Heh. You know I would love it if the PC's windwalked as an approach to stealth through a scenario of mine. I'd probably abort the whole thing to narrative assuming they did well enough with it. Maybe fight one or two of the fights with some serious tactical advantages if that seemed like it would be fun, or else just breeze through it as mostly description. Then again, I run a really different kind of game. I really let the PCs