it on an overpriced magical Boots of Flying until the End of my Next Turn.  

I want to buy things like the mythical mule that can carry your stuff to the dungeon.  Or a fancy outfit to see the King Splug.  Or how about rules on how to construct strongholds so that I stick my clothes and mule inside?  

Sure, the GM can make this stuff up or maybe go to past editions for a quick price but I want to spend my money on a brand new book .   Is that so wrong?


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Mar 2, 2010)

Appearently so. I haven't bought many 4E books (just the original 3 and PHB2), but I might buy that.


----------



## Bullgrit (Mar 2, 2010)

I think Rel was in charge of the mule. And, well, he was . . . irresponsible. So therefore, no more mules.

Bullgrit


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 2, 2010)

Mules are unheroic.

As are torches, rope, iron spikes, sacks, chalk, 10' poles, flint & tender, iron rations, more rope, mirrors, sprigs of wolfsbane, and garlic.  Since you don't need any of these things cluttering up your character sheet, you don't need a mule carrying them, much less porters, torcher bearers, drovers or teamsters for carrying the stuff in and out of the howling wilderness.  Nobody ever used that stuff anyway because they all used heroic type IV bags of holding (available for heros to purchase at local general goods stores), and if they did use mules and such anyway, it's all badwrongfun.

I resist your attempts to rain on my 4e loving parade.   Get back to the 70's and 80's were wierdo's like you belong.


----------



## UniversalMonster (Mar 2, 2010)

Mule
Large natural beast
Level 1 Brute XP 0

Initiative +1        Senses Perception +5; low-light vision
HP 32; Bloodied 16
AC 14; Fortitude 15, Reflex 13, Will 10
Speed 7

Kick (standard, at-will) Weapon

+5 vs AC; 1d6+4 damage. A mule can't attack while harnessed to a carriage.

Alignment Unaligned        Languages -
Str 19 (+4)      Dex 13 (+1)      Wis 11 (0)
Con 16 (+3)      Int 2 (-4)      Cha 9 (-1)

Special: A Mule can carry 168 lbs of gear (or more) if properly loaded*



* Where did I get 168 pounds of gear? I got it from a quote about Pakistan's army mules in this article.  72 kg is fairly close to 168 lbs.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 2, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> torches - PHB
> rope - PHB
> iron spikes - PHB (pitons in the climber's kit)
> flint & tender - PHB (flint & steel)
> iron rations - PHB (trail rations)




As for the original question, refluff the riding horse.


----------



## korjik (Mar 2, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> As for the original question, refluff the riding horse.




You rolled a 1 in the archery contest.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 2, 2010)

Zaran said:


> Ok, we've had two Player's Handbooks, two adventurer's vaults, and two monster manuals.
> 
> None of these books have stats and/or cost of a mule!



Is there some reason you can't just use the stats and cost for a Riding Horse (in the PHB)? The main differences between a mule and a riding horse are 1) Mules are slightly shorter than horses, but weight for weight about as strong; 2) Mules aren't as fast as horses; 3) Mules will stop working before they die of exhaustion.

The cost of a good mule and a good horse is about the same. The carrying capacity is about the same weight for weight. The only thing in the horse stat-block you might need to tweak is the movement, but that's only if you are being really, really particular about your simulationism.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 2, 2010)

I can understand that we need some mundane items stated out, but is a mule really one of them?  There are items that mechanically I do think we need to go to a professional writer, but not a mule.  I'm just not currently in the market for the Quintessential Mule.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 2, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> As for the original question, refluff the riding horse.




Oh hell no!  No horse fluffing for me. YOU refluff that horse!


----------



## Rechan (Mar 2, 2010)

And they don't even include the price of whores!


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Mar 2, 2010)

It is self-evident that the presence of a mule is what makes something old-school. The release of the 4E Quintessential Mule is all that will be necessary to end the edition wars. 

(Before that happens, I will take the opportunity to point out that a half-horse, half-donkey is clearly the kind of template madness that exemplifies the worst excesses of 3E.)

(Also, the 4E version will not actually be called a mule, but rather a Donkeyhorse.)


----------



## Zaran (Mar 2, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> As for the original question, refluff the riding horse.




Riding Horses cost 75gp.   One might say a Battlemind is a refluffed Fighter but 1/8th of the PHB 3 is set aside for that class.  

The mule isn't the main point of this thread.  I can probably get the gm to say I bought a mule for 8gp (I think that's how much they cost in 3e).  I don't really need stats for it since if it should for the most part die if it's in any combat.  I want a book with stuff to buy that has little to no purpose in combat.  Every so often we all have to leave the dungeon tiles and go into town. We have all that loot that the gnome passed out to us before we killed him and punted his badger minion.  All that unheroic stuff that was taken out of the equipment list should be made into a book of equipment that we can all go buy before Hasbro or Wizards decides to lay off 1 million cab drivers.

We all know that 4e has been broken down to the least common denominator, melted down to the basics and is well built for encounter building and fun combats.   I have the basics and now I want the extras that would build on those basics to make it into a living world for me.  And I know others beside me would buy something like that just for the ability to construct strongholds.


----------



## coyote6 (Mar 2, 2010)

Tav_Behemoth said:


> (Also, the 4E version will not actually be called a mule, but rather a Donkeyhorse.)




Surely you mean a Warbearing Donkeyhorse.


----------



## Wik (Mar 2, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> I think Rel was in charge of the mule. And, well, he was . . . irresponsible. So therefore, no more mules.
> 
> Bullgrit





Dammit.  You beat me to it.  First thing I was gonna say!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 2, 2010)

Tav_Behemoth said:


> (Also, the 4E version will not actually be called a mule, but rather a Donkeyhorse.)




Literally LOL.


----------



## Barastrondo (Mar 2, 2010)

Much as I think 4e is perfectly ginchy, the lack of mules probably has something to do with a design decision I don't personally agree with -- spending gold on magic. Once you have something clearly superior to spend gold on, unless you have some really roleplay-heavy players, magic is the best thing to spend your money on. And that gets kind of tragic. I prefer games where cold hard coin is something you're encouraged to spend on luxuries: spyglasses, sailing ships, owning your own property (and improving it), ale and whores. I really prefer having a "magic economy" that's divorced from gold, because then players feel that a fine standard of living is what gold is _for_, and act accordingly. It was a problem in 3e, and it's still one today. 

Now that we've got the whole "alternate rewards for magic items" set up, there's really such an opportunity. Let people use alternate rewards as the basis for a separate economy of power-ups, and then figure out a gold-just-for-luxuries economy. Probably won't happen, but ah well, one can dream.


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Mar 2, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> Surely you mean a Warbearing Donkeyhorse.




Well said, sir! Extra points for the portmaneaus for the donkeyhorse that goes ahead of the party to find traps; the donkeyhorse that is fed to monsters to buy time for the party to run away; and the donkeyhorse that is shoved through doors, laden with nothing but open flasks of oil, while the party readies flaming arrows.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Mar 2, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> Surely you mean a Warbearing Donkeyhorse.




  Now we've got it 4Eified!


----------



## The Ghost (Mar 2, 2010)

Rechan said:


> And they don't even include the price of whores!




I believe the proper term is "Harlot" and I want my table so I know when I am propositioning one whether I am propositioning a Brazen Strumpet, a Haughty Courtesan, or a Saucy Tart.


----------



## Zaran (Mar 2, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Much as I think 4e is perfectly ginchy, the lack of mules probably has something to do with a design decision I don't personally agree with -- spending gold on magic. Once you have something clearly superior to spend gold on, unless you have some really roleplay-heavy players, magic is the best thing to spend your money on. And that gets kind of tragic. I prefer games where cold hard coin is something you're encouraged to spend on luxuries: spyglasses, sailing ships, owning your own property (and improving it), ale and whores. I really prefer having a "magic economy" that's divorced from gold, because then players feel that a fine standard of living is what gold is _for_, and act accordingly. It was a problem in 3e, and it's still one today.
> 
> Now that we've got the whole "alternate rewards for magic items" set up, there's really such an opportunity. Let people use alternate rewards as the basis for a separate economy of power-ups, and then figure out a gold-just-for-luxuries economy. Probably won't happen, but ah well, one can dream.




My thoughts exactly!  Personally, I do not think "they" designed the game so we can go to the magic emporium and buy a glowing codpiece (or make one if you like that sort of thing).  By the time we can afford something like that we've out-levelled it.  

In the game I'm in now, my party is flat broke because we blew all our cash on a big house and nice curtains.   Does it grant us any kind of game mechanics?  Not really.  But that sort of thing still has a place in the game and it would be nice if we didn't have to burden the GM with having to figure out prices and wall-paper patterns.


----------



## coyote6 (Mar 2, 2010)

Tav_Behemoth said:


> the donkeyhorse that goes ahead of the party to find traps;




That would be the common Pitfinder Donkeyhorse.



Tav_Behemoth said:


> the donkeyhorse that is fed to monsters to buy time for the party to run away;




Snackrun Donkeyhorse, IIRC. Its other notable use is in carrying the party's stash of medieval Cheetos and Mountain Dew.



Tav_Behemoth said:


> and the donkeyhorse that is shoved through doors, laden with nothing but open flasks of oil, while the party readies flaming arrows.




Flamedeath Donkeyhorse, of course.


----------



## Negflar2099 (Mar 2, 2010)

I think there's place in the game for something like this, a book filled with semi-useless magic items and mundane gear. The problem is that when you really look at D&D you realize that "treasure" is essentially trying to do two things. 

First it represents your characters reward/salary for living the life of an adventurer. It's meant to represent the logical reason your character can afford to go off spelunking in forgotten dungeons instead of farming the land like a sensible person. Second it represents the power your character has achieved. The more treasure you have the more powerful magic items you're able to purchase and the more powerful your character becomes. 

If the DM says you find 10,000 gp in a chest you can either spend that on a new house or you can buy a powerful magic sword. The roleplayers would buy the house while his buddy the powergamer would buy the sword. 

In a group where everyone agrees this is fine and dandy but I've DM'd mixed groups and let me tell you, it's a problem. When the roleplayers buy the house (or the donkey or what have you) they have essentially given up part of their power as a cost of roleplaying expense. The powergamer on the other hand, buys the powerful magical item and is suddenly much more powerful than the poor roleplayer. The roleplayer has been penalized for daring to roleplay. 

So the 4e designers decided lets remove the roleplaying aspects of treasure and make it all about power. That way the roleplayers have no choice but to buy magic items and thus they will never fall behind the power curve. I don't love this approach but as a DM it's certainly kept my headaches down to a bare minimum. 

I think the answer lies in the inherent bonuses system in the DMG2. If you no longer need magic items in order to be powerful than you can go ahead and buy that house. Sure your buddy might have a new flaming axe but other than turning his attacks to fire damage he doesn't gain that much benefit. Personally that's what I would do before introducing any sort of mundane items (and don't get me started on hirelings, as soon the PCs can hire torchbears mine just want a torchbearer army).


----------



## S'mon (Mar 2, 2010)

Zaran said:


> In the game I'm in now, my party is flat broke because we blew all our cash on a big house and nice curtains.   Does it grant us any kind of game mechanics?  Not really.  But that sort of thing still has a place in the game and it would be nice if we didn't have to burden the GM with having to figure out prices and wall-paper patterns.




I've always had a policy of giving fairly generous in-game bonuses for investment in stuff that isn't technically magical: the expensive soft boots that give +2 to move silently, the fearsome helm that gives +2 to intimidate, the ball gown that gives +4 to diplomacy at the Royal Ball, etc.  Having a big house with nice curtains is going to make a lot of dealings in that city a lot easier.  People will think of you very differently than if you were a homeless mercenary.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 2, 2010)

Zaran said:


> The mule isn't the main point of this thread.  I can probably get the gm to say I bought a mule for 8gp (I think that's how much they cost in 3e).  I don't really need stats for it since if it should for the most part die if it's in any combat.




Then don't start a snarky thread asking where your freaking mule is. Most of the stuff in your proposed Book of Mundane Stuff (TM) would take less time for your DM to come up with on the fly than it took you to post. Stuff can exist outside of a rulebook. (Weird, I know!)


----------



## S'mon (Mar 2, 2010)

Negflar2099 said:


> If the DM says you find 10,000 gp in a chest you can either spend that on a new house or you can buy a powerful magic sword. The roleplayers would buy the house while his buddy the powergamer would buy the sword.




Well, the way cost scales up in 4e greatly mitigates this problem.  You can get an item 1 '+' lower for 1/5 the cost.  Early on, spending 10,000gp on a mansion is a big, and potentially foolish, investment for a dungeon-delving PC, but it soon becomes a small sum to a high level adventurer, and the benefits may far outweigh the costs.

Eg: IMC the standard sale price of magic items to adventurers is 140% of the production/list cost, at the top end of the PHB's recommended scale.  But getting established in the community will bring that down - that 10,000gp villa can soon pay for itself, even for the powergamer.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 2, 2010)

I think it's important to note that gold in 4e isn't really representative of spending cash - it's more of an alternative, point based system of character advancement.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 2, 2010)

Negflar2099 said:


> So the 4e designers decided lets remove the roleplaying aspects of treasure and make it all about power. That way the roleplayers have no choice but to buy magic items and thus they will never fall behind the power curve. I don't love this approach but as a DM it's certainly kept my headaches down to a bare minimum.




In my current 4E campaign the only magic available for sale (that is commonly available) is low level potions, some cheap magic trinkets and a few implements. This means the players can spend thier gold on whatever the hell they want thus keeping my headaches down to a minimum.


----------



## Zaran (Mar 2, 2010)

Negflar2099 said:


> In a group where everyone agrees this is fine and dandy but I've DM'd mixed groups and let me tell you, it's a problem. When the roleplayers buy the house (or the donkey or what have you) they have essentially given up part of their power as a cost of roleplaying expense. The powergamer on the other hand, buys the powerful magical item and is suddenly much more powerful than the poor roleplayer. The roleplayer has been penalized for daring to roleplay.





I think the balance is already built into the treasure reward system.   By the time the powergamer can afford that really powerful magic item he will have something better.   It would take the whole party putting all of their money into buying one item for one member to keep up with the normal magic item placement.    So by the time we are finding 10k in gold we have magical weapons worth five times that.  So there should really not be an issue about spending the money on non-essential things like donkeyhorses or harlot blightcarriers.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Mar 2, 2010)

In any system where you can spend cash to get power, spending money on anything other than power has the potential to produce an imbalance in the game.

Now, there are DMs out there who understand this, recognise it and can compensate for the effects. They track how much cash-power characters have, and hand out items specifically suited to prop it up if it's low. Or they hand out the non-power items for free, or some such system that keeps the system balanced.

HOWEVER, the default rules should not, IMHO, be written assuming that they are being run by the perfect DM. After all, I think we'll all agree that if we assume a perfect DM, then a game in any system at all, regardless of it's flaws, will be fun.

Therefore I find it perfectly acceptable that the rules don't allow players to fritter away a power mechanic without needing to put some thought into it.

And that's why a big book of useless stuff would be bad (because I guarantee that if wizards released such a book, it wouldn't be called "the big book of useless stuff", or even insinuate that the items within were not much use).


----------



## darjr (Mar 2, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Mules are unheroic.
> 
> As are torches, rope, iron spikes, sacks, chalk, 10' poles, flint & tender, iron rations, more rope, mirrors, sprigs of wolfsbane, and garlic.  Since you don't need any of these things cluttering up your character sheet, you don't need a mule carrying them, much less porters, torcher bearers, drovers or teamsters for carrying the stuff in and out of the howling wilderness.  Nobody ever used that stuff anyway because they all used heroic type IV bags of holding (available for heros to purchase at local general goods stores), and if they did use mules and such anyway, it's all badwrongfun.
> 
> I resist your attempts to rain on my 4e loving parade.   Get back to the 70's and 80's were wierdo's like you belong.




Uhm...

Hempen rope (50ft) - players handbook
Silken rope (50ft) - players handbook
Torch - players handbook
Climbers Kit - pitons - players handbook
Backpack - adventures kit -players handbook
Fint and Steel - players handbook
Quarterstaff - not quite 10' feet - players handbook
journeybread and trail rations - players handbook
Disguise kit has a mirror, at least I'd rule it does - players handbook
Rare herbs - players handbook

I'm just saying.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 2, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Then don't start a snarky thread asking where your freaking mule is. Most of the stuff in your proposed Book of Mundane Stuff (TM) would take less time for your DM to come up with on the fly than it took you to post. Stuff can exist outside of a rulebook. (Weird, I know!)




wow, that was uncalled for...

I also believe you don´t need a book full of roleplaying items... but it would fill some pages of DMG 3 quie well.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 2, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Then don't start a snarky thread asking where your freaking mule is. Most of the stuff in your proposed Book of Mundane Stuff (TM) would take less time for your DM to come up with on the fly than it took you to post. Stuff can exist outside of a rulebook. (Weird, I know!)




It's called humour. Enjoy it or not, as you wish, but it sounds like it probably isn't the thread for you.

Regards,


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 2, 2010)

korjik said:


> You rolled a 1 in the archery contest.




Ah, but you seem to be untrained in Insight.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 2, 2010)

Negflar2099 said:


> The powergamer on the other hand, buys the powerful magical item and is suddenly much more powerful than the poor roleplayer. The roleplayer has been penalized for daring to roleplay.
> 
> So the 4e designers decided lets remove the roleplaying aspects of treasure and make it all about power. That way the roleplayers have no choice but to buy magic items and thus they will never fall behind the power curve. I don't love this approach but as a DM it's certainly kept my headaches down to a bare minimum.




The level of the magic items a character can buy usually is a flatter curve in 4E, so the person buying the house isn't at a disadvantage to "the powergamer." And the designers didn't make the game "all about power" or "only about magic items." Instead they left such aspects up to the DM. An unrealistic world only occurs if you allow it to be unrealistic.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 2, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> It's called humour. Enjoy it or not, as you wish, but it sounds like it probably isn't the thread for you.
> 
> Regards,




I reply to humor with humor and get slapped for it. Can I be Curly?


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Mar 2, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> That would be the common Pitfinder Donkeyhorse.
> 
> Snackrun Donkeyhorse, IIRC. Its other notable use is in carrying the party's stash of medieval Cheetos and Mountain Dew.
> 
> Flamedeath Donkeyhorse, of course.




My seven year old confirms that you don't need deep familiarity with 4E naming conventions to find these hilarious. Some others we came up with:

A mule heavily dosed with poison before being fed to a monster: Bellyache Donkeyhorse

A mule cut open and climbed into by a halfling as an ice cave survival measure: Nastyblanket Donkeyhorse


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 2, 2010)

I find it a bit disappointing the OP needs official stats for a mule. 

Mod something or handwave it or make it up yourself out of whole cloth.


----------



## Stoat (Mar 2, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I think it's important to note that gold in 4e isn't really representative of spending cash - it's more of an alternative, point based system of character advancement.




The same is true in 3E. 

I kinda wish that Fourth had just gone ahead and done a point-based system for items.


----------



## korjik (Mar 3, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Ah, but you seem to be untrained in Insight.




Since I am the DM in question, and have had this conversation in person with Zaran, that seems unlikely.

You are very free with my prep time. While I could come up with stuff rather easily, it would be rather time consuming. Time that would take away from things like plot or enounter design. 

It is too bad that there isnt some organization which has people who get paid to make books that one could buy, that would have the stuff we would like in it.


----------



## MacMathan (Mar 3, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> spyglasses, sailing ships, owning your own property (and improving it), ale and whores.




Funny enough our 4e group has spent money on everyone of those. Just depends on the group and the DM. When I DM I don't think I would spend cash for a list of mundane items.


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 3, 2010)

Oh god!  This thread is just chock full of opportunity for humorous responses. But every response I think of would never pass Eric's Grandma rule.

The effort of restraint is killing me!


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 3, 2010)

korjik said:


> Since I am the DM in question, and have had this conversation in person with Zaran, that seems unlikely.
> 
> You are very free with my prep time. While I could come up with stuff rather easily, it would be rather time consuming. Time that would take away from things like plot or enounter design.
> 
> It is too bad that there isnt some organization which has people who get paid to make books that one could buy, that would have the stuff we would like in it.




Free yourself of the burden of precision from rulebooks and prep time for this sort of stuff.

Your player asks to buy a mule.  You say ok, you buy a mule.  He says how much is it...and if they are around 1-3 level, you make up a number on the fly like 5gp from the local vendor.  And if they are 4+ level you say "don't worry about it, you can afford it without noticing the cost really".  And that's it.

And when they ask for the stats, you say "it will get you where you are going faster that your feet for long distances, but if you try to use it in combat for anything more than an object filling a space, it will die like a minion".

And that's it.  You don't need a book.  You don't need stats.  You don't need prep time for this.  You don't need anything more than the shortest of conversations for this.  

You can do it.  You'll probably find it becomes a freeing feeling to just do this sort of thing on the fly, and maybe other things in your game will come more easily on the fly.


----------



## Psion (Mar 3, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Then don't start a snarky thread asking where your freaking mule is.




Hostile much?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 3, 2010)

korjik said:


> Since I am the DM in question, and have had this conversation in person with Zaran, that seems unlikely.
> 
> You are very free with my prep time. While I could come up with stuff rather easily, it would be rather time consuming. Time that would take away from things like plot or enounter design.
> 
> It is too bad that there isnt some organization which has people who get paid to make books that one could buy, that would have the stuff we would like in it.




Funnily enough, I'm playing my first 4e campaign with a brand new DM.  And I mean, brand spanking new.  It's her first time DMing ANYTHING.  I wanted to buy a horse, didn't have the cash and she decided on the fly that I could rent horses for x sp per day.

How hard is it to say, Mule- riding horse stats, no attacks, 10 gp?

After all, why does the mule actually need stats?  It's not like it's going to be used in battle most likely.  So, why worry about it?


----------



## merelycompetent (Mar 3, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> That would be the common Pitfinder Donkeyhorse.
> 
> Snackrun Donkeyhorse, IIRC. Its other notable use is in carrying the party's stash of medieval Cheetos and Mountain Dew.
> 
> Flamedeath Donkeyhorse, of course.




I just sprayed a mouthful of very nice brandy across my monitor.

XP for you! I haven't laughed that hard about a post here in over a year!


----------



## darjr (Mar 3, 2010)

korjik said:


> While I could come up with stuff rather easily, it would be rather time consuming. Time that would take away from things like plot or enounter design.




Wut?

For a 10' pole? A mule? Really?


----------



## Barastrondo (Mar 3, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I think it's important to note that gold in 4e isn't really representative of spending cash - it's more of an alternative, point based system of character advancement.




Yeah, it'd just be nice to see some guidelines as to the expected proportion. You know, like "At this level, the party should get a total of 200,000 gp, 180,000 of which will be in the form of magic items, blessings, ritual components, specialized martial training and other power-ups, and 20,000 of which is coin for mundane necessities and luxuries." It would have the added benefit of allowing players to retain some connection with the mundane world they've been adventuring in for those first 10 levels, as they'd have reasons to still be part of that economy.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 3, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> That would be the common Pitfinder Donkeyhorse.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Don't forget the Lootbearer Donkeyhorse (who literally carries the party's treasure, as intended), the Futuresnack Donkeyhorse (purchased when going over the treacherous mountain pass in winter, a.k.a. the Donnerdonkeyhorse), and the truly mythical one who can talk, sing & heckle- the Bard Donkeyhorse.

This latter one is immortalized in many a rap song, so I hear, almost exclusively possessed by women (though not the same kind of women likely to be found in the company of unicorns).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 3, 2010)

BTW...

Is there a Cleavestarter Kittenbag?


----------



## billd91 (Mar 3, 2010)

darjr said:


> Wut?
> 
> For a 10' pole? A mule? Really?




Really. Some people aren't good at coming up with that sort of stuff on the fly. It's one of the reasons we buy rule expansions, so that we can benefit from the ability other people have to kit things up.

I can understand a bit of dismay at having a couple books of expanded gear without much treatment of mundane gear, particularly since the main adventuring gear list was fairly sparse. For me, it's another reminder that 4e really isn't in the same groove as earlier editions and isn't thought of in the same way by WotC.


----------



## Glyfair (Mar 3, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> wow, that was uncalled for...
> 
> I also believe you don´t need a book full of roleplaying items... but it would fill some pages of DMG 3 quie well.



Actually, I already have it.  There was a Rolemaster book released called "...and a 10' pole."  It was essentially a book of "roleplaying items" sorted by era with some brief descriptions and price based on era.  

Now, I never played Rolemaster.  However, that doesn't matter for this book.  There is just a smidgen of rules content, so it works for every game I might want to play.  I don't see why WotC would be able to sell me something I already have, and don't see why they'd want to duplicate something that already exists.


----------



## Orius (Mar 3, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I prefer games where cold hard coin is something you're encouraged to spend on luxuries: spyglasses, sailing ships, owning your own property (and improving it), ale and whores.




Since when are ale and whores luxury goods?!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 3, 2010)

2Ed had[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Auroras-Whole-Realms-Catalog-Forgotten/dp/1560763272"] Aurora's Whole Realms' Catalog[/ame] full of "role-play" gear, some of which had real in-game impact...and not all of it good!  (Some items were, essentially, snake-oil.)

3Ed had a variety of arms & equipment guides- official and 3rd party, mere sections and whole books worth, most of which had real in-game impact.

4Ed could probably use a bit more of this- this kind of product brings real value to the table.

Consider- if you follow that link, you'll see that Aurora's goes for the not-inconsiderable sum of nearly $40 at Amazon!  _Somebody_ wants this kind of material!


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Mar 3, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I also believe you don´t need a book full of roleplaying items... but it would fill some pages of DMG 3 quie well.



I don't think a book full of "roleplaying" items is strictly necessary, either.  But, when I played WoW, vanity pets and titles were popular things amongst a large subgrou of player.  I think they could devote a decent chunk of an Adventurer's Vault or Bazaar of the Bizarre article to beasts, vehicles, and items that don't have a direct relationship to adventuring.


----------



## nightwyrm (Mar 3, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> Free yourself of the burden of precision from rulebooks and prep time for this sort of stuff.
> 
> Your player asks to buy a mule. You say ok, you buy a mule. He says how much is it...and if they are around 1-3 level, you make up a number on the fly like 5gp from the local vendor. And if they are 4+ level you say "don't worry about it, you can afford it without noticing the cost really". And that's it.
> 
> ...




+1

I don't want to carry around and reference a book filled with stats of useless stuff.  For things that have little to no effect in game, I prefer to just make it up on the spot.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 3, 2010)

If you have the time, it's not that hard to come up with a 'Sears Catalog' of mundane gear, transport, hirelings, and other assorted gype.

Or use ours.  It can be found  here - just click on item 4.20 "Sears Catalog and Equpiment Guide" and it'll open in Word.  It even has weights listed, for those who want to track encumbrance.

You might have to adjust the listed costs of things to reflect a 4e economy; I'll leave that up to you. 

Lan-"in Decast, a mule costs 10 g.p."-efan


----------



## Holy Bovine (Mar 3, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> Free yourself of the burden of precision from rulebooks and prep time for this sort of stuff.
> 
> Your player asks to buy a mule.  You say ok, you buy a mule.  He says how much is it...and if they are around 1-3 level, you make up a number on the fly like 5gp from the local vendor.  And if they are 4+ level you say "don't worry about it, you can afford it without noticing the cost really".  And that's it.
> 
> ...




Excellent suggestions Mistwell.  This is exactly how I treat horses the party buys just to get them from point A to point B faster.  Chances are they are going to sell them (if they don't eat them - there is a reason the most popular names for horses in my games are Extra Rations and Chicken!  )when they are done and get back a good amount of what they paid in the first place.  For the first few levels this is worth tracking - after that it becomes needless bookkeeping.  And I have always had non-warfare trained horses act as minions in combat - they also would only attack if something attacked them and missed.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Mar 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 2Ed had Aurora's Whole Realms' Catalog full of "role-play" gear, some of which had real in-game impact...and not all of it good!  (Some items were, essentially, snake-oil.)
> 
> 3Ed had a variety of arms & equipment guides- official and 3rd party, mere sections and whole books worth, most of which had real in-game impact.
> 
> ...




I was going to suggest that one.  Aurora's Whole Realms should be a must own for any DM.  So much neat and fun (and funny!) stuff in there.


----------



## Zaran (Mar 3, 2010)

darjr said:


> Wut?
> 
> For a 10' pole? A mule? Really?





How about a 3 masted ship?  Or a 12 bedroom estate?  How much does a moathouse cost?

Sure the GM can make up this stuff.  But alot of GMs don't want to deal with that sort of thing.   

What I don't understand is why would anyone oppose a book like this?  It does nothing but give players and GMs tender to kindle the fires of inspiration.   

And I would be all for this stuff being put into the next Adventurer's Vault or Dungeon Master's Guide but I do think that we can come up with all kinds of ideas to fill a whole book.


----------



## Bullgrit (Mar 3, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> I think it's important to note that gold in 4e isn't really representative of spending cash - it's more of an alternative, point based system of character advancement.



Hasn't this been the case in all editions of D&D? XP for GP.

Bullgrit


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 3, 2010)

Zaran said:


> And I would be all for this stuff being put into the next Adventurer's Vault or Dungeon Master's Guide but I do think that we can come up with all kinds of ideas to fill a whole book.




I would oppose having it in the Adventurer's Vault, and probably the DMG as well. People who prefer to handwave/homebrew that sort of thing and concentrate on magic items would be annoyed at having a chunk of their AV devoted to it... and people like me who are just about ready to scrap the entire magic item system would be annoyed at having a chunk of my 4E Arms and Equipment Guide devoted to magic items.


----------



## darjr (Mar 3, 2010)

Zaran said:


> How about a 3 masted ship?  Or a 12 bedroom estate?  How much does a moathouse cost?
> 
> Sure the GM can make up this stuff.  But alot of GMs don't want to deal with that sort of thing.
> 
> ...




Sailing ship - players handbook - 10,000 gp

I could figure months to build for either the other two and easily put it at 100,000 gp for either. Course I could be wrong, if you were my player I might listen to a counter offer.......

I don't understand the depth of the angst so I can't empathize with folks that are upset that it isn't in the core or not in the first three. I do understand a desire for rules to cover such things, and I wouldn't mind them, I just don't see the lack, as such a big deal. I also see it as an oppourtunity for a third party, maybe a pdf?


----------



## Zaran (Mar 3, 2010)

darjr said:


> Sailing ship - players handbook - 10,000 gp
> 
> I could figure months to build for either the other two and easily put it at 100,000 gp for either. Course I could be wrong, if you were my player I might listen to a counter offer.......
> 
> I don't understand the depth of the angst so I can't empathize with folks that are upset that it isn't in the core or not in the first three. I do understand a desire for rules to cover such things, and I wouldn't mind them, I just don't see the lack, as such a big deal. I also see it as an oppourtunity for a third party, maybe a pdf?




I can see Dragon doing an article on it, but I feel that enough people would purchase a book to make it profitable.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 3, 2010)

Psion said:


> Hostile much?




Always, why?

On-topic: A book of interesting non-combat stuff like the 2E book mentioned above would be cool, but then again it already exists and would still be useful in 4E. An in-print version, or a-hem WotC, the original version in pdf would be welcome for those who want it. Or a new Stronghold Builders book (again the original in pdf would be nice). But I don't see anyone convincing a company to write a brand new book of useless stuff. It would just be someone assigning abitrary costs to mundane items. Others have already pointed out that you can do that without attributable prep time. Mule? Already answered that. 10' pole? Sure you got one. How much? Not enough money to care.


----------



## SkidAce (Mar 3, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Yeah, it'd just be nice to see some guidelines as to the expected proportion. You know, like "At this level, the party should get a total of 200,000 gp, 180,000 of which will be in the form of magic items, blessings, ritual components, specialized martial training and other power-ups, and 20,000 of which is coin for mundane necessities and luxuries." It would have the added benefit of allowing players to retain some connection with the mundane world they've been adventuring in for those first 10 levels, as they'd have reasons to still be part of that economy.




My players would toss any distribution plan out the window.  sometimes they just hoard the cash.

Which they have not caught on to that in 4th it doesnt help as much due to scaling...hehe..not my problem


----------



## Stoat (Mar 3, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> Hasn't this been the case in all editions of &D? XP for GP.
> 
> Bullgrit




I don't think it was the case in 2E.  You couldn't trade in gold for exp, and the purchase of magical items was strongly discouraged/outright prohibited.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 3, 2010)

In 1e our common tactic, usually frustrated by any non-gullible DM, was to buy a whole bunch of herd animals (goats, or dogs, or even mules) and shoo them in front of us through the dungeon to set off traps. We also used to buy absurd numbers of songbirds just because we thought it was funny.


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Mar 3, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> frustrated by any non-gullible DM




Agreed that it'd take an epic-level Handle Animal check to convince livestock to go into creepy dungeons and do the things players want them to. Susan Orleans' piece on mules in the New Yorker talks about how attempts to deliver supplies by parachuting mules failed because the mules were too sensible to step out of an airplane.

In Tim Kask's OD&D game at GaryCon I, I used a _ring of mammal control_ to get around this. Why I chose sheep as my preferred trap-springing livestock is hard to reconstruct, but seemed to make sense at the time.  

For those with more limited means, a songbird in a cage on the end of a 10' pole is quite feasible.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 3, 2010)

Tav_Behemoth said:


> Agreed that it'd take an epic-level Handle Animal check to convince livestock to go into creepy dungeons and do the things players want them to.



Wait, Tav - "epic"? "Skill check"? Is this some sort of wacky "non-weapon proficiency" thing from Oriental Adventures? Can't screw up what you don't have!

I'll be over here with my 5th level monk Immaculate, thank you very much, and a whole lotta sheep. Baaaa.


----------



## coyote6 (Mar 3, 2010)

Glyfair said:


> Actually, I already have it.  There was a Rolemaster book released called "...and a 10' pole."  It was essentially a book of "roleplaying items" sorted by era with some brief descriptions and price based on era.
> 
> Now, I never played Rolemaster.  However, that doesn't matter for this book.  There is just a smidgen of rules content, so it works for every game I might want to play.  I don't see why WotC would be able to sell me something I already have, and don't see why they'd want to duplicate something that already exists.




That book is actually still available, directly from ICE. It's right here.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 3, 2010)

4E economics turns the simple act of buying a mule into a complex exercise that scales with level:

A heroic tier mule costs 10-15 gp and can carry loot and gear as an at-will ability.

A paragon tier mule costs 5000-7500 gp, and has the same abilities as the heroic tier mule. In addition, the paragon tier mule can fly a number of squares equal to its move each turn. The paragon tier mule answers the age old question: when donkeys fly?

The epic tier mule costs 45000-60000 gp, has the same abilities as the paragon tier mule and can also perform overland flight. If anything is added to, or removed from the mule's pack during flight (a minor action) the mule crashes.


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 3, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> 4E economics turns the simple act of buying a mule into a complex exercise that scales with level:
> 
> A heroic tier mule costs 10-15 gp and can carry loot and gear as an at-will ability.




So, the standard Lootbearing DonkeyHorse (as named earlier in the thread).  Cool.



ExploderWizard said:


> A paragon tier mule costs 5000-7500 gp, and has the same abilities as the heroic tier mule. In addition, the paragon tier mule can fly a number of squares equal to its move each turn. The paragon tier mule answers the age old question: when donkeys fly?




So, this is the PegasusWinged DonkeyHorse?



ExploderWizard said:


> The epic tier mule costs 45000-60000 gp, has the same abilities as the paragon tier mule and can also perform overland flight. If anything is added to, or removed from the mule's pack during flight (a minor action) the mule crashes.




We'll just call this one an AirBus.


----------



## korjik (Mar 3, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Always, why?
> 
> On-topic: A book of interesting non-combat stuff like the 2E book mentioned above would be cool, but then again it already exists and would still be useful in 4E. An in-print version, or a-hem WotC, the original version in pdf would be welcome for those who want it. Or a new Stronghold Builders book (again the original in pdf would be nice). But I don't see anyone convincing a company to write a brand new book of useless stuff. It would just be someone assigning abitrary costs to mundane items. Others have already pointed out that you can do that without attributable prep time. Mule? Already answered that. 10' pole? Sure you got one. How much? Not enough money to care.




So if everyone shows interest in buying a book of useless stuff, WOTC will simply ignore that?


----------



## korjik (Mar 3, 2010)

For all the people who think I should just ad-lib all this during the game:

I could just make it up myself. I could also make the whole freakin game up myself too. I would even get the math right.

I lack both time (I should be working on my _PhD dissertation_ not my game), and desire to do it.

I would much prefer to spend money on product generated by someone who _does game design for a living_ than generate it myself.

That way, I can support my FLGS, I can support WOTC, and I can get a much nicer looking product than I could generate myself.

Alot of the point of this thread is to see if there are others who think the same way Zaran and I do. We want to see if there is actually some desire for this kind of product. Looks like there is at least some desire.

Lastly, I would like to thank those who have pointed out other companies 'books of useless stuff'. I will look into those when I get the chance.


----------



## coyote6 (Mar 3, 2010)

Oh, one more "book of stuff" to keep an eye out for -- sometime this year (I hope), SJGames should be releasing GURPS Low Tech (for GURPS 4e) and 3 PDF companions, that appear to be covering all kinds of low-tech gear & concerns. (For example, the three companions are sub-titled "Philosophers and Kings", "Weapons and Warriors", and "Daily Life, Tools, and Trade".)


----------



## Votan (Mar 3, 2010)

korjik said:


> For all the people who think I should just ad-lib all this during the game:
> 
> I could just make it up myself. I could also make the whole freakin game up myself too. I would even get the math right.
> 
> ...




Agreed.  When I just "guess" at a price on the fly I always get something wrong.  D&D economics has enough issues without the DM creating a new set due to random bad guesses as to the costs of items.

Later on, I would ignore these costs as players with wealth beyond the dreams of avarice can likely afford a 10 foot pole.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 3, 2010)

korjik said:


> For all the people who think I should just ad-lib all this during the game:
> 
> I could just make it up myself. I could also make the whole freakin game up myself too. I would even get the math right.
> 
> ...



I think the problem that some people are having is that so many of the examples being given as "something we'd like to see" are either 1) already present in the rules (sailing ships) or 2) are easily approximated by just reducing the price of something already in the books (ex: Why can't a mule just be a cheaper riding horse with the same stats?).

The thing is, if the item is truly as mundane as a pack mule or a 10' pole, you don't need a professional designer writing the rules for it. There is no "the math" to get wrong. It's a 10' wooden pole... you know, as in... a stick. It should be as close to free as makes no difference, at least as far as adventurers (who deal in gold) are concerned. I think people are just having a hard time understanding where the burden is for a DM in saying "OK Joe the Fighter, you now own a 10' stick. It does all the things you'd expect a 10' stick to be able to do.". I think people are also having a hard time understanding the value of a book that's filled with entries like....



> 10' stick, weight: 5 lbs, cost: 1cp
> A 10' stick is a straight 10' long wooden stick. It might be good for poking things and stuff.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 3, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Then don't start a snarky thread asking where your freaking mule is. Most of the stuff in your proposed Book of Mundane Stuff (TM) would take less time for your DM to come up with on the fly than it took you to post. Stuff can exist outside of a rulebook. (Weird, I know!)







Mistwell said:


> Free yourself of the burden of precision from rulebooks and prep time for this sort of stuff.
> 
> Your player asks to buy a mule. You say ok, you buy a mule. He says how much is it...and if they are around 1-3 level, you make up a number on the fly like 5gp from the local vendor. And if they are 4+ level you say "don't worry about it, you can afford it without noticing the cost really". And that's it.
> 
> ...






Hussar said:


> Funnily enough, I'm playing my first 4e campaign with a brand new DM. And I mean, brand spanking new. It's her first time DMing ANYTHING. I wanted to buy a horse, didn't have the cash and she decided on the fly that I could rent horses for x sp per day.
> 
> How hard is it to say, Mule- riding horse stats, no attacks, 10 gp?
> 
> After all, why does the mule actually need stats? It's not like it's going to be used in battle most likely. So, why worry about it?






"There you have it. If it doesn't matter in combat or have any impact on powering you up for said combat then just handwave it. Only items pertaining to the balanced treadmill of power growth mean enough to have any description of utility worth noting. 

You don't need tons of books and stats for the "important" stuff either so why is having metric tons of that flavorless crap published considered to be just fine?"




This post was made by my evil twin who hijacked my account, after viewing Star Trek epidode 5: _The Enemy Within_ a few too many times.

So set your vorpal blades to behead, buckle on some bracers of daily forgettable power, travel to the outer planes and cleave your way to glory!!


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 3, 2010)

*What the hell are you people doing, turning a funny thread into an edition war? Stop. Now.*


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 3, 2010)

korjik said:


> So if everyone shows interest in buying a book of useless stuff, WOTC will simply ignore that?




If everyone shows interest in buying a book of useless stuff I sure WotC will not ignore it. But not even the majority of people in this thread would find this book of useless stuff useful, ironic.

People have given you many sources for what you're looking for. I'd look into one of those before holding my breath over WotC's release of Complete(ly) Useless.


----------



## Alex319 (Mar 3, 2010)

> I think the problem that some people are having is that so many of the examples being given as "something we'd like to see" are either 1) already present in the rules (sailing ships) or 2) are easily approximated by just reducing the price of something already in the books (ex: Why can't a mule just be a cheaper riding horse with the same stats?).
> 
> The thing is, if the item is truly as mundane as a pack mule or a 10' pole, you don't need a professional designer writing the rules for it. There is no "the math" to get wrong. It's a 10' wooden pole... you know, as in... a stick. It should be as close to free as makes not difference, at least as far as adventurers (who deal in gold) are concerned. I think people are just having a hard time understanding where the burden is for a DM in saying "OK Joe the Fighter, you now own a 10' stick. It does all the things you'd expect a 10' stick to be able to do.". I think people are also having a hard time understanding the value of a book that's filled with entries like....




That's only partially true.

1. Some of the desire is not necessarily for "mundane" items as you are describing, but more "magical items with non-combat uses." For example things that give bonuses to skills, or make overland travel easier, and such-and-such. Those do require game mechanical rules.

2. Even "mundane" items might require game mechanical rules. Probably the 10 foot pole example, you are correct it is too simple to require game mechanical rules. But lets take the pack mule. If all you're planning on doing with it is carrying stuff around, then just set a capacity and you're done. But lots of other things can happen with it. Will it automatically obey any order, or will it resist if forced into a dangerous situation (like to set off a trap)? Does getting it to do certain things require skill checks, and if so what are the DCs? Is there a risk of it running away with your stuff if it feels in danger, and if so what (if any) rolls are required? Do you have to talk to it to give it orders, or can you give it orders in other ways (say if you are bound and gagged and want to get your mule to bring you something to help free you). So there's a lot to potentially make up.

3. There's another, more general reason why not having rules for something might make players less likely to want to try it. Consider the situation from the DM's perspective. My player asks to do something or have an item outside the rules, and I have to decide how powerful/effective to make it. It's often hard for me to tell when I make up rules for it, how it will turn out in play. If I make it too strong, then he's going to use it as often as possible, and potentially unbalance the game. If I make it too weak, then it gets used less, so it unbalances the game much less. So my incentive is to err on the side of making it too weak. But of course the player knows this, and anticipating that has an incentive to assume the worst, and thus not try it. If the rules were already there then players would know how it would work, so this problem would be elimianted.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 3, 2010)

Alex319 said:


> That's only partially true.
> 
> 1. Some of the desire is not necessarily for "mundane" items as you are describing, but more "magical items with non-combat uses." For example things that give bonuses to skills, or make overland travel easier, and such-and-such. Those do require game mechanical rules.




I don't think anyone has argued against non-combat magical items.



Alex319 said:


> But lets take the pack mule. If all you're planning on doing with it is carrying stuff around, then just set a capacity and you're done. But lots of other things can happen with it. Will it automatically obey any order, or will it resist if forced into a dangerous situation (like to set off a trap)? Does getting it to do certain things require skill checks, and if so what are the DCs? Is there a risk of it running away with your stuff if it feels in danger, and if so what (if any) rolls are required? Do you have to talk to it to give it orders, or can you give it orders in other ways (say if you are bound and gagged and want to get your mule to bring you something to help free you). So there's a lot to potentially make up.




I'm sure there's enough to publish Quintessential Mule. I'm also sure you'd be better off running a small print run. This kind of stuff is what DMing is all about. To borrow from the "videogamey" thread, trying to quantify all the potential interactions with a mule puts up artificial barrier to owning a mule. Trust your DM to do what is fun. That's what all of us OD&D through 3E DMs did (and for that matter 4E DMs now too).



Alex319 said:


> 3. There's another, more general reason why not having rules for something might make players less likely to want to try it. Consider the situation from the DM's perspective. My player asks to do something or have an item outside the rules, and I have to decide how powerful/effective to make it. It's often hard for me to tell when I make up rules for it, how it will turn out in play. If I make it too strong, then he's going to use it as often as possible, and potentially unbalance the game. If I make it too weak, then it gets used less, so it unbalances the game much less. So my incentive is to err on the side of making it too weak. But of course the player knows this, and anticipating that has an incentive to assume the worst, and thus not try it. If the rules were already there then players would know how it would work, so this problem would be elimianted.




Try erring on the side of the players. It's part of the "say yes" attitude. You have control as DM and can take things away that you find too powerful, Whereas, like you say, you can easily discourage players back into "the box" if you always err on the side of making things too weak.


----------



## Zaran (Mar 3, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> People have given you many sources for what you're looking for. I'd look into one of those before holding my breath over WotC's release of Complete(ly) Useless.




Actually, the positive response from many of the people in this thread has convinced me that there would be market for such a thing.  I understand that alot of you guys are wonderful GMs and don't need anything more than a notebook and some dice to gm your way out of any game.  

I still want my donkeyhorse!  And I would like to see it's entry into a future DnD product.

I have both the Complete Builder's Guide and the 3.5e PHB to give me values for such things but I would rather they be included in the 4e material.  I do think it has a place in this edition as do others.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 3, 2010)

Alex319 said:


> That's only partially true.
> 
> 1. Some of the desire is not necessarily for "mundane" items as you are describing, but more "magical items with non-combat uses." For example things that give bonuses to skills, or make overland travel easier, and such-and-such. Those do require game mechanical rules.



If I'm not mistaken, there are quite a few of those already around. A lot of Wondrous Items qualify in this respect. I'm sure we'll continue to see more and more of them as the game gets expanded.



> 2. Even "mundane" items might require game mechanical rules. Probably the 10 foot pole example, you are correct it is too simple to require game mechanical rules. But lets take the pack mule. If all you're planning on doing with it is carrying stuff around, then just set a capacity and you're done. But lots of other things can happen with it. Will it automatically obey any order, or will it resist if forced into a dangerous situation (like to set off a trap)? Does getting it to do certain things require skill checks, and if so what are the DCs? Is there a risk of it running away with your stuff if it feels in danger, and if so what (if any) rolls are required? Do you have to talk to it to give it orders, or can you give it orders in other ways (say if you are bound and gagged and want to get your mule to bring you something to help free you). So there's a lot to potentially make up.



Here you're going beyond just including more items in the game, you're completely going against the design philosophy of 4e; i.e. the game rules aren't the physics of the game world or by extension, a model of animal behavioral psychology. By design the game gives the DM broad tools (like skills, templates for skill challenges and creative ways to use the attack vs. defense mechanic), it doesn't tell you which skill to use or what the DC is for convincing your pet mule to walk into a mine field. Not only is it something that wouldn't interest most people who play 4e (IMO) it's a lot of work for the writers; work that would keep them from doing other projects that would have broader appeal.



> 3. There's another, more general reason why not having rules for something might make players less likely to want to try it. Consider the situation from the DM's perspective. My player asks to do something or have an item outside the rules, and I have to decide how powerful/effective to make it. It's often hard for me to tell when I make up rules for it, how it will turn out in play. If I make it too strong, then he's going to use it as often as possible, and potentially unbalance the game. If I make it too weak, then it gets used less, so it unbalances the game much less. So my incentive is to err on the side of making it too weak. But of course the player knows this, and anticipating that has an incentive to assume the worst, and thus not try it. If the rules were already there then players would know how it would work, so this problem would be elimianted.



If it's an item that has the ability to unbalance the game, I think we're well outside the realm of the OP's topic. A 10' pole isn't going to unbalance the game, no matter how cheap you make it. Neither will a magical spoon that makes all of your food taste like ice cream. If we're talking about something that actually has the ability to change the outcome of in-game events, I don't think those belong in the same discussion as Mules and 10' poles.


----------



## darjr (Mar 3, 2010)

Did someone already mention the adventuring gear decks from Paizo?

they do seem rather cool.

I don't know if there are prices.

http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/gameMastery/itemPacks/v5748btpy7u5o

I think there is a version two of that specific deck and there are others for other types of gear.


----------



## darjr (Mar 3, 2010)

Complete AD&D Items List: Miscellaneous Equipment

That list is neat and there are other lists for other things at the bottom of the page.


----------



## korjik (Mar 3, 2010)

Ourph said:


> I think the problem that some people are having is that so many of the examples being given as "something we'd like to see" are either 1) already present in the rules (sailing ships) or 2) are easily approximated by just reducing the price of something already in the books (ex: Why can't a mule just be a cheaper riding horse with the same stats?).
> 
> The thing is, if the item is truly as mundane as a pack mule or a 10' pole, you don't need a professional designer writing the rules for it. There is no "the math" to get wrong. It's a 10' wooden pole... you know, as in... a stick. It should be as close to free as makes no difference, at least as far as adventurers (who deal in gold) are concerned. I think people are just having a hard time understanding where the burden is for a DM in saying "OK Joe the Fighter, you now own a 10' stick. It does all the things you'd expect a 10' stick to be able to do.". I think people are also having a hard time understanding the value of a book that's filled with entries like....




There are thirty levels, going from 'which end of the sword do I hold?' to 'Move over god-boy, I am the new sherrif in town.' Oddly enough, you could probably get items that range from the 10 foot pole to the interdimensionally travelling floating flying magical city of the New Gods.

Open your mind. Leave the 10-foot pole behind.


----------



## coyote6 (Mar 3, 2010)

BTW, we seem to have missed an important entry in our earlier cataloging of mule types -- we didn't cover the one in the OP's subject line!

I'm not 100% sure where the regular "freaking mule" is listed, but the epic tier version, with that super power to never let your spirits down and its reputation as the kind you don't take home to mother, is listed as the Rickjames Donkeyhorse.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 3, 2010)

Ourph said:


> Here you're going beyond just including more items in the game, you're completely going against the design philosophy of 4e; i.e. the game rules aren't the physics of the game world or by extension, a model of animal behavioral psychology.




4E's rules are designed to address questions likely to come up in play. The "use <random animal, summoned creature, or hapless hireling> to set off traps" tactic is one with a long and well-attested history in D&D, so it's not unreasonable to want at least some guidance from the book on how to handle it. (My old gaming group called it "throw in a rat." Any time we suspected magical shenanigans, we would huck some poor rodent into the danger zone and see what happened to it.)



Ourph said:


> If it's an item that has the ability to unbalance the game, I think we're well outside the realm of the OP's topic. A 10' pole isn't going to unbalance the game, no matter how cheap you make it. Neither will a magical spoon that makes all of your food taste like ice cream.




You'll be eating those words when a PC sees the commercial possibilities in that spoon, corners the market, and builds a multi-million-gold-piece fake ice cream empire on magic spoons and gruel.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 3, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> 4E's rules are designed to address questions likely to come up in play. The "use <random animal, summoned creature, or hapless hireling> to set off traps" tactic is one with a long and well-attested history in D&D, so it's not unreasonable to want at least some guidance from the book on how to handle it.



Well, as far as I'm concerned the rules already give me plenty of guidance for adjudicating a situation like that. That's one of the strengths of having a toolkit approach.



> You'll be eating those words when a PC sees the commercial possibilities in that spoon, corners the market, and builds a multi-million-gold-piece fake ice cream empire on magic spoons and gruel.



It's difficult to make money selling magic items when you have to pay full price to create them and can only sell them at 1/5th that price.


----------



## malraux (Mar 3, 2010)

Alex319 said:


> 2. Even "mundane" items might require game mechanical rules. Probably the 10 foot pole example, you are correct it is too simple to require game mechanical rules. But lets take the pack mule. If all you're planning on doing with it is carrying stuff around, then just set a capacity and you're done. But lots of other things can happen with it. Will it automatically obey any order, or will it resist if forced into a dangerous situation (like to set off a trap)?



It's a mule, it won't obey any orders.


> Does getting it to do certain things require skill checks, and if so what are the DCs?



It's a mule, there's no convincing it to do anything.


> Is there a risk of it running away with your stuff if it feels in danger, and if so what (if any) rolls are required?



It's a mule, it will run away as soon as it has the chance.


> Do you have to talk to it to give it orders, or can you give it orders in other ways (say if you are bound and gagged and want to get your mule to bring you something to help free you).



You can give it orders however you want, but again, it's a mule, it will ignore those orders regardless of spoken, telepathically, sign language, or the use of puppy dog eyes.  At best, it will use the opportunity of you being tied up to run away.


----------



## darjr (Mar 3, 2010)

I do remember one time the party mule was forced to go ahead and fell into a very deep pit. bottomless actually. 'coarse it was carrying all the treasure and much of the equipment and food. Still, for a short while, they were happy they avoided the trap.


----------



## Zaran (Mar 3, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> BTW, we seem to have missed an important entry in our earlier cataloging of mule types -- we didn't cover the one in the OP's subject line!
> 
> I'm not 100% sure where the regular "freaking mule" is listed, but the epic tier version, with that super power to never let your spirits down and its reputation as the kind you don't take home to mother, is listed as the Rickjames Donkeyhorse.




Would that be the Superfreaking Donkeyhorse?


----------



## Zaran (Mar 3, 2010)

darjr said:


> I do remember one time the party mule was forced to go ahead and fell into a very deep pit. bottomless actually. 'coarse it was carrying all the treasure and much of the equipment and food. Still, for a short while, they were happy they avoided the trap.




That's funny!  Where was your party that you were avoiding bottomless pit traps?


----------



## darjr (Mar 3, 2010)

It was something of my own... just after keep on the borderlands.

They did exploit it later. I was a kid, what can I say?


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 4, 2010)

malraux said:


> It's a mule, it won't obey any orders.
> 
> It's a mule, there's no convincing it to do anything.
> 
> ...




Ahhh!  You're referring to the Muleheaded Donkeyhorse.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 4, 2010)

> Muleheaded Donkeyhorse.




Wildmind Braybeast.

_DARKER AND EDGIER_ people, come on!

Aaaaaaaaanyway, I want stuff I will actually use in my games in the books. Some mundane equipment is necessary, but I honestly don't need much more than that's in the PH. 

But perhaps _From Stone to Steel_ spoiled me.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Mar 4, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> Ahhh!  You're referring to the Muleheaded Donkeyhorse.




Actually, that's the Donkeyhorseheaded Donkeyhorse ("Donkdonk", for short).


----------



## Evilhalfling (Mar 4, 2010)

Im pretty sure the stats and price of a mule are coming out in the Darksun expansion. 

+2str, +2 con or +2 dex ; racial power - tireless worker 

The price really depnds on what you want it to do.  Gladiators are more expensive than pack carriers for instance.  Just check the sidebar on slavery


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 4, 2010)

Zaran said:


> How about a 3 masted ship?  Or a 12 bedroom estate?  How much does a moathouse cost?
> 
> Sure the GM can make up this stuff.  But alot of GMs don't want to deal with that sort of thing.




Pretty sure all three of your examples are in the books.  I know the ship is in the Adventurer's Vault.  I don't recall which book had the buildings, but one of them does.



> What I don't understand is why would anyone oppose a book like this?  It does nothing but give players and GMs tender to kindle the fires of inspiration.




For the really minor stuff, it's an artificial crutch that makes games worse in my opinion.  You don't want people feeling like they need to look every little thing up before they can use it in their game.  For a certain basic level, it's best if people get in the habit of just doing it on the fly.  And believe me, it really is a crutch.  You don't need the stats for the little stuff, you just think you do because you have a habit of looking to a source to tell you what to do when you could just be coming up with this stuff as you go with almost no effort and better impact on your game.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 4, 2010)

korjik said:


> For all the people who think I should just ad-lib all this during the game:
> 
> I could just make it up myself. I could also make the whole freakin game up myself too. I would even get the math right.
> 
> I lack both time (I should be working on my _PhD dissertation_ not my game), and desire to do it.




This response frustrates me, because it tells me you're not listening to some really good advice in this thread.

There isn't a time factor involved.  Once you get in the habit, it will take you LESS time than looking this sort of stuff in a book.  Some of us are trying to explain that to you, but you're still responding as if you need to prep this stuff in advance or explain a lot on the fly - you don't need to do either.  You're sweating the small stuff too much.

As for desire - I assume you do have the desire to hone your ability to run a smooth, seemless, compelling game.  Learning to do this stuff on the fly is an important aspect of doing that.  

I'm just talking about developing a habit here, and like any new habit it takes time to get used to it.  Just...trust me, it's worth it.  Your game will get better when you no longer feel the need to look up mules and 10 foot poles in books.



> That way, I can support my FLGS, I can support WOTC, and I can get a much nicer looking product than I could generate myself.




You're still talking like you need to prep in advance things like mules.  Why? Why do you feel the need to have this stuff in hand before it comes up in a game?


----------



## TarionzCousin (Mar 4, 2010)

Gary Gygax killed your mule with a gelatinous cube. 

Try to keep up!


----------



## Orius (Mar 4, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 2Ed had Aurora's Whole Realms' Catalog full of "role-play" gear, some of which had real in-game impact...and not all of it good!  (Some items were, essentially, snake-oil.)




Aurora's came to mind yesterday when I was reading this.  Every single time a "must-have 2e suppliments" thread comes up, a half dozen people at least mention Aurora's.  It's up there with the Tome of Magic and World Builder's Guidebook.  So maybe something like this would be popular.



Tav_Behemoth said:


> Why I chose sheep as my preferred trap-springing livestock is hard to reconstruct, but seemed to make sense at the time.




I dunno, but trap springing sheep just feel right.  Just as cows are the perfect living ammo for catapults.




ExploderWizard said:


> 4E economics turns the simple act of buying a mule into a complex exercise that scales with level:
> 
> A heroic tier mule costs 10-15 gp and can carry loot and gear as an at-will ability.
> 
> ...




As El Madhi and others have pointed out, those are properly refered to as heroic/paragon/epic donkeyhorses.  



Votan said:


> Agreed.  When I just "guess" at a price on the fly I always get something wrong.  D&D economics has enough issues without the DM creating a new set due to random bad guesses as to the costs of items.




That's my biggest take on the issue of making stuff up that 4e's missing; i don't want to half-ass the game balance.



darjr said:


> Complete AD&D Items List: Miscellaneous Equipment
> 
> That list is neat and there are other lists for other things at the bottom of the page.




One of my long unfinished projects is a huge master equipment list that has every piece of equipment in every D&D product I have.  Looking back I started that monster *11 or 12 years ago* and it was loaded with everything I could find in 2e rulebooks, splats and Dragon articles. It's still mostly in 2e form, I was going to eventually get around to trimming down the weapon list to 3e standards (I do not need tons of minor variants of the same weapon, really), and do some other 3e based streamlining. Such as simplifying clothing to the outfits listed in the PHB, with various cultural variants like the standard set in the PHB, the sets in OA, etc.

That page looks like a partial version of my list. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Wildmind Braybeast.
> 
> _DARKER AND EDGIER_ people, come on!




I think a compromise is in order.  Wildmind Donkeyhorse sounds just about perfect.


----------



## bouncyhead (Mar 4, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> There isn't a time factor involved.  Once you get in the habit, it will take you LESS time than looking this sort of stuff in a book.  Some of us are trying to explain that to you, but you're still responding as if you need to prep this stuff in advance or explain a lot on the fly - you don't need to do either.  You're sweating the small stuff too much.
> 
> As for desire - I assume you do have the desire to hone your ability to run a smooth, seemless, compelling game.  Learning to do this stuff on the fly is an important aspect of doing that.
> 
> ...




If one of my players wants to buy a WildMind BrayBeast, or a mirror, or a chicken (GimletBeak EggVault?) I just tell them to look it up in the book. Much quicker than ruling on-the-fly.


----------



## roguerouge (Mar 4, 2010)

Negflar2099 said:


> I think the answer lies in the inherent bonuses system in the DMG2. If you no longer need magic items in order to be powerful than you can go ahead and buy that house. Sure your buddy might have a new flaming axe but other than turning his attacks to fire damage he doesn't gain that much benefit. Personally that's what I would do before introducing any sort of mundane items (and don't get me started on hirelings, as soon the PCs can hire torchbears mine just want a torchbearer army).




I'd probably have the house scale in value, either as an investment or in the skill bonuses it provides or both. 



Dausuul said:


> You'll be eating those words when a PC sees the commercial possibilities in that spoon, corners the market, and builds a multi-million-gold-piece fake ice cream empire on magic spoons and gruel.




Exactly. I had a player once who basically wanted to play a merchant. Ad-libbing costs for things without any understanding of supply and demand would have lead to very bad imbalances fairly quickly.


----------



## Mark Chance (Mar 4, 2010)

S'mon said:


> I've always had a policy of giving fairly generous in-game bonuses for investment in stuff that isn't technically magical: the expensive soft boots that give +2 to move silently, the fearsome helm that gives +2 to intimidate, the ball gown that gives +4 to diplomacy at the Royal Ball, etc.




That only makes sense because clothing matters.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 4, 2010)

roguerouge said:


> Exactly. I had a player once who basically wanted to play a merchant. Ad-libbing costs for things without any understanding of supply and demand would have lead to very bad imbalances fairly quickly.




For some people, the 10-foot pole is an extraneous, unimportant detail, not even worthy of having a cost.

For others, the 10-foot pole is the most important thing in the world, and makes all the difference for their character.

Feel free to replace "10-foot pole" with any other relatively mundane, non-combat item. Believe it or not, there are gamers out there who want to "sweat the small stuff," because it forms the foundation for our games.


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 4, 2010)

this...



Tav_Behemoth said:


> the 4E version will not actually be called a mule, but rather a Donkeyhorse




and this...



coyote6 said:


> Surely you mean a Warbearing Donkeyhorse.




and also this...



Zaran said:


> I think the balance is already built into the treasure reward system.   By the time the powergamer can afford that really powerful magic item he will have something better.   It would take the whole party putting all of their money into buying one item for one member to keep up with the normal magic item placement.    So by the time we are finding 10k in gold we have magical weapons worth five times that.  So there should really not be an issue about spending the money on non-essential things like donkeyhorses or harlot blightcarriers.




and not least this....



Bullgrit said:


> Hasn't this been the case in all editions of D&D? XP for GP.
> 
> Bullgrit





The marginal value of gp in 4E is _grossly_ overstated in some of these threads. 

Especially since you can't buy a mule with it.


_EDIT: Ok, I was a little late to the thread, but still. _


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 4, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> This response frustrates me, because it tells me you're not listening to some really good advice in this thread.
> 
> There isn't a time factor involved.  Once you get in the habit, it will take you LESS time than looking this sort of stuff in a book.  Some of us are trying to explain that to you, but you're still responding as if you need to prep this stuff in advance or explain a lot on the fly - you don't need to do either.  You're sweating the small stuff too much.
> 
> ...




Speaking as a DM, if that data is in a book, I don't look up squat. I let the players do it. It may take longer for them, but from my point of view it's harder to get faster than zero time.

Furthermore, the OP's stated desire was for a book of mundane items. I don't know about him, but for me a large part of the reason for wanting such a book is for ideas. Yeah, if a player wants a ten-foot pole, I can bash up some stats (whatever stats a ten-foot pole requires). But the player might not even think to want a ten-foot pole without the book suggesting, "You know what helps for dealing with traps in a dungeon? A ten-foot pole!"

More generally, a list of mundane equipment does a lot to flesh out a world IMO. Looking back, one of my favorite things about the 2E Player's Handbook is that big list of gear, with everything from house cats to fancy clothes, just because it gave me a sense that there was a whole world here, not just a dungeon full of monsters to kill. After working out my character's combat stats, I got to picking equipment and started thinking, "What sort of clothes does this character wear? Does he have any pets? Man, it would be cool to have a ship... I better save up my gold."


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 4, 2010)

Expanding the above, here is the (mostly complete) gear list for 4E:

Bedroll
Candle
Common Meal
Flask (empty)
Hammer
Oil (1 pint)
Pitcher of Ale
Pitons
Torch
Typical Room (per day)
Alchemical Reagents 
Belt Pouch 
Flint and Steel
Grappling Hook
Hempen Rope (50 ft.)
Rare Herbs 
Sanctified Incense 
Waterskin
Backpack 
Chest (empty)
Climber's Kit
Crowbar
Luxury Room (per day)
Bottle of Wine
Feast (one meal)
Flute
Journeybread
Trail Rations
Horn
Lantern
Holy Symbol
Silk Rope (50 ft.)
Tent
Lute
*Cart*
Thieves’ Tools
*Wagon*
Glass Cutter
Camouflaged Clothing
Chain (10 ft.)
Disguise Kit
Fine Clothing
Everburning Torch
*Rowboat
Camel*
*Riding Horse*
*Giant Lizard (Draft)
Warhorse
Giant Lizard (Riding)
Rhinoceros
Elephant
Sailing Ship*

I mean, using rhino's to pull carts and carry stuff is a little cooler then the mule. 

But still. There should be a mule. 

And a pony for the gnomes and halflings.


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Mar 4, 2010)

I would like the specifically 4E version of the Book of Mules Etcetera to talk about how a 10' pole interacts with a trap.

Can you set off a trap just by sticking a pole into it, bypassing a skill check? Does it give you a bonus? How do you decide what kinds of traps interact with poles and how that should interact with the rules? 

The most successful skill challenges I've seen have been the most concrete. When we were trying to avoid being buried in the sand from a city emerging from the desert in Piratecat's game at Anonycon, the tight relationship between the challenge mechanics and the imagined scene made it easy to tell right away that wrapping your cloak around your face would help with your Endurance check once you were submerged, and also helped everyone decide which skills could be used in the challenge in the normal abstract way.

So I think the benefit of having Wizards do a book of ordinary-world stuff (even if at this point everything an adventurer might possibly want is in some previous edition sourcebook) would not be how to price it in 4E, but rather how to tackle the general question of relating 4E abstract mechanics like traps and skill challenges to ordinary objects in the imagined world.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 4, 2010)

Tav_Behemoth said:


> Can you set off a trap just by sticking a pole into it, bypassing a skill check? Does it give you a bonus? How do you decide what kinds of traps interact with poles and how that should interact with the rules?




Just go by the Magic-Item format.

*Ten Foot Pole    Level 1*
_This simple wooden pole doesn't quite go up to eleven. _
Mundane Item 5 gp
*Power (Encounter):* Standard Action. You automatically gain one success on any perception checks to locate traps along the floor, such as pit-traps or trip wires.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 4, 2010)

bouncyhead said:


> If one of my players wants to buy a WildMind BrayBeast, or a mirror, or a chicken (GimletBeak EggVault?) I just tell them to look it up in the book. Much quicker than ruling on-the-fly.




Why not instead tell them "OK, you do that"? Why have a player sitting there flipping pages of a book?


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 4, 2010)

GnomeWorks said:


> For some people, the 10-foot pole is an extraneous, unimportant detail, not even worthy of having a cost.
> 
> For others, the 10-foot pole is the most important thing in the world, and makes all the difference for their character.




WHO? For WHO is the 10-foot pole stats the most important thing in the world and makes all the difference for their character? Find me this person so we can ask them why.



> Feel free to replace "10-foot pole" with any other relatively mundane, non-combat item. Believe it or not, there are gamers out there who want to "sweat the small stuff," because it forms the foundation for our games.




You tell me how looking up mundane stuff in books forms the formations of your role playing games.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 4, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> Why not instead tell them "OK, you do that"? Why have a player sitting there flipping pages of a book?




Maybe because, as gamers, we tend to be that behavioral A word that Eric's grandma might blush over. Or we are Monty Python fans and really enjoy lists.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 4, 2010)

TerraDave said:


> Expanding the above, here is the (mostly complete) gear list for 4E:
> 
> Bedroll
> Candle
> ...




The Adventurer's Vault lists these mounts:

Blade spider
Camel
Dire boar
Elephant 
Giant ant 
Giant lizard, draft  
Giant lizard, riding  
Griffon
Griffon, rimefire
Hippogriff
Hippogriff dreadmount
Horse, celestial charger
Horse, riding
Horse, sea  
Horse, skeletal 
Horse, warhorse
Manticore
Nightmare
Rage drake
Rhinoceros  
Shark, dire  
Shark, riding  
Trihorn behemoth  
Wolf, dire
Wyvern

It also has the following Vehicles:

Apparatus of Kwalish
Airship
Chariot, Light
Chariot, Heavy
Greatship
Longship
Pinnace
Ornithopter
Wagon

Manual of the Planes adds:
Astral Skiff
Spelljammer
Planar Dromond


----------



## billd91 (Mar 4, 2010)

There was a halfling thief that a friend of mine played in a campaign some years ago who would look at that list of riding animals, notice that there was no pony or even a riding dog, and claim that the livestock purveyors were "smallists" (his term for bigots who didn't like the small races).


----------



## The Ghost (Mar 4, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> WHO? For WHO is the 10-foot pole stats the most important thing in the world and makes all the difference for their character? Find me this person so we can ask them why.
> 
> You tell me how looking up mundane stuff in books forms the formations of your role playing games.






Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Maybe because, as gamers, we tend to be that behavioral A word that Eric's grandma might blush over. Or we are Monty Python fans and really enjoy lists.




While I am in general agreement with the "just wing it" advice, I got to ask - why is someone wanting a book of Mundane Items so appalling that you need to challenge someone's play-style or refer to them in words that would make Grandma blush?


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Mar 4, 2010)

Yeah, there's a lot of "badwrongfun" in this thread.


----------



## bouncyhead (Mar 4, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> Why not instead tell them "OK, you do that"? Why have a player sitting there flipping pages of a book?




Well if it's a 14th level Rogue, dripping in cash, I think 'Ok you do that' would be my response.

But if resources are scarce, and ekeing out those resources is part of the challenge in a 1st level, every silver piece counts kind of way, then it's useful to have all that detail there for reference. I don't want to have to rule on-the-fly through a shopping list of mundane gear.

And when it comes to what does what?

Player: Oh, and I'll buy a freaking mule to carry all this gear.
Me: No problem.
Player: How much can it carry? All the gear? How fast does it move?
Me: That's all in the book.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 4, 2010)

The Ghost said:


> While I am in general agreement with the "just wing it" advice, I got to ask - why is someone wanting a book of Mundane Items so appalling that you need to challenge someone's play-style or refer to them in words that would make Grandma blush?






Drkfathr1 said:


> Yeah, there's a lot of "badwrongfun" in this thread.




In a jokey thread I made a joke about we gamers being the behavioral A word that means "sticklers for detail." Get your mind out of the gutter young man!


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Mar 4, 2010)

But its so much more fun to be dirty!


----------



## Obryn (Mar 4, 2010)

With no snark intended - I get that there are a lot of folks who want info on buying mules, iron pitons, and the like.  I'm kind of confused _why_.

As for me, I don't know why I need it for 4e.  I _do_ know why I need it in 1e.  4e is not 1e, and I don't know that something that improves one game necessarily improves another.  4e basically hops right into "affluent heroes" mode, whereas 1e starts - and stays at - "barely competent and struggling wannabes" mode for many sessions.  Also, equipment is a major point of mechanical differentiation for 1e - especially for 1st-level characters.

I have no problem narrating the effects of 10' poles, iron spikes, etc.  I have no problem adapting Page 42ish stuff to them if necessary.  I don't think I need a price list for things that cost a couple of copper.  I also don't want extra rule systems.  I don't want a table to tell me when a mule might run away from combat, or a pole's bonus for detecting traps.  I have a solid foundational system in place, and I trust my judgment as a DM.

But my game is not your game.  I don't doubt that it is important to your game, and I'd like to understand.

-O


----------



## The Ghost (Mar 4, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> In a jokey thread I made a joke about we gamers being the behavioral A word that means "sticklers for detail." Get your mind out of the gutter young man!




Fair enough. There just seems to be a lot of donkeys and mules in this thread!


----------



## SkidAce (Mar 4, 2010)

korjik said:


> Open your mind. Leave the 10-foot pole behind.




open-minded...check...leave the pole behind...never.

/grumble

they can have my pole when they pry it from my dead cold hands..


----------



## Hussar (Mar 5, 2010)

The Ghost said:


> While I am in general agreement with the "just wing it" advice, I got to ask - why is someone wanting a book of Mundane Items so appalling that you need to challenge someone's play-style or refer to them in words that would make Grandma blush?




Yes and no.

Sure, a book of mundane items is fine.  Cool, whatever, no skin off my nose.

But, there's been a lot of pretty good advice that's been completely blown off as well.  "Reskin a riding horse, 10 gp" is pretty good advice.  "Ignore the problem, if it gets attacked, it's a minion.  It can carry what's reasonable" is also pretty good advice.

What I don't understand is the need for this to be codified.  How often does it really matter what the exact carrying capacity of a mule is?  Do you really need the exact movement rates?  Why?

It was the need to codify everything that resulted in 3e having many rules, usually spread across many books, that tried to cover every situation.  I thought one of the main design priorities in 4e was to avoid this.  4e is about empowering DM's again, over the rules.  Well, that comes at a price.  If the DM has the power to determine things, then, well, the DM has to determine things.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 5, 2010)

Hussar said:


> What I don't understand is the need for this to be codified.  How often does it really matter what the exact carrying capacity of a mule is?  Do you really need the exact movement rates?  Why?




It largely depends upon your playstyle.  Some DMs don't like to "wing it"- and for a variety of reasons.  I've also encountered many players who don't like it either.

One of the benefits of codification is that you can definitely toss the book with the info at the player with the query and say "Look it up in here." and then go on to more important matters.

Besides, you never know what is going to jump start the old imagination...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 5, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> BTW, we seem to have missed an important entry in our earlier cataloging of mule types -- we didn't cover the one in the OP's subject line!
> 
> I'm not 100% sure where the regular "freaking mule" is listed, but the epic tier version, with that super power to never let your spirits down and its reputation as the kind you don't take home to mother, is listed as the Rickjames Donkeyhorse.




Or possibly the Badtrip Donkeyhorse.

And while we're talking about certain animals in this game, what about the proverbial creatures from various sayings and stories, like Mudlurker Skyboars (flying pigs), the Doomspeaker Raptorling (Chicken Little) and Tentnosing Sandbeasts (the camel who gets his nose under the tent)?

Ohhhh...what about the Acephalous Velociraptorling?


----------



## Zaran (Mar 5, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> 
> 
> But, there's been a lot of pretty good advice that's been completely blown off as well. "Reskin a riding horse, 10 gp" is pretty good advice. "Ignore the problem, if it gets attacked, it's a minion. It can carry what's reasonable" is also pretty good advice..




 It's really not about the mule.   Reskinning something seems to be the answer to everything that is missing from 4e.    I want to know why the so called imperfect GM that can't handle having noncombat stuff drain the player's resources seems to be so skilled at reskinning stuff?  Why can't the designers of the game put something out that is merely for roleplaying ? I also have to ask why some say that these so called useless items had a place in older editions but not in 4e?  Seems to me information is power for the imagination and every bit of aid helps.

I might point out that in game sessions where combat isn't the focus, having to pull everything the players ask for out of thin air is alot of work,  Also , a book of mundane stuff can give players ideas on what to spend their money on.   What can they spend it on now?  Well you can buy magical stuff and that's almost all you can buy.  I might point out that a book of useless stuff would only be useless in combat.  It would have great roleplaying uses.   And the game still is a roleplaying game right?

For those of you who will come back and say that roleplayers don't need stuff out of a book to spend money on, but a book with sort of thing wouldn't be a wasted purchase.  

I have to apologize about my lack of humor in the last few posts.  I tried to keep the thread funny and I really enjoyed the donkeyhorse suggestions.  Thanks.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 5, 2010)

bouncyhead said:


> But if resources are scarce, and ekeing out those resources is part of the challenge in a 1st level, every silver piece counts kind of way, then it's useful to have all that detail there for reference.



If a PC has so much loot he needs a mule to carry it, then it seems to me that said PC isn't really at the point where he's "ekeing" out a living anymore. In fact, I officially dub this Ourph's Roleplaying Truism #1...

"At the point where your PC needs a mule to haul his loot around, it becomes safe for the DM to hand-wave the price of said mule."


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 5, 2010)

Zaran said:
			
		

> Seems to me information is power for the imagination and every bit of aid helps.




I agree, though I honestly think that "reskinning" works really well for a lot of these things you're talking about.

What is the difference, mechanically, between a riding horse and a donkey?

It's not much, man. 

Though I'm on board with considering the lack of a 10' pole to be abhorrent. 



			
				Zaran said:
			
		

> What can they spend it on now? Well you can buy magical stuff and that's almost all you can buy.




Methinks this is by design. GP is more of a character advancement thing than an "ale and whores" thing in 4e (and in 3e, though it was less acknowledged). 



			
				Zaran said:
			
		

> I might point out that a book of useless stuff would only be useless in combat. It would have great roleplaying uses.




Man, I am pretty much always on board with filling 4e to the brim with a hot, steaming injection of creamy, sticky fluff. It needs it like most models need sammiches. But we're gonna need more than a book that lists the cost of horseshoes to do it. This isn't the best target, I think. 

I'd like a nice "ad-hoc GP cost" for things, maybe. And 10' poles. And maybe a handful of other mundane items. 

But I don't need much. 350 hardbacked pages of it might be too much for me. Probably, WotC thinks that it would be too much for most folks, so it wouldn't be very profitable. 

Braybeast Donkeyhorses get no love 'cuz they just ain't different enough from Warbeast Packmounts.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 5, 2010)

Drkfathr1 said:


> Yeah, there's a lot of "badwrongfun" in this thread.




I don't think it's "wrong" to want a book of mundane items, I just think some people would be better served by working on their on-the-fly skills for things like this.  More rules for things you can do yourself in a single breath can serve as a crutch.


----------



## Orius (Mar 5, 2010)

GnomeWorks said:


> For some people, the 10-foot pole is an extraneous, unimportant detail, not even worthy of having a cost.
> 
> For others, the 10-foot pole is the most important thing in the world, and makes all the difference for their character.




What are you going to use to probe for those traps then, some body part?  That's why the game has (HAD) poles!




TerraDave said:


> I mean, using rhino's to pull carts and carry stuff is a little cooler then the mule.
> 
> But still. There should be a mule.




Yeah, because not only are rhinos even more stubborn than mules, they're also pretty dangerous when pissed.  And they're always pissed.  I wouldn't use them for hauling stuff.



> And a pony for the gnomes and halflings.




Don't need a pony when the gnomes got cut from the fist PHB!  



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Or possibly the Badtrip Donkeyhorse.
> 
> And while we're talking about certain animals in this game, what about the proverbial creatures from various sayings and stories, like Mudlurker Skyboars (flying pigs), the Doomspeaker Raptorling (Chicken Little) and Tentnosing Sandbeasts (the camel who gets his nose under the tent)?




I'd prefer Tentnosing Spitbeast.  That's what camels are known for.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 5, 2010)

Ourph said:


> If a PC has so much loot he needs a mule to carry it, then it seems to me that said PC isn't really at the point where he's "ekeing" out a living anymore. In fact, I officially dub this Ourph's Roleplaying Truism #1...
> 
> "At the point where your PC needs a mule to haul his loot around, it becomes safe for the DM to hand-wave the price of said mule."




Such truism needs at least some caveats or notes.

I've been in a few adventures where the only thing of value was so massive or unwieldy that it was impossible to move without either a mule-team or breaking the treasure up.

And in some cases, that latter action could have some serious repercussions...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 5, 2010)

> Yeah, because not only are rhinos even more stubborn than mules, they're also pretty dangerous when pissed. And they're always pissed. I wouldn't use them for hauling stuff.




And, lets face it, mules can go places that rhinos fear to tread...like treacherous trails up the steep sides of a gorge (think of the Grand Canyon) or up the side of mountains or volcanoes (Santorini).

Not to mention the hassles of moving a rhino around in a series of 10' wide, 10' tall dungeon passageways...

(Oh yeah- did I mention that they sometimes wag their tails vigorously while pooping, creating a "hitting the fan" effect?)


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 5, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> WHO? For WHO is the 10-foot pole stats the most important thing in the world and makes all the difference for their character? Find me this person so we can ask them why.




Your outrage fills me with joy.



> You tell me how looking up mundane stuff in books forms the formations of your role playing games.




Your strawman, however, irritates me.


----------



## Alex319 (Mar 5, 2010)

> What I don't understand is the need for this to be codified. How often does it really matter what the exact carrying capacity of a mule is? Do you really need the exact movement rates? Why?




Again, it depends on the situation.

Here's an example. Let's say you have a scenario where the PCs are in charge of logistics for an army, and need to muster up enough mules, horses, etc. to bring X amount of goods from point A to point B in a certain amount of time, given limited resources. Then knowing things like how much a mule can carry, how far the mule could go in a day, how much food the mule would need, how quickly a mule can be trained, what options are available to improve any of those characteristics (e.g. spells, training techniques, equipment etc.) WOULD be very important to solve the problem.

Now, admittedly, there are a few solutions. You could just make up the information you need. But that would require a significant amount of work to get right, and if the players came up with an idea you didn't think of you would have to create even more information on the fly. More likely what you would do in such a situation is abstract the whole thing out into some sort of skill challenge. But that has a few problems:

1. You have to know in advance that that skill challenge is coming so you can prepare for it. Admittedly in the example above, it's probably not something that would happen unless it was planned in advance. But it's easy to imagine scenarios that aren't.

2. More importantly, it reduces the opportunity for meaningful decision making on the part of the players. Let's say the players are deciding "Should we train more mules now, or are we better off spending our time collaring the oxen and forcing them into service?" Presumably in a skill challenge, the player would say what they wanted to do, and then roll a skill check. The only link between the player's decision and his chance of success is a DM judgement (as to what skill, and whether to give a bonus or penalty) - so the player is essentially trying to guess the DM's judgement. But if the player had the stats, they could actually make the decision based on the stats, and thus they would have an opportunity for their problem-solving skills to make a difference.

(For an analogy, consider combat. The rules don't tell the players to just describe their tactics and the DM gives a bonus or penalty based on his judgement; the rules give the players tools to actually implement their own tactics, and then the rules determine the result. Having more rules ofr mundane items would make it so you could extend that paradigm into non-combat problem solving.)


----------



## pemerton (Mar 5, 2010)

Alex319 said:


> Here's an example. Let's say you have a scenario where the PCs are in charge of logistics for an army, and need to muster up enough mules, horses, etc. to bring X amount of goods from point A to point B in a certain amount of time, given limited resources. Then knowing things like how much a mule can carry, how far the mule could go in a day, how much food the mule would need, how quickly a mule can be trained, what options are available to improve any of those characteristics (e.g. spells, training techniques, equipment etc.) WOULD be very important to solve the problem.
> 
> Now, admittedly, there are a few solutions. You could just make up the information you need. But that would require a significant amount of work to get right, and if the players came up with an idea you didn't think of you would have to create even more information on the fly. More likely what you would do in such a situation is abstract the whole thing out into some sort of skill challenge.



The design intent of 4e is pretty clearly that this sort of thing is to be handled as a skill challenge. The DMG2 gives suggestions for what benefits are gained in a skill challenge by spending money (from memory, its 10% of the value of a magic item of the PC's level counts as a secondary success). From this information, the expectation is that the players and GM fit the narrative to the appropriate number of mules.




Alex319 said:


> it reduces the opportunity for meaningful decision making on the part of the players. Let's say the players are deciding "Should we train more mules now, or are we better off spending our time collaring the oxen and forcing them into service?" Presumably in a skill challenge, the player would say what they wanted to do, and then roll a skill check. The only link between the player's decision and his chance of success is a DM judgement (as to what skill, and whether to give a bonus or penalty) - so the player is essentially trying to guess the DM's judgement. But if the player had the stats, they could actually make the decision based on the stats, and thus they would have an opportunity for their problem-solving skills to make a difference.



A minor quibble - in 3E the players would also have to gamble on the GM's judgment as to the DC for collaring oxen. And if in 3E the players are allowed to have that information before choosing, then presumably in 4e they're allowed to know what +/-2 bonus the GM is going to apply for choosing mules over oxen.

A bigger disagreement - 4e is fairly clearly not designed to be played in the way you canvass here. For better or worse. Hence it doesn't provide the sort of information that would support this sort of play. For better or worse.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 5, 2010)

pemerton said:


> A bigger disagreement - 4e is fairly clearly not designed to be played in the way you canvass here. For better or worse. Hence it doesn't provide the sort of information that would support this sort of play. For better or worse.



Given the right material to work with, a half-decent DM can easily trump the design and make the game play any way she wants.  It's a lot of work, but made much easier if someone else comes up with the right material...in this case, a mundane items guide.

Lan-"anyone know if Zaran found his mule yet?"-efan


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 5, 2010)

You know those mules that always manage to NOT be in the line of fire or otherwise collateral damage, when you'd swear that they were (thus, saving the party's loot from the BBEG's Fireballs?) = BlinkSpecter Donkeyhorse.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 5, 2010)

Now that I am more awake, I think I have come up with a reasonable explanation as to why this sort of thing (the lack of costs and rules for "mundane" equipment and such) irritates some folks, myself included.

Those of you who are against the codification of some things seem to be coming at this from the idea that such "little things" don't matter. After all, if you're playing a character who regularly goes toe-to-toe with minor deities (or whatever else high-level 4e throws at you, I don't have much experience with epic tier), the cost of a mule or 10-foot poles is going to be irrelevant to you. Understandable, as it probably should be. Tracking your treasure to the silver, at those levels, is just tedium.

The problem, however, is that there are some folk who don't go to those extremes. The idea of playing a character for whom every silver counts is, for some, more interesting than playing Superman; that's not a knock on those who prefer playing high-powered characters, it's an accurate characterization.

"Sweating the small stuff" is, for some people, more interesting than playing a high-powered demigod. For myself, I have to ask - what's the point in playing a character that can level cities? How can I even begin to relate to such a character? Such a being doesn't exist in the real world. Their experiences and their interactions with other people are going to be so completely alien to me that I can't even begin to fathom it.

However, I could - and I stress "could" very heavily - if I wanted, go pick up a 10-foot pole at the local Fleet Farm, pick up a hammer or similar heavy instrument, and head into my city's sewers looking for giant rats to slay. Sane and reasonable, probably not - but it is certainly within my power to _imagine doing so_. Playing a character who does so is entertaining to me because it is something I could possibly do, and thus allows me to entertain the idea of doing so without actually doing it.

You can go ahead and claim, "but there's magic and dragons and all sorts of nonsensical things" all you like, but there are generally reasonable analogues in the real world to these things. Fireball? Flamethrowers or grenades. Magical healing? Modern medicine sure as heck seems like magic, sometimes, to a layman such as myself. Teleport? I've seen _Star Trek_, and while it might not be reasonable at the moment, the technology has passed into the mainstream such that it's not that far-fetched to imagine a world in which it exists. 

But you start getting into the crazy high-powered world of fighting deities, fending off entire armies by yourself... I mean, that stuff if not just beyond my personal experience, _it is nigh-improbable if not straight-up impossible_. I can relate to a character who wanders around with a sword fighting bandits, because that is something that I could, if I really wanted to, go out and do right now. I can't relate to a character that modifies the world on a whim with a single word, or who can fight deities.

Some people seem to hate on the "dreary tedium" that is lower levels, but you know what? Even that dreary tedium that a 1st-level character engages in is something that we don't go out and do everyday. When was the last time you cracked the skull of a goblin with a club, or fought a bunch of city guards because you decided you wanted to steal stuff rather than pay for it? Yeah, it's pedestrian, and yeah, it's not epic or world-changing... but it's something you can relate to, because - if you really wanted - you could go out into the real world and actually do those things (with the trappings a bit different, but the basic idea is still the same).

Escapism, for me and those like me, is not playing a character that is so powerful and absurd that entire armies stand no chance against them. Escapism for me is playing a character that can do things that, if the world weren't what it were, I could go do. I enjoy worrying about encumbrance and donkeys and 10-foot poles because they are things that _I_ would worry about if I were a half-crazy guy heading into a dungeon filled with critters who are more interested in eating me than having a reasonable conversation, and death-traps designed by architects of a civilization now long gone. The fantastic elements are well and good - who doesn't enjoy casting spells, or fighting dragons? - but for me, they need to be couched in the mundane in order for it to have any relevance to me at all.

For me, there is more wonder in doing things that, if I were perhaps just a touch more crazy, I would be able to do in the real world, than there is in playing a super-powered character capable of leveling cities.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Mar 5, 2010)

also, its not so much that anyone NEEDS this, its just that they WANT it. 

Nothing wrong with that. Really. 

What some would call a "crutch", others would call "options". 

A 32 page booklet with mundane gear, animals, and maybe some new alchemical items to boot would be an nice product. Maybe something a 3PP could come up with. (hint-hint)


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 5, 2010)

GnomeWorks said:


> Those of you who are against the codification of some things seem to be coming at this from the idea that such "little things" don't matter.




I can only speak for myself, but I don't think anyone is against such a product. We may not understand the need. And the general bewilderment of the thread is that ideas for working around the lack of these items are brushed off as useless. There's also a bit of a reality check going on here. You can hold your breath for WotC's Complete(ly) Useless or you can take the advice to wing it yourself. Which solution do you think will help your game the soonest?

And the structure of such a book is dependant on context. A book about mass combat and troop movements would probably sell well. Including a section on the use of beasts of burden, the different types, and the advantages/disadvantages of each would probably work really well. But a book of random stuff that includes an entry for mule that goes into the exact same information would seem out of context and not sell very well, IMO.


----------



## Zaran (Mar 5, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I can only speak for myself, but I don't think anyone is against such a product. We may not understand the need. And the general bewilderment of the thread is that ideas for working around the lack of these items are brushed off as useless. There's also a bit of a reality check going on here. You can hold your breath for WotC's Complete(ly) Useless or you can take the advice to wing it yourself. Which solution do you think will help your game the soonest?




I don't think we're going to march on the wizards HQ and have a non-violent protest for a book of useless stuff. Winging it is what everyone HAS to do now so nothing is really changing in that respect. Noone is holding their breath. You can't hold your breath and ask for donkeyhorses at the same time anyway.


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You know those mules that always manage to NOT be in the line of fire or otherwise collateral damage, when you'd swear that they were (thus, saving the party's loot from the BBEG's Fireballs?) = BlinkSpecter Donkeyhorse.




LOL!

"Put the loot over there on the mule...*blink*...I mean over there...*blink*...okay, over there then...*blink*...It's behind me, isn't it?"


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 5, 2010)

GnomeWorks said:


> Your outrage fills me with joy.
> 
> 
> 
> Your strawman, however, irritates me.




YOU: "Feel free to replace "10-foot pole" with any other *relatively mundane*, non-combat item. Believe it or not, there are gamers out there who want to "sweat the small stuff," because *it forms the foundation for our games*."

ME:"You tell me how looking up mundane stuff in books forms the formations of your role playing games. "

How is it a strawman? You characterized it as mundane stuff, and you characterized it as the foundation of your game.  So, what strawman? You meant the "looking up stuff in books" part? That is in fact the topic of this thread.  My argument is that you should not feel the need to look that stuff up in books - that's the argument you initially responded to (that's the "sweating the small stuff").  So, how is this a strawman?


----------



## Mark Chance (Mar 5, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> How is it a strawman?




Perhaps in the same way that a reference book is a crutch?


----------



## Zaran (Mar 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And, lets face it, mules can go places that rhinos fear to tread...like treacherous trails up the steep sides of a gorge (think of the Grand Canyon) or up the side of mountains or volcanoes (Santorini).




I can just hear my pack rhino now.  " You want me to walk up that path that winds around a precipitous cliff?  And you know that there are birds up there.  BIRDS, MAN!.  Nuh uh. I ain't doing it."


----------



## darjr (Mar 5, 2010)

Well if my players had a Rhino and could have convinced it to go first, it would have gotten stuck in the hole and they could have just unpacked their stuff. And had a convenient bridge over the trap.


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Mar 5, 2010)

In 1954 the New Yorker published an account of 240 U.S. GIs herding 900 artillery mules (i.e., they were meant to pull cannons, not they filled the distance-attack role in this encounter) from Burma, where they had been designated expendable during the demobilization following WWII, to China, where they were to be a gift to the Chinese Nationalists as part of the anti-communist effort.

On their worst day the group made 7 miles, on their best they made 24. The average day's travel was 16 miles, although at one point they had to enforce a slower pace to keep the mules healthy. Attempts to requisition a truck had failed, so this was under medieval-appropriate conditions (and some Silk Road-era trails that were literally medieval).

Spoiler warning: at the end of the journey the mules came down with an unknown virus. Afraid of infecting the native mule populace and thus causing the immediate collapse of the nationalist resistance, for after all what is a party without mules, the Army vets ordered all 900 mules shot and buried ASAP. First the writer tried to find several steam shovels, but none were forthcoming. Finally, in a very PC-worthy solution, he put about a dozen dead mules in each of the plentiful local gullies and then used dynamite to trigger avalanches for a loud and effective insta-burial.


----------



## Mark Chance (Mar 6, 2010)

Tav_Behemoth said:


> On their worst day the group made 7 miles, on their best they made 24. The average day's travel was 16 miles, although at one point they had to enforce a slower pace to keep the mules healthy. Attempts to requisition a truck had failed, so this was under medieval-appropriate conditions (and some Silk Road-era trails that were literally medieval).




Those sound spot on for march times and distances I experienced when I was in the Army (sans generalissue donkeyhorses). Pushing through 24 miles in a single day carrying even half standard infantry load (which would be about 30 or so pounds) was exhausting, and it wasn't the sort of thing one wanted to attempt traveling through what D&D would classify as wilderness.


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Mar 6, 2010)

Thanks for the input!  I also wondered about how the terrain would be classified; it sounded like they did consistently travel on a road or trail. (The writer traded a donkeyhorse for a ridinghorse and often scouted ahead for a place to pasture the mules; often this was a graveyard because everything else was rice cultivation.)

In your experience, what is an accurate estimate for visibility? How far could you spot someone moving; how close would you have to be to tell a mule from a horse, for example (and to try to keep this on-topic)?


----------



## Mark Chance (Mar 6, 2010)

Tav_Behemoth said:


> In your experience, what is an accurate estimate for visibility? How far could you spot someone moving; how close would you have to be to tell a mule from a horse, for example (and to try to keep this on-topic)?




Well, it's difficult to generalize because terrain, hour, weather, et cetera, affect so much. Most of my experience was either in forest or forested hill. Generally, you'll hear someone before you see them, and you'll end up seeing them within a dozen or so yards.

I remember one march at night practicing ambush skills. It was our turn to be killed. In the dark with enemies prone in the bush, you couldn't see them when they were a handful of yards away. When the ambushers blew the start (probably because several of the squad had fallen asleep), we turned and charged their position. I was literally almost standing on a man's head before I saw him.

The look on his face when I aimed my M16 at him and held the trigger down while on full auto to empty a magazine of blanks into him was priceless. 

Of course, we then got chewed out by one of the observers for not "dying in place" and had to do the whole thing all over again.

Also, keep in mind, I wasn't infantry, but rather support. Even when I was stationed with the 25th Infantry Division (Light) in Hawaii, I spent more time riding in trucks than I did marching. (Ah, the good life!) Consequently, my field experience is limited compared to many.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 6, 2010)

Alex319 said:


> /snip
> 2. More importantly, it reduces the opportunity for meaningful decision making on the part of the players. Let's say the players are deciding "Should we train more mules now, or are we better off spending our time collaring the oxen and forcing them into service?" Presumably in a skill challenge, the player would say what they wanted to do, and then roll a skill check. The only link between the player's decision and his chance of success is a DM judgement (as to what skill, and whether to give a bonus or penalty) - so the player is essentially trying to guess the DM's judgement. But if the player had the stats, they could actually make the decision based on the stats, and thus they would have an opportunity for their problem-solving skills to make a difference.
> 
> (For an analogy, consider combat. The rules don't tell the players to just describe their tactics and the DM gives a bonus or penalty based on his judgement; the rules give the players tools to actually implement their own tactics, and then the rules determine the result. Having more rules ofr mundane items would make it so you could extend that paradigm into non-combat problem solving.)




How many games out there are focusing on "training mules or ox teams"?  Do you think this is so common that it would drive a need to produce rule sets to cover this?

Sure, we can bring in real world examples of mule teams as well.

But, at the end of the day, have you done this in your campaign?  Have you done this enough times in a campaign that you felt the need to have codified rules sets?

No one called such a book a crutch.  The "crutch" quote came from someone who was putting words in the mouth of people questioning the need for such rules.  It's not a crutch.  It's, IMO, a complete and utter waste of time and money, but, hey, if you want it, more power to you.

Me?  I'll stick to campaigns that don't center around training mules and try for something that's perhaps a trifle more exciting IMO.  

As far as a group that is scrabbling for silver?  In D&D?  What D&D have you EVER played where this is true.  I mean, even a first level character is starting out with over 100 gp in most cases.  By 3rd level, they're walking around with over a thousand and that's not edition specific by any stretch.

The idea that a mule would be a major purchase for a D&D character is just bizarre to me.


----------



## Alex319 (Mar 6, 2010)

> How many games out there are focusing on "training mules or ox teams"? Do you think this is so common that it would drive a need to produce rule sets to cover this?
> 
> Sure, we can bring in real world examples of mule teams as well.
> 
> But, at the end of the day, have you done this in your campaign? Have you done this enough times in a campaign that you felt the need to have codified rules sets?




I think maybe the specific examples are missing the point. True, given any specific example (like training mules), either the probability of it coming up is low enough to not bother, or you know enough in advance to prepare something. But more generally, the probability that _something _will come up that isn't combat related and that you didn't anticipate is quite high. And whatever that thing is, it would be nice to have (at least partial) rules for it, so that players can try to come up with solutions.

Another way to put it is that there is a desire for a system that can do the following:

1. The DM puts the players in a situation, and says "okay, try to deal with problem X." The DM at this point does not necessarily know how to get out of X, how difficult X is supposed to be, or even if it is possible to get out of X. (Possibly because the DM didn't anticipate X.)

2. The players use their knowledge of the game works and the rules to devise a plan.

3. The players and the DM then "run the plan through the rule system" to produce a result.

Now, D+D 4e is very good at doing the above when X == "kill a group of monsters", but less good at it when X is something non-combat. The challenge is to devise a rule system that's general enough to achieve the above for as big a variety of X's as possible.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 6, 2010)

Hussar said:


> As far as a group that is scrabbling for silver?  In D&D?  What D&D have you EVER played where this is true.  I mean, even a first level character is starting out with over 100 gp in most cases.  By 3rd level, they're walking around with over a thousand and that's not edition specific by any stretch.



You haven't seen my crew play, have you? 

Take the session I ran tonight, for example: the party overall have quite decent wealth for their level (3rd-5th) but when they took out some Ogres and looted the corpses they were still scrabbling for every last *copper piece*.  

That said, they wouldn't think twice about buying a mule or two if such were needed.

Lan-"without greed, what would they play for?"-efan


----------



## pemerton (Mar 6, 2010)

Alex319 said:


> Another way to put it is that there is a desire for a system that can do the following:
> 
> 1. The DM puts the players in a situation, and says "okay, try to deal with problem X." The DM at this point does not necessarily know how to get out of X, how difficult X is supposed to be, or even if it is possible to get out of X. (Possibly because the DM didn't anticipate X.)
> 
> ...



This is exactly what the skill challenge mechanics are for:

1. The GM assigns the difficulty (based on party level + circumstances).

2. The players use their knowledge of the ingame situation and the skill challenge rules to devise a plan. In light of the plan, the GM may adjust the difficulty assigned at step 1 (this is one area where narrative responsibility is shared between players and GM).

3. The players and the GM "run the plan through the rules system", including taking account of any modifications to the plan required by changes to the ingame situation that unfold during the course of resolving the skill challenge (see DMG2 for discussion of this).

Now I'm happy to admit that the skill challenge rules could do with more work to support GMs and players at each of steps 1 to 3 (they compare poorly to other games with similar mechanics, for example, in terms of the guidance they give). And I'll also allow that they may not be the sorts of mechanics that some people enjoy. But it seems bizarre to me to assert that 4e lacks such mechanics.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Mar 6, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> I don't think it's "wrong" to want a book of mundane items, I just think some people would be better served by working on their on-the-fly skills for things like this.  More rules for things you can do yourself in a single breath can serve as a crutch.




I haven't put words in anyone's mouth.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 6, 2010)

Hussar said:


> How many games out there are focusing on "training mules or ox teams"? Do you think this is so common that it would drive a need to produce rule sets to cover this?
> 
> Sure, we can bring in real world examples of mule teams as well.
> 
> ...




Just as a side note, I sometimes wonder if this attitude is what hampers the expansion of D&D into a wider player base. I mean I look at videogames like Fable, Fable 2, Oblivion, WoW and so on... that have rules to allow players the option to step beyond "adventuring" and do other things such as crafting, buying houses and businesses, and so on. In fact I would say most people are starting to expect rpg's to do exactly this and that the play experience becomes richer and more diverse for it... which in turn leads to a wider base of people who can find enjoyment in the game.

 I find it a little dissapointing that not only has 4e decided to devolve in this area as opposed to evolving, refine and exapnd, but that those who play the game see this as a good thing and embrace it to the point where the other side is viewed as wrong for even suggesting that some may want other things.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Mar 6, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I really prefer having a "magic economy" that's divorced from gold, because then players feel that a fine standard of living is what gold is _for_, and act accordingly. It was a problem in 3e, and it's still one today.
> 
> Now that we've got the whole "alternate rewards for magic items" set up, there's really such an opportunity. Let people use alternate rewards as the basis for a separate economy of power-ups, and then figure out a gold-just-for-luxuries economy. Probably won't happen, but ah well, one can dream.



I'm chiming in late, only getting to the thread now. I haven't read the whole thread but I wanted to chime in that Fantasy Craft indeed does exactly this. Alternate rewards for magic items that is.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 6, 2010)

pemerton said:


> This is exactly what the skill challenge mechanics are for:
> 
> 1. The GM assigns the difficulty (based on party level + circumstances).
> 
> ...




I think if the 4e skill list is suppose to cover the various actions that characters can achieve either the skill list needs to expand or further PHB's should expand on what can be accomplished with different skills so that players and DM's understand and know what they can drive narratively with the limited skills they have... I think this is especially important for limited skill classes like the Fighter.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 6, 2010)

> Just as a side note, I sometimes wonder if this attitude is what hampers the expansion of D&D into a wider player base. I mean I look at videogames like Fable, Fable 2, Oblivion, WoW and so on... that have rules to allow players the option to step beyond "adventuring" and do other things such as crafting, buying houses and businesses, and so on. In fact I would say most people are starting to expect rpg's to do exactly this and that the play experience becomes richer and more diverse for it... which in turn leads to a wider base of people who can find enjoyment in the game.
> 
> I find it a little dissapointing that not only has 4e decided to devolve in this area as opposed to evolving, refine and exapnd, but that those who play the game see this as a good thing and embrace it to the point where the other side is viewed as wrong for even suggesting that some may want other things.




That's a really interesting theory. I do bet a "genre expansion" on crafting and economic activity in D&D would be something I'd be interested in peeking through, if only for adventure seeds.


----------



## darjr (Mar 6, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I find it a little dissapointing that not only has 4e decided to devolve in this area as opposed to evolving, refine and exapnd, but that those who play the game see this as a good thing and embrace it to the point where the other side is viewed as wrong for even suggesting that some may want other things.




I think you go to far. I play the game, I really enjoy and appreciate the game, I don't see a big need for me to have these lists. I don't get anywhere close to what you've stated as my opinion. I actually resent your characterization of me as one of those who play the game.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 6, 2010)

darjr said:


> I think you go to far. I play the game, I really enjoy and appreciate the game, I don't see a big need for me to have these lists. I don't get anywhere close to what you've stated as my opinion. I actually resent your characterization of me as one of those who play the game.




I play the game as well, so why don't we look at it as a generalization of the sentiment that seems prevalent in both the designers/developers and some/many of the fanbase that embrace 4e's supposed focus on what is important in D&D? That way instead of focusing on the minutae of how I stated an idea, we can continue with discussing the actual idea? Apologies if my mis-statement offended you.


----------



## darjr (Mar 6, 2010)

I'm not offended. I'm resentful. Not to mention I think your characterization is wrong. I think there are 4e players in this very thread that have expressed a desire for such lists or books or items as core to the game.

Your characterization, I don't think, is helpful to this conversation. However, I'll refrain from continuing to discuss it, I accept the watering down you've done.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 6, 2010)

darjr said:


> I'm not offended. I'm resentful. Not to mention I think your characterization is wrong. I think there are 4e players in this very thread that have expressed a desire for such lists or books or items as core to the game.
> 
> Your characterization, I don't think, is helpful to this conversation. However, I'll refrain from continuing to discuss it, I accept the watering down you've done.




Again, as I said earlier... I am one of them. Dude, what do you want me to say? I just posted that I mis-stated and that my statement should be taken as what the prevalent sentiment seems to be regarding 4e... from both the designers and some/many of it's fans... D&D is a fantasy action game and and it focuses on being that is the impression I get... The game focuses on what is important to this and not on what isn't... if you feel this is not the case, please expound. 

Otherwise, I'm starting to feel like you' re looking for a reason to "resent" my post and not at all addressing the idea behind it. Not sure what else to say.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 6, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I think if the 4e skill list is suppose to cover the various actions that characters can achieve either the skill list needs to expand or further PHB's should expand on what can be accomplished with different skills so that players and DM's understand and know what they can drive narratively with the limited skills they have... I think this is especially important for limited skill classes like the Fighter.




You don't need to have the appropriate skill in order to attempt something; you can roll Stat + 1/2 level mod.  The skill list isn't restrictive, it's a list of things a character can focus on.  I think.

How I do non-combat stuff: figure out what level the opposition is (1-3, 4-6, 7-9, etc.) and give it a DC.  Herding mules?  Use the level of the terrain and there's the DC.

Anyway, check it: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/270905-fiction-first-skills.html  (I think I've revised some stuff since then.)


----------



## Turtlejay (Mar 6, 2010)

This is prime territory for a 3PP.  Put out a 12 page PDF barebones with some lists of common non-magical adventuing gear, price it low, and call it a day.  You don't need an entire book about this stuff, and shoehorning it into AV3 or DMG3 is unnecessary.  A Dragon magazine article would be fine, too.

Jay


----------



## darjr (Mar 6, 2010)

Imaro said:


> the prevalent sentiment seems to be regarding 4e... from both the designers and some/many of  it's fans... D&D is a fantasy action game and and it focuses on being that is the  impression I get... The game focuses on what is important to this and not on what isn't...




I agree to an extent, I think it's wrong to use such a broad brush, but I also think it's more than that. Even 4e. I think many see that in 4e a reduction in rules to handle these things in detail or directly as a retreat from that kind of play. That I don't agree with.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 6, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> You don't need to have the appropriate skill in order to attempt something; you can roll Stat + 1/2 level mod. The skill list isn't restrictive, it's a list of things a character can focus on. I think.




Oh, I agree... but players will tend to favor what they are more likely to achieve success with, and those are trained skills. 

 As an example (and one I didn't think was a good call) in the recent Robot Chicken D&D games I see one of the players (Bluebell I think) shut down by Chris Perkins when he tries to do things with the Acrobatic skill that tend to fall under Athletics.  I believe it's in the ice episode he even says something to the effect of "Can't I flip form wall to wall and get up onto the room" and is told no by Chris.  Is Chris wrong or a bad DM... No, I don't think he is for making this call (though it's different from how I do it in my game) but I think it's a good example that not everyone is as lenient or narratively focused when it comes to skill use as others are.  it's because of this variation in playstyles that I think perhaps more examples and information on what skills can do for both players and DM's might be a good thing. 



LostSoul said:


> How I do non-combat stuff: figure out what level the opposition is (1-3, 4-6, 7-9, etc.) and give it a DC. Herding mules? Use the level of the terrain and there's the DC.
> 
> Anyway, check it: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/270905-fiction-first-skills.html (I think I've revised some stuff since then.)




Ok, I can get with that... and I personally have the rule of cool in my games now (a variation of Exalted's stunt system)... if you can describe it and it sounds cool... then you can use whatever skill(s) you want to accomplish something.  but I guarantee there are some DM's that will play it by the book (and in no way am I saying they are wrong for this) and if the book doesn't give them or their players the tools and guidance to adapt and mold the skill system, they probably won't.  I know I didn't when I first ran 4e and it was one of the reasons my players and I didn't like it at first.  But you live and you learn.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 6, 2010)

darjr said:


> I agree to an extent, I think it's wrong to use such a broad brush, but I also think it's more than that. Even 4e. I think many see that in 4e a reduction in rules to handle these things in detail or directly as a retreat from that kind of play. That I don't agree with.




I think the reason it is viewed that way is because 4e does not explicitly tell or guide the DM or players in how to handle these things. I think this was especially bad when all we had was DMG 1 where the skill challenge rules didn't seem like they were explained or playtested very well (and I still don't think they've been especially well presented or figured out officially, but that's neither here nor there). 

I think for an experienced gamer it's easy to handwave or create their own rules for things the game may be missing... however when this isn't addressed or explicitly stated for a new gamer, heck and even for some old hats (especially if they played a previous edition that did do this) trying to get a handle on the new rules... I can easily see how some or even many draw the conclusion that the game isn't concerned with such things, and may even actively discourage you and your group becoming concerned with them as well (Just by the fact that in order to get to a satisfactory level of detail about such things in your game now requires much more work on your part). Also, and it is quite evident in this post and many others, some 4e players enjoy the type of playstyle where these things don't matter and aren't a consideration of the game. They in turn can't understand, and are often actively hostile towards anyone who wants or needs more in their game for such things.

Either way it does seem 4e has chosen to go in a direction where such things aren't supported in a detailed manner. I personally don't see this as a good thing for the game, or as an evolution from previous editions and current media. I would however, be interested in hearing your view on why you don't see it's lackof rules/items/etc. in such areas as a retreat from that type of play.


----------



## Alex319 (Mar 6, 2010)

> This is exactly what the skill challenge mechanics are for:
> 
> 1. The GM assigns the difficulty (based on party level + circumstances).
> 
> ...




Okay, maybe I was too strong in saying that 4e "lacks" such mechanics. But the mechanics are definitely less fleshed out than they are for combat.

Maybe the appropriate analogy is: let's say combat was run like skill challenges. Then each player would have "combat skills" or be able to use existing skills in combat. Players would describe their tactics and the DM would give bonuses:

Fighter's Player: "I run up to the bad guy and distract him so my rogue can circle around."
Rogue's Player: "Yeah, I'll do that, I'll sneak around to the back and stab him in the back."
DM: "Okay, for using that tactic I'll give you a +2 bonus."

Compare that to how that same tactic would be done in the existing combat system:

Fighter's Player: "I charge the bad guy and mark him. (rolls dice for attack)".
Rogue's Player: "I move past him, into flanking position, Does he take his OA?"
DM: "No, because he's marked. You can attack him with CA."

---

The difference? In the first example, whether the tactic works and how effective it is is completely the DM's judgement. In the second example, the rules provide that information. And let's say the bad guys wanted to use a similar plan against the PCs - in the first example, it would just be the DM's whim, while in the second example, the players could see what the bad guy's plan is and try to counter it.


----------



## jaerdaph (Mar 6, 2010)

*Here's Your Freaking Mule!*

Ask Sister Sara. I hear she has two.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 6, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I think if the 4e skill list is suppose to cover the various actions that characters can achieve either the skill list needs to expand or further PHB's should expand on what can be accomplished with different skills so that players and DM's understand and know what they can drive narratively with the limited skills they have... I think this is especially important for limited skill classes like the Fighter.



I think it would undermine the design to introduce more skills, but I agree that more examples of how to build a wider range of skill challenges around the current skills would help.

One thing I think that 4e could be clearer on is bridging the gap between its self-conscious genre, and the range of situations the ruleset can handle. To explain: the game is very clear that it is a heroic fantasy game; but it doesn't go as far as it could in explaining how situations like the mules vs oxen can be approached in a heroic genre - ie not by going into the details of rates of food consumption, load capacity etc, but in broader terms of Nature skill ("My guy knows how to handle animals"), Stealth skill ("My guy knows how to steal more mules"), etc, and then giving the GM the tools and advice to build a series of heroic challenges around that.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 6, 2010)

Imaro said:


> D&D is a fantasy action game and and it focuses on being that is the impression I get... The game focuses on what is important to this and not on what isn't



I agree with this. Personally, though, I think it's a feature. Taking the 4e ruleset and trying to turn into something that will support classic wargaming or railway tycoon-style resource management play seems to me a good way to undermine what's currently strong about the system.

To give an example - why can't a heroic tier player use more than 1 magic item power without a milestone? Because of her limited magical aptitude (ie an ingame reason)? Because it better fits the genre if she's not so reliant on her items, and they're only pulled out as a last resort (a metagame reason)? The rules don't tell us, leaving it up to each table and each individual PC and each moment of action resolution. Similarly for healing surges and what they mean. But introducing a serious resource-management ruleset of the sort some people on this thread are calling for would undermine this aspect of the design, by requiring a codification in the rules of what the ingame meaning of various PC resources is, and what the ingame significance is of spending them.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 6, 2010)

Alex319 said:


> Maybe the appropriate analogy is: let's say combat was run like skill challenges. Then each player would have "combat skills" or be able to use existing skills in combat. Players would describe their tactics and the DM would give bonuses
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The difference? In the first example, whether the tactic works and how effective it is is completely the DM's judgement. In the second example, the rules provide that information. And let's say the bad guys wanted to use a similar plan against the PCs - in the first example, it would just be the DM's whim, while in the second example, the players could see what the bad guy's plan is and try to counter it.



I agree that the combat and skill challenge rules are very different (and, in my experience, tricky to bring together - I want more rules guidance on this!).  But if we wanted to make out-of-combat play more like combat, we wouldn't do that by introducing price lists, movement rates, food-consumption rates etc for mules, any more than the combat rules focus on weapon rates and speeds, details of armour design and weapons training, etc. Rather, we'd need non-combat analogues of action points, healing surges, second-wind (ie in-challenge resource replenishment) etc.

I can't say in detail what that game would look like, but I don't think it would satisfy the typical "10' pole and a mule" gamer.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 7, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Just as a side note, I sometimes wonder if this attitude is what hampers the expansion of D&D into a wider player base. I mean I look at videogames like Fable, Fable 2, Oblivion, WoW and so on... that have rules to allow players the option to step beyond "adventuring" and do other things such as crafting, buying houses and businesses, and so on. In fact I would say most people are starting to expect rpg's to do exactly this and that the play experience becomes richer and more diverse for it... which in turn leads to a wider base of people who can find enjoyment in the game.
> 
> I find it a little dissapointing that not only has 4e decided to devolve in this area as opposed to evolving, refine and exapnd, but that those who play the game see this as a good thing and embrace it to the point where the other side is viewed as wrong for even suggesting that some may want other things.




Is it a bug or a feature?  Depends on the point of view.  

To me, I want the game to focus on doing something very well, rather than doing many things half assed.  

I totally understand the want to play D&D as a skill based game rather than a combat game.  I've been trying to do a satsifying naval based campaign for years in 3e.  And, it rarely worked as well as I wanted it to, mostly because the bloody rules kepts jumping in the way.  Try doing ship to ship combat where you have forty or fifty combatants per side with 3e rules.  GACK.  

Never mind that a ship full of trade goods is worth far more than the baseline wealth assumptions for most PC's.  The players turned to me and quite seriously asked me why they shouldn't sell this 50 000 gp ship and turn it into magic items.  And, other than the fact that it would pretty much sink my campaign, I couldn't come up with a good reason. 

One of my favorite 3e 3pp books is Broadsides! and Pirates.  Pirates has a great list of how much trade goods are worth - excellent for doing this sort of campaign.  But, try using the ship to ship combat rules.  Gurk.  Four hours of moving ships around is NOT fun.  

That's my beef with this sort of simulation and why I think the core rules should shy away from dealing with it - you wind up with one or two players who like this and can spend a large amount of game time dealing with it, while the other half of the group is playing Nintendo.  So much of the "Economic RPG" mini-game is a solo thing.  Yes, your character is a blacksmith and wants to sell his wares.  Great.  But, while you and the DM spend half an hour figuring out stuff and maybe doing some role playing with customers, the other four people at the table are left out in the cold.

Ok, maybe that's hyperbole, but, IME, this sort of thing never appeals to the entire group.  It's usually only the DM and maybe one player who gets into it.  4e is pretty unabashed about wanting everyone participating all the time.  These solo mini games are pretty counter to what 4e is about.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Ok, maybe that's hyperbole, but, IME, this sort of thing never appeals to the entire group.  It's usually only the DM and maybe one player who gets into it.  4e is pretty unabashed about wanting everyone participating all the time.  These solo mini games are pretty counter to what 4e is about.




It is hyperbole.

Combat is a minigame, too. 4e just focuses almost all of its attention on it (as does pretty much every other edition of D&D).

In the game I'm playing in at the moment, I play a very non-combat character; d20 Traveler being what it is, because I'm not focused on combat, I pretty much need to get out of a situation as soon as combat erupts, or else I'm toast. This usually means that I spend however long it takes to run the combat (at most an hour) not really doing much.

The whole "everyone must be able to participate all the time" thing just seems foreign to me. Why? My character is not a carbon copy of everyone else; my character has strengths and weaknesses. Dan's character might be awesome at combat, while mine is not - we have our own moments to shine, our own moments to show what our characters are good at.

4e's approach to combat is to give everyone a combat role, and to make those roles different. I think it's safe to say that the different roles play differently. Why can't you extend this back a step - everyone has a role, and combat is just one of them? Rather than focusing on the group working together at their own things to achieve combat success, the group works together by doing their own things to achieve overall success, be that via combat, crafting, or social encounters.


----------



## jmucchiello (Mar 7, 2010)

Finally, now here is something we can say definitively is wrong with 4E:


TerraDave said:


> Expanding the above, here is the (mostly complete) gear list for 4E:
> 
> *Cart*
> ...
> *Riding Horse*



The designers put the cart before the horse. What were they thinking?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 7, 2010)

Gnomeworks - it's not really about everybody shining, but, everyone having something to do all the time.  I'm currently playing a warlord.  Every one of my abilities affects another PC during my turn - either granting actions or movement.  So, during my turn, at least one other player is going to do something.  Which means everyone has to focus on the game all the time.  Most of the classes seem to work like this.  In another campaign, I play a Fey Warlock.  Many of my abilities cause enemies to move, which sets up Opportunity Attacks, meaning everyone else has to pay attention during my turn.

And, most of the classes seem to be set up like that.  It's very frequent that at least two players are active during any one player's turn.  No more taking my turn and then going and making a sandwich waiting for my turn to come up again because, other than on the DM's turn, nothing is going to cause me to take an action.

I'm not sure how the skill mini-game can be done the same way without forcing everyone to have the same skillset.  You'd need to create a system where one player's actions can directly result in another player needing to do something, almost every time.  I've seen lots of calls for a better skill system in 4e, and I can totally agree.  But, I've just never seen anyone put forth one that will engage everyone at the table to a large degree.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Gnomeworks - it's not really about everybody shining, but, everyone having something to do all the time.




Yes, I understand 4e's paradigm. Doesn't mean I agree with it.



> No more taking my turn and then going and making a sandwich waiting for my turn to come up again because, other than on the DM's turn, nothing is going to cause me to take an action.




And 4e has latched onto this particular solution so hard that you cannot see any other.

I am right there with you on the idea that everyone takes their turns in order is a lame way to handle combat. However, perhaps rather than making it so that everyone is doing something all the time, use an initiative system that makes it more difficult to predict who is going to go when.



> I'm not sure how the skill mini-game can be done the same way without forcing everyone to have the same skillset.  You'd need to create a system where one player's actions can directly result in another player needing to do something, almost every time.  I've seen lots of calls for a better skill system in 4e, and I can totally agree.  But, I've just never seen anyone put forth one that will engage everyone at the table to a large degree.




We have a fundamental disconnect here. I see no reason for everyone to be involved in everything going on all the time. In my mind, it is tedious and leads to same-y-ness.

I would much rather have situations where I know I can contribute, and situations where I know that I cannot. Having limitations is part of what makes us human, and thus my characters having limitations lets me relate to them better and makes them feel more real.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 7, 2010)

> 4e's approach to combat is to give everyone a combat role, and to make those roles different. I think it's safe to say that the different roles play differently. Why can't you extend this back a step - everyone has a role, and combat is just one of them? Rather than focusing on the group working together at their own things to achieve combat success, the group works together by doing their own things to achieve overall success, be that via combat, crafting, or social encounters.




I gotta confess, 4e's focus on "the encounters" doesn't help me a lot. I'd prefer it if the game focused on "the adventure," which might be a dungeon, or it might be a particular plot to foil, or it might be getting donkeys from Point A to Point B. 

BUT, even if the focus was on the adventure rather than on the encounter, I appreciate 4e's "everyone must contribute" angle. Rather than balancing combat against other adventure elements, I'd like combat to be balanced, AND crafting to be balanced, AND social encounters to be balanced, letting everyone contribute to all those events in different ways. That way, even in a heavily political campaign, everyone can use some powers, roll some dice, use some strategy, and contribute uniquely to success, rather than having someone sit out an encounter.

And I think that minutiae of the costs and abilities of donkeys are generally not important for most players, even in those situations, especially if (a) you have a good baseline you can call from (the horse, in 4e), and (b), you are trying to model the heroic fantasy genre first and foremost.

That's not to say your playstyle is bad or anything, just to say it's very niche. Like someone who wants to run a Modern game with 4e rules, someone who wants to run a complex accounting session might never be served by rules that are targeted to a mass audience.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 7, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> BUT, even if the focus was on the adventure rather than on the encounter, I appreciate 4e's "everyone must contribute" angle. ... letting everyone contribute to all those events in different ways.




I am irritated by it. With my non-combat character, I don't _want_ to contribute in combat, unless the skills I have are useful in some way (which they rarely are). It breaks my sense of who my character is if the game forces me to participate in activities that my character is not suited for.



> And I think that minutiae of the costs and abilities of donkeys are generally not important for most players, even in those situations, especially if (a) you have a good baseline you can call from (the horse, in 4e), and (b), you are trying to model the heroic fantasy genre first and foremost.




Apparently I am not interested in the heroic fantasy genre, then.



> That's not to say your playstyle is bad or anything, just to say it's very niche. Like someone who wants to run a Modern game with 4e rules, someone who wants to run a complex accounting session might never be served by rules that are targeted to a mass audience.




I would argue that the existence of this thread proves you wrong.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 7, 2010)

GnomeWorks said:


> /snip
> 
> I would much rather have situations where I know I can contribute, and situations where I know that I cannot. Having limitations is part of what makes us human, and thus my characters having limitations lets me relate to them better and makes them feel more real.




Fair enough I suppose.  I don't game to spectate.  Watching from the sidelines is boring for me, and, IMO, gaming should never be boring.  It doesn't have to be a rollercoaster ride, thrill a minute sort of thing, but, it should never be boring.

And yes, I find watching someone fiddle about with a skillset on a regular basis that does not involve my character whatsoever, boring.  

I totally agree with KM here that every aspect of the game should involve all the players as often as possible.  Not that every character has to be the star, but, no one should be reduced to the role of spectator by the mechanics of the game.  

Note, a player might be reduced to spectator by the events in the game, that's a different story.  One character is tied up and the other PC's are busy saving him, well, fine, okay, that happens.  That's part of the ongoing game, not the mechanics.  And, even dying is fine, because it doesn't happen all that often (usually anyway).  

But, when my character, through no fault of his own, is warming the pines because the mechanics tell me I have to be this tall to ride, that's bad mechanics IMO.

Gnomeworks, I really have to ask though, why would you use D&D as your game of choice to play a non-combat character?  I'm totally not being snarky here at all.  But, there are loads of other systems out there that don't emphasize combat the way D&D does.  In any edition, it takes work to make a character that cannot contribute to combat.  Why use D&D for this?


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Fair enough I suppose.  I don't game to spectate.  Watching from the sidelines is boring for me, and, IMO, gaming should never be boring.  It doesn't have to be a rollercoaster ride, thrill a minute sort of thing, but, it should never be boring.




In some situations, it isn't really spectating, though. In combat, for instance, just because you can't contribute to the combat itself doesn't mean you're not there. You can almost always find something else to do.

And even if someone else's character is doing something away from the group - so? It is a group activity. I am just as invested in the success of someone else as I am in my own successes. The game isn't just about me, but about everyone at the table.



> I totally agree with KM here that every aspect of the game should involve all the players as often as possible.  Not that every character has to be the star, but, no one should be reduced to the role of spectator by the mechanics of the game.




If I want to choose to be "reduced" to the role of spectator, however, I should still be allowed to make that choice. In the game I'm in where I play a non-combat character, I don't want the mechanics to force me to participate, because it doesn't make sense and ruins the feel of the character.



> Gnomeworks, I really have to ask though, why would you use D&D as your game of choice to play a non-combat character?  I'm totally not being snarky here at all.  But, there are loads of other systems out there that don't emphasize combat the way D&D does.  In any edition, it takes work to make a character that cannot contribute to combat.  Why use D&D for this?




I think you should read my sig, because last I checked, D&D isn't my game of choice for anything. I play d20, but that's because I understand the game well enough to make it do what I want, and because the game system I'm working on is not done yet.

I don't play 4e at all.

Also, the non-combat character I'm talking about is in a d20 Traveler game, which is... a rather different beast from d20 D&D.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Is it a bug or a feature? Depends on the point of view.
> 
> To me, I want the game to focus on doing something very well, rather than doing many things half assed..




Why does it have to be an either/or type situation? I personally think that D&D 4e does fine in combat... could defintiely use some revision/clarification/evolution in the skills department and really is ripe for some expansions beyond what it's focus is in general game mechanics. I mean how much combat stuff do we really need? It's starting to move towards bloat with the number of powers/feats/paragon paths/etc. available. Yes we get it, you guys did great with combat... now let's see some expansion of the game to fit more styles of play with some optional rules support. Thus those who want it can purchase it and those who don't are fine continuing buying what they want... instead were just seeing add-on after add-on of generally combat focused rules and expansions.



Hussar said:


> I totally understand the want to play D&D as a skill based game rather than a combat game. I've been trying to do a satsifying naval based campaign for years in 3e. And, it rarely worked as well as I wanted it to, mostly because the bloody rules kepts jumping in the way. Try doing ship to ship combat where you have forty or fifty combatants per side with 3e rules. GACK.
> 
> Never mind that a ship full of trade goods is worth far more than the baseline wealth assumptions for most PC's. The players turned to me and quite seriously asked me why they shouldn't sell this 50 000 gp ship and turn it into magic items. And, other than the fact that it would pretty much sink my campaign, I couldn't come up with a good reason.
> 
> ...




Well, in all honesty Hussar... the beautiful thing about 3e and the OGL was that if you didn't like something there were usually more than enough variants for you to find one that fit your campaign and players. I know for a fact there were tons of variant ship combat rules so I find it hard to empathize with the fact that you chose one for your game that didn't accomplish what you wanted out of it... and didn't look at alternatives.



Hussar said:


> Ok, maybe that's hyperbole, but, IME, this sort of thing never appeals to the entire group. It's usually only the DM and maybe one player who gets into it. 4e is pretty unabashed about wanting everyone participating all the time. These solo mini games are pretty counter to what 4e is about.




You know I find it funny you bring this up, because I don't think this problem can be eliminated without having characters with the exact same abilities. My entire group doesn't want to jump on the bandwagon when my Wizard and Swordmage are doing magical research... my arcane characters don't want go research martial techniques and esoteric disciplines, and my Rogue actually wants to start his own guild of assasins soon. IMO, all of these things fall under the heroic fantasy genre.

These things are about their characters and their differences, and while yes some may have to wait to contribute in the game at certain times... I find it makes a richer experience for the narrative and characterization in our game of D&D when we explore these avenues with the PC's.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 7, 2010)

Gnomeworks said:
			
		

> If I want to choose to be "reduced" to the role of spectator, however, I should still be allowed to make that choice. In the game I'm in where I play a non-combat character, I don't want the mechanics to force me to participate, because it doesn't make sense and ruins the feel of the character.




How do you not have the choice though?  All you have to do is not participate.  You can choose not to act.  However, if you lack the ability, you also lack the choice.  



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Well, in all honesty Hussar... the beautiful thing about 3e and the OGL was that if you didn't like something there were usually more than enough variants for you to find one that fit your campaign and players. I know for a fact there were tons of variant ship combat rules so I find it hard to empathize with the fact that you chose one for your game that didn't accomplish what you wanted out of it... and didn't look at alternatives.




Tried every bloody one of them.  I've got four or five different d20 naval supplements sitting in a box right now.  Plus a couple of non-d20 ones as well.  It's not like I didn't try.  But, thanks for assuming that I tried one thing and then gave up.



> You know I find it funny you bring this up, because I don't think this problem can be eliminated without having characters with the exact same abilities. My entire group doesn't want to jump on the bandwagon when my Wizard and Swordmage are doing magical research... my arcane characters don't want go research martial techniques and esoteric disciplines, and my Rogue actually wants to start his own guild of assasins soon. IMO, all of these things fall under the heroic fantasy genre.
> 
> These things are about their characters and their differences, and while yes some may have to wait to contribute in the game at certain times... I find it makes a richer experience for the narrative and characterization in our game of D&D when we explore these avenues with the PC's.




Actually, I agree with you.  I don't have an answer to the problem.  And I do see it as a problem.  As I said, I don't play D&D to be a spectator.  I have zero interest in sitting around for an hour waiting for someone to get done something.  Ten minutes is about my maximum tolerance any more before I start getting antsy.  Call me ADD if you will, but, my tolerance for wasting my very limited free time is very low anymore.

Maybe if I was 15 again and playing for hours at a time.  But, now I get my 3 hours a week and I want to play, not watch someone else for half an hour.


----------



## BenBrown (Mar 7, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I think for an experienced gamer it's easy to handwave or create their own rules for things the game may be missing... however when this isn't addressed or explicitly stated for a new gamer, heck and even for some old hats (especially if they played a previous edition that did do this) trying to get a handle on the new rules... I can easily see how some or even many draw the conclusion that the game isn't concerned with such things, and may even actively discourage you and your group becoming concerned with them as well (Just by the fact that in order to get to a satisfactory level of detail about such things in your game now requires much more work on your part). Also, and it is quite evident in this post and many others, some 4e players enjoy the type of playstyle where these things don't matter and aren't a consideration of the game. They in turn can't understand, and are often actively hostile towards anyone who wants or needs more in their game for such things.




It's got nothing to do with experience.  A new gamer is just as likely to make something up as not, simply because they've never been told that they can't.  Likewise, experienced gamers aren't always confident in making stuff up, as evidenced by this very thread.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 7, 2010)

Well, I am with those wanting books on the more mundane.  Among my favorite D&D books are:
a.  From Stone to Steel (Monkey God); and
b.  Noble Steeds (Avalanche Press).

In contrast, I dislike the Adventurer's Vault books and find them a major turn off.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 7, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That's not to say your playstyle is bad or anything, just to say it's very niche.




And, you base the above upon?


----------



## Imaro (Mar 7, 2010)

BenBrown said:


> It's got nothing to do with experience. A new gamer is just as likely to make something up as not, simply because they've never been told that they can't. Likewise, experienced gamers aren't always confident in making stuff up, as evidenced by this very thread.




Eh, how about we just agree to disagree here, as neither of us can objectively prove that expereince or lack of makes people more or less willing to make things up in their game.  However I will say that when approaching a new game for the first time, whether rpg or anything else, and something unexpected arises it has been my experience that most people turn to the rules for guidance first... not just create something out of thin air.  YMMV of course.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Tried every bloody one of them. I've got four or five different d20 naval supplements sitting in a box right now. Plus a couple of non-d20 ones as well. It's not like I didn't try. But, thanks for assuming that I tried one thing and then gave up.




I apologize for the assumption, though I do feel you could have made it a bit clearer that you had tried numerous rule sets as opposed to just one since the way you presented it certainly seems like you picked one rule set that didn't work out for you and that was it... as opposed to trying many and finding them all unsatisfactory for what you were trying to achieve... especially since earlier you asked Gnomeworks the same question about D&D by making the same inference from the information he had given.

I do find it strange that out of the numerous ship to ship combat rules, even some published by WotC themselves, that you were unable to find a single one that was fun or interesting in implementation.



Hussar said:


> Actually, I agree with you. I don't have an answer to the problem. And I do see it as a problem. As I said, I don't play D&D to be a spectator. I have zero interest in sitting around for an hour waiting for someone to get done something. Ten minutes is about my maximum tolerance any more before I start getting antsy. Call me ADD if you will, but, my tolerance for wasting my very limited free time is very low anymore.
> 
> Maybe if I was 15 again and playing for hours at a time. But, now I get my 3 hours a week and I want to play, not watch someone else for half an hour.





I think the answer is simple... DM pacing. You don't play out the entirety of a scene/combat/etc. with one player for 15, 20 or 30 minutes. Maybe it's my experience with nWoD where this situation can come up quite often but if you're moving from character to character instead of resolving each character's scene before moving to the next it actually works out quite well. Now someone who can't wait between 2 to 4 minutes for their turn probably won't be able to deal with this type of situation either and I guess at that point it really becomes a question of playstyles and whether someone who has to be doing something all the time is the type of player that is beneficial or detrimental to the type of game everyone else is interested in.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> How do you not have the choice though?  All you have to do is not participate.  You can choose not to act.  However, if you lack the ability, you also lack the choice.




You play 4e, don't you? You do things on other peoples' turns because you are forced to by the system. If you did not, the whole group suffers. You have a choice, yes, but you will irritate the other players and would not be playing the game the way it was designed if you chose not to participate.

I am beginning to suspect that the whole "I don't want to be a spectator, everybody does stuff on everybody's turns" is a direct result of the perceived problem in d20 with druids and their ilk taking forever to determine their actions (whether or not it was a real problem is something I can't comment on, not having experienced a mid- or high-level druid). I think a more reasonable answer, however, is to get rid of the whole "action economy" idea on a player's turn and reduce it to one action. Your turn, you do one thing, period. That significantly reduces the time a player uses to take an action (I have seen this in action in the system I'm working on, and it works _beautifully_ for reducing combat length in terms of real time).



> As I said, I don't play D&D to be a spectator.  I have zero interest in sitting around for an hour waiting for someone to get done something.  Ten minutes is about my maximum tolerance any more before I start getting antsy.  Call me ADD if you will, but, my tolerance for wasting my very limited free time is very low anymore.




I would call a DM who completely resolves one character's personal actions - which the rest of the group has no impact on - in one go a poor DM. As Imaro mentioned above, the DM for this kind of situation should switch between the players relatively frequently, essentially reproducing the turn order found in combat.

I do this kind of juggling all the time, because my players have a tendency to not stick together in some situations. This requires me to split my attention, and I attempt to chunk it into - at most - ten-minute segments, with the understanding that sometimes a player's "turn" will take more time, sometimes less.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 7, 2010)

I concur with Imaro and GnomeWorks.  Then again, how to handle pacing when the party splits up is the type of things, imo, WOTC should have been adressing  to help make people better DMs rather than, mechanically, trying to protect players from bad dms.


----------



## BenBrown (Mar 8, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Eh, how about we just agree to disagree here, as neither of us can objectively prove. . .




Can I just paste this quote into every one of these threads?


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 8, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Tried every bloody one of them.  I've got four or five different d20 naval supplements sitting in a box right now.  Plus a couple of non-d20 ones as well.  It's not like I didn't try.



I ended up inventing my own system for ship-vs.-ship stuff, and I'll be the first to say it's no better (and in fact is probably worse) than any of the others out there; for me the only advantage it has it that because I dreamed it up I know exactly how it works and thus I can run it more smoothly.


> Actually, I agree with you.  I don't have an answer to the problem.  And I do see it as a problem.  As I said, I don't play D&D to be a spectator.  I have zero interest in sitting around for an hour waiting for someone to get done something.  Ten minutes is about my maximum tolerance any more before I start getting antsy.  Call me ADD if you will, but, my tolerance for wasting my very limited free time is very low anymore.
> 
> Maybe if I was 15 again and playing for hours at a time.  But, now I get my 3 hours a week and I want to play, not watch someone else for half an hour.



Others have suggested - and I have to agree - moving away from a strict turn-based system into something more free-form.  Even re-rolling initiatives each round, and-or using a smaller initiative die (d6 or d10) and allowing simultaneous actions, and-or having spells take time within the round to cast, and-or having movement be an ongoing process rather than all happening at once on your "turn"; all can give things a more organic feel and give more reason to be involved at times when it's not your turn.  That, and speaking in character is or should be a free action at any time unless for some reason speech is impossible.

System makes a difference too.  Turn-based obviously works better in a system where each character's turn can be resolved quickly and easily.

Lan-"in ship-to-ship combat, a 'round' should be about 3 minutes unless spells are involved"-efan


----------



## Hussar (Mar 8, 2010)

Gnomeworks said:
			
		

> You play 4e, don't you? You do things on other peoples' turns because you are forced to by the system. If you did not, the whole group suffers. You have a choice, yes, but you will irritate the other players and would not be playing the game the way it was designed if you chose not to participate.




Well, I've played 4e for about a month, so, well, yes, I play 4e, although I'm hardly experienced.  I did play 3e for about nine years, 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.  Monsters of a given CR can generally kill an equal level PC in a single round of full attacks.  Having one player ride the pines during combat results in dead PC's and would lead to some pretty pointed comments in most groups I've seen.

How do you avoid it?

Lanefan - totally agree.  It all comes down to how much you want to abstract away.  To keep a complete round of two ships firing and moving (with possibly around a hundred combatants total) under three minutes is a serious challenge.  It really doesn't help that I've never managed to find or come up with decent platoon sized combat rules for 3e.  I could adapt the Skirmish rules which were an adaptation for the mass combat rules for 1e, but, my players were not terribly interested in me adding on yet another system.  

My problem was that a system either abstracted things to the point where everything is cinematic (Stormwrack is a good example of this) or micro-managed everything down to an almost Squad Leader level of detail (Broadsides!! I'm looking at you).  I tried system after system.  One I haven't tried that has caught my eye is Corsair that unfortunately came out pretty late in 3e (or at least I didn't see it until late) and by then I wasn't doing naval campaigns.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 8, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I don't think this problem can be eliminated without having characters with the exact same abilities. My entire group doesn't want to jump on the bandwagon when my Wizard and Swordmage are doing magical research... my arcane characters don't want go research martial techniques and esoteric disciplines, and my Rogue actually wants to start his own guild of assasins soon. IMO, all of these things fall under the heroic fantasy genre.



I agree that they do. But D&D has, historically, tended to handle them in a way that (using Hussar's phrase) turns them into "solo minigames", whereas other mechanical options are available which help keep them oriented towards party play. For example, the assassin's guild could mechanically be modelled as playing some sort of role in skill challenges eg a bonus to Streetwise and Intimidate checks, and if someone in the party fails a social skill check then (at the risk of incurring blowback of some sort) the guild can be used (perhaps once per challenge, like a magic item) to cancel that failure (by eliminating the offended party).

Magical research, similarly, seems to be spending money to get future bonuses on Arcana checks (the DMG2 has some suggestions in respect of this).

On the other hand, if the magical research or assassin's guild aren't being used to further the overall party quests, but rather are ends in themselves, then I'm not sure how the game is meant to play at that point.



Imaro said:


> I think the answer is simple... DM pacing.



Perhaps. But to what end? If each player is playing a different game - the research game, the guild game, etc - and they don't interact, then I'm not sure it helps in the end that the GM moves around the table from game to game at a quick pace rather than a slow pace. You're still running half-a-dozen solo games. But if each of these endeavours is oriented at the party goals, then it should be feeding into skill challenges in the sort of ways I mentioned above.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 8, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I agree that they do. But D&D has, historically, tended to handle them in a way that (using Hussar's phrase) turns them into "solo minigames", whereas other mechanical options are available which help keep them oriented towards party play. For example, the assassin's guild could mechanically be modelled as playing some sort of role in skill challenges eg a bonus to Streetwise and Intimidate checks, and if someone in the party fails a social skill check then (at the risk of incurring blowback of some sort) the guild can be used (perhaps once per challenge, like a magic item) to cancel that failure (by eliminating the offended party).
> 
> Magical research, similarly, seems to be spending money to get future bonuses on Arcana checks (the DMG2 has some suggestions in respect of this).
> 
> ...





Ok, I might be interpreting this wrong... but are you implying that characters should only have "party goals"?  That you don't understand the purpose of PC's having individual goals, desires, and aspirations for their characters outside of things that are wanted by the entire party? This baffles me, and I just want to clarify before I reply.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 8, 2010)

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 (Mar 8, 2010)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Mar 8, 2010)

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 (Mar 8, 2010)

Hussar said:


> ...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 (Mar 8, 2010)

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 (Mar 8, 2010)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Mar 8, 2010)

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 (Mar 8, 2010)

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 (Mar 8, 2010)

Rechan said:


> 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?
> 
> ...




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 (Mar 8, 2010)

Rechan said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 8, 2010)

Imaro said:


> You do realize everyone's story isn't based upon the LotR... right?



You do realize that was an example, not the sole basis for my view of Fantasy Gaming, right? An illustration from a source everyone is familiar with.



> In alot of Sword & Sorcery fantasy, money is a very real concern for the protagonists.



I guess that's why in Conan d20, the only thing money is for is to motivate PCs - as soon as they get it, it gets taken away by the handwave of "You spent it on ale and whores!" No, seriously, that's what the game says.



> You assume alot about what constitutes heroic fantasy, and not all of it may be correct.



Exactly where am I making assumptions about what I called Heroic fantasy? I said:



It must be a SGN thing.
I haven't seen any books or movies where equipment and precise money amounts are relevant to success outside of Survival Horror.
Unless it's story relevant, I don't care.
I don't make players do book keeping unless that book keeping is very pertinent to what is going on in the story.
GP being divorced from the Magical Item economy would mean very little outside of the Economics Minigame in D&D, considering the game has always revolved around combat.
So, to sum up:

GP/Equipment isn't important to me and here's what I do in my games.

So... what exactly are you replying *to*? The only assumptions I made is that caring about Economy and mundane equipment must be a Simulationist thing.



> Whose edition warring at this point in the thread?



There has been a LOT of '4e vs 3e'. So my post has been a reply to the entire thread? So the post didn't reflect the last six posts previous on page 14.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 8, 2010)

Rechan said:


> You do realize that was an example, not the sole basis for my view of Fantasy Gaming, right? An illustration from a source everyone is familiar with.
> 
> I guess that's why in Conan d20, the only thing money is for is to motivate PCs - as soon as they get it, it gets taken away by the handwave of "You spent it on ale and whores!" No, seriously, that's what the game says.




Yet that example is used to base a whole what is and what isn't important in D&D argument, thus I'm assuming any other examples you use to further your point will share the characteristics of LotR that you posted, if not why limit yourself and your argument to that singular example.

Good for the Conan game, but in games based on Stormbringer, Hawkmoon, Lankhmar, Corum, etc. money is important. Conan != all Sword and Sorcery, especially one particular version of it for an rpg



Rechan said:


> Exactly where am I making assumptions about what I called Heroic fantasy? .




Moreso about what is "important" in heroic fantasy... by giving only an example that supports your view you minimie the fact that the very things we are discussing now, can and have been important in heroic fanatsy... as far as it being a simulationist thing... that is highly debatable... it all depends on what you take away from the genre and what it's tropes are.




Rechan said:


> There has been a LOT of '4e vs 3e'. So my post has been a reply to the entire thread? So the post didn't reflect the last six posts previous on page 14.




Sorry about that, I tend to read the most current posts in it before making generalizations and posting what may be a slightly inflamatory post.  Was it really just the last 6 posts that didn't have anything to do with edition warring?


----------



## Rechan (Mar 8, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Yet that example is used to base a whole what is and what isn't important in D&D argument.



It isn't "What's important in D&D" as "What is/isn't important to me". I don't know how many more "I" and "in my game" I have to pepper a post with before people get that I'm not making commentary about their games. The only time I start talking about "What D&D is" happens in my second post, where I say "D&D is what the system is made to do".

Mundane equipment was _very_ relevant in Gygaxian style 1e, because equipment let you do various pixelbitching. *Having* the 10' pole meant you could touch things 10' ahead and whatnot.



> as far as it being a simulationist thing... that is highly debatable... it all depends on what you take away from the genre and what it's tropes are.



I think economy = simulationism. If it was Narrativism modeling trope, then there wouldn't be GP totals for items; what's important is "at this point in the story you're scraping, so you only have enough to scrape; here's what you find".


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 8, 2010)

Rechan said:
			
		

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




Oh joy. Here comes the badwrongfun brigade. 

I was going to quote you and reply to various parts of your posts... but you know what? I don't care.

There is no point in having this discussion with you, Rechan, until you lose the high-and-mighty tone. D&D is more than capable of supporting my ideal method of play, and is more than capable of supporting yours, at well, at the same time.

But calling my preferred style "pixelbitching," slamming it *with emphasis* because you just don't get it, claiming that the things I care about are never relevant, and presenting an attitude that is clearly unwilling to attempt to understand my point of view? You're just trolling.

Your trolling irritates me.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 8, 2010)

Rechan said:


> It isn't "What's important in D&D" as "What is/isn't important to me". I don't know how many more "I" and "in my game" I have to pepper a post with before people get that I'm not making commentary about their games. The only time I start talking about "What D&D is" happens in my second post, where I say "D&D is what the system is made to do".
> 
> Mundane equipment was _very_ relevant in Gygaxian style 1e, because equipment let you do various pixelbitching. *Having* the 10' pole meant you could touch things 10' ahead and whatnot.




Fine then I guess my point is... I find it just as hard to believe that you have no idea why this could be important to others... especially since the 1e comment, and the fact that if desired... any of the editions can be played this way... as you find it surprising that some people do want these things.



Rechan said:


> I think economy = simulationism. If it was Narrativism modeling trope, then there wouldn't be GP totals for items; what's important is "at this point in the story you're scraping, so you only have enough to scrape; here's what you find".




See, it doesn't have to boil down to "economy simulation"... what if we want to roleplay a night on the town, I can easily see a reason for tracking the things the PC's have carefully in order to provide the genre tropes of the good time, but still limited to how much you actually have. That's not simulating an economy it's roleplaying your good time (as well as whatever bad things happen along the way) until your money runs out (I've found new players really like doing stuff like this, go figure.)... and those with more money can have a better time.

 Also because I have these things on hand, I don't have to write down everything or record the prices I pull out of the air in order to keep the versimilitude of my game up.  But that's just one of many reasons I wouldn't mind having something like this.


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 8, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Also because I have these things on hand, I don't have to write down everything or record the prices I pull out of the air in order to keep the versimilitude of my game up. But that's just one of many reasons I wouldn't mind having something like this.




Verisimilitude isn't enhanced by having every version of something cost the same thing everywhere. At the very least I expect a price range that depends on quality, and then I'll have to adjust it for the particular circumstances. Which means if I'm interested in keeping track of things I have to write them down anyway. And if I don't and one of the players calls me on it, I make up an explanation on the spot. As far as I'm concerned, improvisation is an important GM skill.


----------



## korjik (Mar 8, 2010)

Rechan said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




You win the 'Completely Missed the Point' Award for this thread.

You may play D&D this way. Since Zaran is talking about my game, it should be pretty obvious that I dont. If you have nothing to add because you dont play the game that way, please dont add anything.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 8, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> Verisimilitude isn't enhanced by having every version of something cost the same thing everywhere. At the very least I expect a price range that depends on quality, and then I'll have to adjust it for the particular circumstances. Which means if I'm interested in keeping track of things I have to write them down anyway. And if I don't and one of the players calls me on it, I make up an explanation on the spot. As far as I'm concerned, improvisation is an important GM skill.




Where did I claim everything costing the same contributes to versimilitude? It's used as a baseline and reference so that I'm not just pulling numbers from my imagination when something is asked for... prices can fluctuate based on many factors but, IMO, the amount they fluctuate by and the reason is what sustains versimilitude in this area, having a baseline helps me more easily improv this. It would break my versimilitude if my character enters a shop one day and mules cost 3 gp's and after adventuring for a couple of days, he returns to find them now costing 20gp (especially if the DM has no reason and really did just pull the numbers out of thin air and had forgotten since last game). Now as a DM if I have a base cost for these things I will only ad-hoc the price a little above or a little under which can reasonably be accepted by most players without breaking their vermisilitude...even if there isn't a reason that mules went up by a coin or two except the shopkeeper wants to make a little extra.

I mean I guess as an argument I could claim that having wildly different prices for the same thing every time it's bought or asked about doesn't contribute to versimilitude either... and it would be assuming there is only one way to use your imagination for creating prices out of thin air which in the far end of the spectrum as the one you made above.


----------



## Mark (Mar 8, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Some how this turned into an edition war.





With your help, I can point out how.




Rechan said:


> No, 4e doesn't do more than combat well.





This is a single statement about a rule set that does not invoke an edition war.




Rechan said:


> But saying that is assuming that prior editions did it much better. *No*. 3e (. . .)





This is the follow up that forces discussion toward an edition war.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 8, 2010)

GnomeWorks said:


> Oh joy. Here comes the badwrongfun brigade.



Because I don't enjoy it it must be badwrongfun, right.

I was going to quote you and reply to various parts of your posts... but you know what? I don't care.



> D&D is more than capable of supporting my ideal method of play, and is more than capable of supporting yours, at well, at the same time.



I never said otherwise. I specified _what I like in my games_. 

Just because I am stunned people care about something that is completely beyond my interests does not mean that I am saying it's bad. it just surprises me that it matters. The same way that I'm confused with the hours and hours spent painting minis folks spend gobs of money on. It's not a judgment call, just a loss for "getting' the attraction.



> But calling my preferred style "pixelbitching,"



I'm going to assume you don't know what it means because you're taking issue with it.

Pixel Bitching is a word that refers to the habit of early computer adventure games where you have to click a very specific area to get the game to advance. 

This is very similar to the Gygaxian style where the party either _must_ figure out what the DM has thought in order to "beat" the situation. In this example a trap, where the players MUST describe the process they go through to detect the trap without getting caught in it. If they don't discover the _explicit_ parameters of what the DM has written down, they don't find the trap. If the trap is on the ceiling, and the PCs JUST say they probe the floor/air below the trap, well they don't find it. So equipment is paramount, because you need to be able to pull the right tool out of your pack to do the CSI: Dungeon. That is pixelbitching. 

Trying to outsmart the DM's deviousness is clearly exciting for you. It's not for me. But considering the sheer amount of people who like Gygaxian style, it'd be _stupid of me_ to write that off as "badwrongfun".



> You're just trolling.



I think you're just overracting.There is no _jugmentalism_ in anything _I'm_ saying. Don't be so defensive. If I was trolling I'd just insult Gygax, make insinuations about the personality charactersitics of simulationists, and insult 3e.

Or, don't respond because you don't care and you think I'm trolling.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 8, 2010)

Mark said:


> This is a single statement about a rule set that does not invoke an edition war.



By saying *neither* 3e and 4e do little but combat well starts an edition war?! 

My entire point is that *D&D has never done non-combat well*, breaking down each edition to reinforce my point. 

And the thread has *been* an edition war! Long before I got here. My point is that saying one does it better than the other is an argument over trees rather than the forest.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 8, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Fine then I guess my point is... I find it just as hard to believe that you have no idea why this could be important to others... especially since the 1e comment, and the fact that if desired... any of the editions can be played this way... as you find it surprising that some people do want these things.



It's not that I have "no idea why". It's just surprising to _see it_, and so starkly presented. It's a "culture shock" in a way. Knowing the opinions exist and seeing it strongly debated in a 14 page thread are two different animals, you know?  

But really, too much is getting read into the comment. It's not an attack on a game style. Just a startled obsertaion, a "huh, game economics _really are_ important to some people".


----------



## Rechan (Mar 8, 2010)

korjik said:


> You may play D&D this way. Since Zaran is talking about my game, it should be pretty obvious that I dont. If you have nothing to add because you dont play the game that way, please dont add anything.



1) The post you quoted had little to do with how I play D&D. The post you quoted was about the limitations of D&D to facilitate some forms of play. This topic has become relevant - all the way back on page 11 where Hussar was taltking about how the rules got in the way of him playing a Naval game, and Gnomeworks talking about playing a non-combatant in D&D. 

2) This thread has been about much more than just what's going on in your game.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 8, 2010)

Rechan said:


> By saying *neither* 3e and 4e do little but combat well starts an edition war?!
> 
> My entire point is that *D&D has never done non-combat well*, breaking down each edition to reinforce my point.
> 
> And the thread has *been* an edition war! Long before I got here. My point is that saying one does it better than the other is an argument over trees rather than the forest.




As subjective as this absolute statement is (*never* and *well* are certainly in the eye of the beholder.)... even if I agreed with it that still in no way discounts degrees (something you seem to be missing the nuances of), especially since in talking about editions many assume we are talking about evolutionary steps to make the game better. 

If there's no difference between the ways different editons handle non-combat... then why continue to change, refine and experiment with such things as non-combat proficiencies, non-combat skills, non-combat feats, skill challenges or... well you get the point I hope. I don't think it's as simple as saying "they all suck, so why even differentiate between them?" for most people. I think some may prefer certain methods of dealing with non-combat over others... but to try and lump them all together as "suck" seems shortsighted and dismissive at best. I mean honestly if that is how you feel, why come into a thread that's discussing them to post?


----------



## Rechan (Mar 8, 2010)

Imaro said:


> As subjective as this absolute statement is (*never* and *well* are certainly in the eye of the beholder.)... even if I agreed with it that still in no way discounts degrees (something you seem to be missing the nuances of), especially since in talking about editions many assume we are talking about evolutionary steps to make the game better.



if I wasn't aware of the nuances, then would I not have given examples of how the editions differed? I did. Primarily 3e deviated from 1e/2e by being better. 4e lacks the profession/craft skills, but injects skill challengse. 

The nuance _is_ there, but it's again, like saying that "This does it less worse than this". You mention degrees - the degree that it may be better, but it's not by much. Which is thus a false dichotomy.

To put it another way, let's say that Non-Combat Rules is a scale from 1 to 10. 1  being "none" and 10 being "Social splatbooks", we could rank the systems in terms of their non-combat support. 

1e/2e  Rank: 1
3e  Rank: 4
4e Rank: 3

A rank of 4 is better than a 3 is true, but it's not a _great_ improvement. 

You're right, *I am* discounting the "evolution of the game" by way of houserules and development because I think that, for those trying to do that, it's more work and more a headache than the result. It would be taking the "Social Skills Ranking" from a 4 to a 4.5. Instead, why not just look outside of D&D to facilitate those needs, where it's a 7 or 8?


----------



## Imaro (Mar 8, 2010)

Rechan said:


> if I wasn't aware of the nuances, then would I not have given examples of how the editions differed? I did. Primarily 3e deviated from 1e/2e by being better. 4e lacks the profession/craft skills, but injects skill challengse.
> 
> The nuance _is_ there, but it's again, like saying that "This does it less worse than this". You mention degrees - the degree that it may be better, but it's not by much. Which is thus a false dichotomy




Isn't this just your opinion? Maybe that's the problem many people are having with what you are posting... you're stating it like it's a fact that everyone thinks all editions of D&D handle non-combat stuff badly, when in fact that isn't the case... just like it's not the case that everyone considers the degrees to which it is handled in various editions as objectively "not by much". This is all subjective. 



Rechan said:


> To put it another way, let's say that Non-Combat Rules is a scale from 1 to 10. 1 being "none" and 10 being "Social splatbooks", we could rank the systems in terms of their non-combat support.
> 
> 1e/2e Rank: 1
> 3e Rank: 4
> ...




And what if I say 4e is a Rank: 6 and 3e a Rank: 2 or vice versa?  Can you in any way prove you're measurements are more correct than mine? What if I say for me 4e is an 8 but BECMI is a 4... am I wrong? In other words, you're opinnion != universal truth. And honestly there seems like there's quite a bit of difference between a Rank:1 and a Rank: 3



Rechan said:


> You're right, *I am* discounting the "evolution of the game" by way of houserules and development because I think that, for those trying to do that, it's more work and more a headache than the result. It would be taking the "Social Skills Ranking" from a 4 to a 4.5. Instead, why not just look outside of D&D to facilitate those needs, where it's a 7 or 8?




I didn't say anything about houserules... I'm talking about the evolution of the game throughout editions. IMO, I won't be pleased if AD&D 2e ranks as a 6 for me in terms of how non-combat is handled but 3.5 and 4e only rank as a 4.... IMO, a later edition should improve upon things like combat, non-combat etc. Now of course what I like and consider "good" ways to handle non-combat is again... totally subjective.

As far as looking outside D&D... for better or worse it's the flagship product that most people will be introduced to roleplaying through... which also means it's assumptions, rules, how it's run, etc. will also set the playstyles, expectations, etc. of many new players. So I definitely want it to strive to encompass diversity even if that means creating optional books, rules sets, etc. that cater to different styles. If it fits your style already why are you complaining or even concerned about what I want?


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 8, 2010)

Rechan said:


> 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.



Well, in 2e you certainly could.  Start with the Birthright setting (which almost could have been designed for just this very thing), remove some combat, add some political intrigue, set the goals and "adventures" to reflect this, have the characters be diplomats and generals instead of field troops, and drop the puck.

Lan-"but do diplomats need mules, is the question"-efan


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 9, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Well, in 2e you certainly could.  Start with the Birthright setting (which almost could have been designed for just this very thing), remove some combat, add some political intrigue, set the goals and "adventures" to reflect this, have the characters be diplomats and generals instead of field troops, and drop the puck.
> 
> Lan-"but do diplomats need mules, is the question"-efan




To put the best possible spin on Rechan's assertion, you couldn't easily run a Court-centric campaign in 1Ed or 2Ed right out of the box (not without a LOT of work on your part).  You'd definitely want to use the rules of an expansion that came pretty late to the party.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 9, 2010)

That's probably true Lanefan, but, I think does speak a long way to Rechan's point.  Birthright, from what I understood, was a pretty serious modification of the 2e system - kinda like how there are a bajillion d20 mods.  It might use the base mechanics but stock 2e and Birthright were not particularly compatible.

So, if you want to play a fantasy game with lots of economics, why stick to D&D?  There are a HUGE number of d20 variants out there for this sort of thing.  Why complain that D&D doesn't do something (or at least doesn't do it well) when there are all sorts of tools that DO do it well, but, just happen to not be D&D?


----------



## Rechan (Mar 9, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Isn't this just your opinion?



Isn't everything opinion? Right down to "D&D needs mules"? There's no "objective truth" or "facts" about what's good or bad in RPGs. Stating it's my opinion is a bit redundant. 

And, had I done so, would it have made a difference? I peppered "in my game" and "what I care about" in my post and you still thought I was talking about what Heroic Fantasy is and isn't. 

Besides. I'm not just stating an opinion, I'm making a case. I'm arguing to convince you of something. If you disagree, that's fine, but I'm still posing an argument.



> And what if I say 4e is a Rank: 6 and 3e a Rank: 2 or vice versa?



Then I say "You're messing up my example of me trying to explain my argument".  

If we can't even agree whether D&D has _ever_ done non-combat well or not, then there's no point to discussing it, is there? Since our opinions differ _so_ much, there's no common ground to be had. 



> I didn't say anything about houserules... I'm talking about the evolution of the game throughout editions.



I don't understand the point you're making then.

If the thread _isn't_ about overcoming the hurdle, then what's the whole point? And what's wrong with saying "D&D doesn't do it well" if the whole thread is about going over what D&D had one? 



> As far as looking outside D&D... for better or worse it's the flagship product that most people will be introduced to roleplaying through... which also means it's assumptions, rules, how it's run, etc. will also set the playstyles, expectations, etc. of many new players. So I definitely want it to strive to encompass diversity even if that means creating optional books, rules sets, etc. that cater to different styles.



You honestly think that a 3pp booklet or a thread on the internet is going to change how all new players play the game?



> If it fits your style already why are you complaining or even concerned about what I want?



First, D&D _doesn't_ fit my style for some things. It's not my favorite system. I just go to a different system when I want those needs met.

Second, I'm here because I interpret that there's a problem (you want something you aren't getting) and I want to help those that have it.

To use an analogy: what this thread looks _to me_ is that the OP, and others who like this sort of play, is hitting a wall. And I see trying to make Extensive houserules, or hope that a 3pp will come in, is like trying to just break a hole in the wall, dig a tunnel under that wall, or hope someone comes along and builds a door in the wall. No matter what, that's going to be frustrating, not very smooth (the jagged edges, the crumbly wall, the collapsing tunnel), and eventually disappointing (the system is unsatisfying, it only works for one person but doesn't fill the needs for another, 3pp just don't do it despite folks wanting it). 

I, a passerby on the street, _see_ this problem that is being had, and my motivation is to say "Hey, just go down a few blocks (to another system) where that wall isn't in your way". So that you *don't* have the problem that is very evident to me in this thread.

My intention is _not_ to come in here, kick over sandcastles and say "Haha your sandcastle sucks". It's to say "you're having trouble building a sandcastle with poor tools (a system that doesn't support the type of play you desire), try some different tools".


----------



## Rechan (Mar 9, 2010)

now understand that it comes off a bit adversarial. That's not my intention, and I apologize.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 9, 2010)

Hussar said:


> That's probably true Lanefan, but, I think does speak a long way to Rechan's point.  Birthright, from what I understood, was a pretty serious modification of the 2e system - kinda like how there are a bajillion d20 mods.  It might use the base mechanics but stock 2e and Birthright were not particularly compatible.
> 
> So, if you want to play a fantasy game with lots of economics, why stick to D&D?  There are a HUGE number of d20 variants out there for this sort of thing.  Why complain that D&D doesn't do something (or at least doesn't do it well) when there are all sorts of tools that DO do it well, but, just happen to not be D&D?



Thank you. That's all I'm trying to say.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 9, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> That would be the common Pitfinder Donkeyhorse.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Good Lord , jus been knocked out of my chair... are these the cheaply conjured critters so  we dont need a thief version of a Donkey horse or is that an earlier edition?


----------



## pemerton (Mar 9, 2010)

Imaro said:


> As far as looking outside D&D... for better or worse it's the flagship product that most people will be introduced to roleplaying through... which also means it's assumptions, rules, how it's run, etc. will also set the playstyles, expectations, etc. of many new players. So I definitely want it to strive to encompass diversity even if that means creating optional books, rules sets, etc. that cater to different styles. If it fits your style already why are you complaining or even concerned about what I want?



I don't especially want 4e to become "diverse" in the sense of handling mules and the ingame economy, because that is likely to take the ruleset and supplements in a direction away from what I currently like about it, and what brought me back to GMing D&D after a 20 year absence. Hence also my concern in light of the fact that it already caters to my style. I don't especially want that to stop.

From a slightly less selfish perspective, I think changing the game to take it away from its current somewhat gonzo fantasy action orientation, to a more purist-simulationist mule and 10' pole and economics game, is likely to make it a less attractive game for new players. This would, in turn, hurt WoTC and the RPG hobby more generally.

And for those who want to do a night on the town in 4e, use Streetwise, Intimidate, Bluff, Endurance etc as skills in a skill challenge. The PCs of players who fail checks end up broke or passed out or both (depending on what makes narrative sense based on the actions they attempted) but, provided the party succeeds at the challenge then their friends carry them safely back to the inn. If the party as a whole fails the challenge then they all get captured by the villains and wake up hungover in chains, or they all lose all their money and wake up broke and wondering where all the money went, or etc etc etc.

4e can provide stories about mules and 10' poles and scrounging for coin, but it is never going to do it using the mechanical approach (ie accounting, price lists, and blueprints of traps) that earlier editions did. At least, not as long as it remains true to its obvious design intentions.

That is what I take to be the point of Rechan's comments. If you want to play a game that is like 1st ed AD&D, find a different game from 4e. One pretty easy option might be HARP (currently in print from ICE) but using Rolemaster Classic XP gain rules (also currently in print from ICE).


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 9, 2010)

Imaro said:


> 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.



You knew a different Elric than I.
Elric threw rubies at people who looked at as a years wages (moon glum sometimes collected the appropriate change)... the fellow had no clue . His drugs were probably rarely bought...  he scraped the mold etc as nobody else knew how to harvest because he was the best at it... local apothecaries werent good enough at this stuff for him and he was dependent on it. He was obviously scary powerful and half the time those who wanted him for Mercenary style work had to make him interested... it wasnt money that made him interested (opportunity for Revenge worked .. some historical bit ... even old fashioned Wizard stuff).


----------



## Imaro (Mar 9, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> You knew a different Elric than I.
> Elric threw rubies at people who looked at as a years wages (moon glum sometimes collected the appropriate change)... the fellow had no clue . His drugs were probably rarely bought... he scraped the mold etc as nobody else knew how to harvest because he was the best at it... local apothecaries werent good enough at this stuff for him and he was dependent on it. He was obviously scary powerful and half the time those who wanted him for Mercenary style work had to make him interested... it wasnt money that made him interested (opportunity for Revenge worked .. some historical bit ... even old fashioned Wizard stuff).




Yet there were times, like in Quarzhasaat, where Elric's lack of coin... comparitive to the society of course... is how he ends up being manipulated into bargains for the drugs he needs. It's in the story "The Fortress of the Pearl"...

Edit: Of course it wouldn't be an Elric story if in the end he didn't bring destruction and death down upon them all...


----------



## Imaro (Mar 9, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I don't especially want 4e to become "diverse" in the sense of handling mules and the ingame economy, because that is likely to take the ruleset and supplements in a direction away from what I currently like about it, and what brought me back to GMing D&D after a 20 year absence. Hence also my concern in light of the fact that it already caters to my style. I don't especially want that to stop.
> 
> From a slightly less selfish perspective, I think changing the game to take it away from its current somewhat gonzo fantasy action orientation, to a more purist-simulationist mule and 10' pole and economics game, is likely to make it a less attractive game for new players. This would, in turn, hurt WoTC and the RPG hobby more generally.
> 
> ...




I'm certainly not talking about taking the entire game in a different direction... but what would be so wrong with an optional book like 3.5's Unearthed Arcana where alternative rules to support other playstyles are published?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 9, 2010)

Not a doggone thing.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 9, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I'm certainly not talking about taking the entire game in a different direction... but what would be so wrong with an optional book like 3.5's Unearthed Arcana where alternative rules to support other playstyles are published?



Could be 3pp.  Goodman Games perhaps.
WOTC have lots of resources for play testing stuff dont mind that most of the stuff they do has a cautious element to it.... 

That said I have always liked Unearthed Arcana.  
A place to put a cool Wound System sign me up!

A place to put a inspired powers as a replacement for dailies.(remove the time factor use a form of recharge based on encounters).

A place to put a house rule where even at-wills have a component (which may or may not be expended)...  the ranger looses arrows all the time if you want to track that stuff... bat quano isnt expensive just messy.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 9, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Could be 3pp. Goodman Games perhaps.
> WOTC have lots of resources for play testing stuff dont mind that most of the stuff they do has a cautious element to it....
> 
> That said I have always liked Unearthed Arcana.
> ...




Exactly... I don't mean this as a dig at 4e, but we seem to already be at a saturation point where the base rules are being rehashed (Essentials) and more niche/experimental products are starting to come out... 3D dungeon tiles, Hammerfast (locations instead of full fledged adventures), short 32 page adventures, race booklets, and so on... I think we really are getting to the point where something like Unearthed Arcana for 4e could be a good supplement, and give the 4e designers some guidance as far as future supplements. I just don't see myself buying to many more PHB's, power supplements or another Adventurer's Vault... Even now I feel like I have enough combat crunch to last me a lifetime.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 9, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I think we really are getting to the point where something like Unearthed Arcana for 4e could be a good supplement, and give the 4e designers some guidance as far as future supplements. I just don't see myself buying to many more PHB's, power supplements or another Adventurer's Vault... Even now I feel like I have enough combat crunch to last me a lifetime.




Admittedly I got an itch for the psionics system as an inspiration for other stuff so might be reasonable to absorb it in more completeness... before I feel like UA is in demand.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 9, 2010)

An alternative book?  Nothing.  Go for it and I don't think anyone is arguing against that.

I think the arguement is against including this sort of thing in a core supplement.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 9, 2010)

Imaro said:


> but what would be so wrong with an optional book like 3.5's Unearthed Arcana where alternative rules to support other playstyles are published?



Nothing! I think 4e needs an UA.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 9, 2010)

> I think the arguement is against including this sort of thing in a core supplement.




Again, what harm could it do?  3Ed had its Arms & Equipment guide.  2Ed had Aurora's.

If there is such demand for a 4Ed Aurora's that WotC would make a profit by producing one, then it would be a rational business decision for them to produce one (including, of course,_ all_ opportunity costs, such as whether such a product would be more or less profitable than another supplement slated for release).


----------



## Rechan (Mar 9, 2010)

Thing is, it seems like the 3pp have given up. Aside from Goodman Games dutifully cranking out monster pdfs and the occasional adventure, Alluria seems pretty dedicated to publish races. I don't really see else anyone continually publishing. And I don't see these two 3pp really getting out their rut.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 9, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again, what harm could it do?  3Ed had its Arms & Equipment guide.  2Ed had Aurora's.
> 
> If there is such demand for a 4Ed Aurora's that WotC would make a profit by producing one, then it would be a rational business decision for them to produce one (including, of course,_ all_ opportunity costs, such as whether such a product would be more or less profitable than another supplement slated for release).




Sorry, by core I meant the 4e definition of the term - PHB, DMG or MM, in various iterations.  Even 3e or 2e didn't really do this in core, as you rightly point out - A&E Guide and Auroras.

Zero problem with a book for those that want it.  I do not want this to become a standard in the core game though.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 9, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Sorry, by core I meant the 4e definition of the term - PHB, DMG or MM, in various iterations.  Even 3e or 2e didn't really do this in core, as you rightly point out - A&E Guide and Auroras.
> 
> Zero problem with a book for those that want it.  I do not want this to become a standard in the core game though.




Again, I fail to see how making it a core book injures 4Ed in any way, assuming the demand for the product is sufficient.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 9, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again, I fail to see how making it a core book injures 4Ed in any way, assuming the demand for the product is sufficient.



Forgive what may seem a stupid question, but isn't it the publisher's (WotC) stated intent that for 4e everything they publish is core?

Lan-"is a mule a minion?"-efan


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 9, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Forgive what may seem a stupid question, but isn't it the publisher's (WotC) stated intent that for 4e everything they publish is core?
> 
> Lan-"is a mule a minion?"-efan




That was kind of my impression as well- I could be wrong, of course, because I often am- but I'm not a 4Ed fan so I can't say for sure.


----------



## brunswick (Mar 9, 2010)

We could always start up a new thread in which everyone could contribute an item (or items) for an unofficial 'non-magical' item list, from which interested DMs and Players could cherry-pick as they choose?


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 9, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Where did I claim everything costing the same contributes to versimilitude? It's used as a baseline and reference so that I'm not just pulling numbers from my imagination when something is asked for... prices can fluctuate based on many factors but, IMO, the amount they fluctuate by and the reason is what sustains versimilitude in this area, having a baseline helps me more easily improv this. It would break my versimilitude if my character enters a shop one day and mules cost 3 gp's and after adventuring for a couple of days, he returns to find them now costing 20gp (especially if the DM has no reason and really did just pull the numbers out of thin air and had forgotten since last game). Now as a DM if I have a base cost for these things I will only ad-hoc the price a little above or a little under which can reasonably be accepted by most players without breaking their vermisilitude...even if there isn't a reason that mules went up by a coin or two except the shopkeeper wants to make a little extra.
> 
> I mean I guess as an argument I could claim that having wildly different prices for the same thing every time it's bought or asked about doesn't contribute to versimilitude either... and it would be assuming there is only one way to use your imagination for creating prices out of thin air which in the far end of the spectrum as the one you made above.




Technically you didn't claim anything of the sort. But that's what the D&D rulebooks give you, in general. So I don't think it's reasonable to assume that a book of mundane items would give you a price list with set figures, since that's what previous ones have.

As for the mules, the one you got for 3gp was a broken down old one that the seller didn't really think he could get money for, so he was delighted to get rid of it to someone. Since then, he's been told that the local baron is preparing a military campaign and will need a lot of mules, so he's reluctant to sell any to an itinerant adventurer without gouging him for as much as he can. Simple enough. Not that I'd normally expect do it that way, since I'd always try to keep a price record around, but a difference like that is less than I've used in some circumstances.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 9, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> Technically you didn't claim anything of the sort. But that's what the D&D rulebooks give you, in general. So I don't think it's reasonable to assume that a book of mundane items would give you a price list with set figures, since that's what previous ones have.




I think my point was more... don't assume why or how I would use such a thing for versimilitude.



Bluenose said:


> As for the mules, the one you got for 3gp was a broken down old one that the seller didn't really think he could get money for, so he was delighted to get rid of it to someone. Since then, he's been told that the local baron is preparing a military campaign and will need a lot of mules, so he's reluctant to sell any to an itinerant adventurer without gouging him for as much as he can. Simple enough. Not that I'd normally expect do it that way, since I'd always try to keep a price record around, but a difference like that is less than I've used in some circumstances.




Again, I say good for you, but I think it's a slippery slope when people start taking the fact that they did something... really anything in the game and assume that is how everyone should be content to do things.  We all run different games and for individual things, I'm sure we all amke use of different rules with different frequency, emphasis, etc. to achieve what we want out of D&D.


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 9, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I think my point was more... don't assume why or how I would use such a thing for versimilitude.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I say good for you, but I think it's a slippery slope when people start taking the fact that they did something... really anything in the game and assume that is how everyone should be content to do things. We all run different games and for individual things, I'm sure we all amke use of different rules with different frequency, emphasis, etc. to achieve what we want out of D&D.




You're the one who's using the word verisimilitude. My main point is that  a book of mundane items with a price listed against them isn't enough for more than a false veneer of it. And personally, I find a game where human beings can be harder to kill than a rhinoceros doesn't provide much verisimilitude at all.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 9, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again, what harm could it do?  3Ed had its Arms & Equipment guide.  2Ed had Aurora's.




Your examples are a far cry from a book that tells you how to use a 10-foot pole and how to herd donkeys.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 9, 2010)

Why would a bunch of mostly untested many mutually exclusive (though cool and creative) rules be useful out of WOTC. If they do that... they are failing to use the resources they have... Aren't they?

And why wouldn't this Unearthed Arcana be a perfect venue for third party publishers?


----------



## Imaro (Mar 9, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> You're the one who's using the word verisimilitude. My main point is that a book of mundane items with a price listed against them isn't enough for more than a false veneer of it. And personally, I find a game where human beings can be harder to kill than a rhinoceros doesn't provide much verisimilitude at all.




I'm really not getting the point of your first sentence... Yes I did use the word versimilitude, and I said that a book of mundane things with prices could help *me* maintain that better... I'm not understanding where the disconnect is?

As far as how much versimilitude a..." game where human beings can be harder to kill than a rhinoceros" provides... that fact is irrelevant... especially if in my campaign there is a reason certain humans attain that level of resilience. For me at least, versimilitude does not equal what could happen in our world. IMO, versimilitude is more dependent upon not breaking or disregarding the believability of events, things, consistency, etc. in the world you have created.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 9, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Your examples are a far cry from a book that tells you how to use a 10-foot pole and how to herd donkeys.




Who said anything about that?

The OP just wants to be able to buy the things in game and, for certain things, a few lines of rules (like, "Mules are exceedingly stubborn, so learn tricks at a negative modifier of -N") and a bit of fluff to help place some of the more unusual items within the game world, like Dwarven wind instruments...

Aurora's and the A&EG did that- ever buy a gnomish helm?- and added a bit of fluff.

So again, where is the harm?


----------



## Mark Chance (Mar 9, 2010)

Imaro said:


> ..." game where human beings can be harder to kill than a rhinoceros" provides... that fact is irrelevant....




Irrelevant and inaccurate. It's comparing an undefined type (human being) with a specific stat block (rhinoceros). Take into account that the appropriate comparison would be a 1st-level NPC class human with a rhino, and the "harder to kill" claim falls apart. After all, that rhino is the base for its kind, so it's only fair to compare it to the base human, who'd have 4-5 hit points compared to the rhino's 76 hit points.

In order for that same human to hit 76 hit points on average (assuming a 10-11 Constitution), he'd need to be about an 11th-level barbarian. IOW, the human would've advanced through 11 levels of a PC class as opposed to be stuck (more or less) as a level 1 NPC-type.

Now, take that same rhino and advance it by 10 HD just like you advanced the human by 10 HD. The rhino is still harder to kill, and by quite a lot.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 10, 2010)

And the rhino is, of course, just a mule ...er, donkeyhorse... wearing an elaborate disguise, under which is hidden all the gear it's carrying.

Which leads, indirectly, to asking: would a 10 HD mule be called an Ironheart Donkeyhorse?

Lanefan


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 10, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Who said anything about that?
> 
> The OP just wants to be able to buy the things in game and, for certain things, a few lines of rules (like, "Mules are exceedingly stubborn, so learn tricks at a negative modifier of -N") and a bit of fluff to help place some of the more unusual items within the game world, like Dwarven wind instruments...
> 
> ...




You've missed the posts requesting detailed rules for the 10' pole and more than "a few lines of rules" for the mule then. I agree that a book chock full of INTERESTING items a la Aurora's and the A&EG would be....well, interesting. A book full of unflavorful 10' foot poles, mules, etc. would not be of interest to me, nor do I think you'll see any publisher jumping at the chance to put said book out. I don't see any harm in such a book. I don't see any harm in asking for such a book. I just don't think you'll see one, so the advice given by others in this thread is the best you'll probably get. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 10, 2010)

We're spectacularly sick of edition-war-related threads. This one counts. As a result, I'm swinging it closed. 

That shouldn't prohibit a thread about traditional adventuring tools, if someone feels like starting one in a week or so; just don't wrap it in an edition war framework. 

Feel free to PM me with any questions.


----------

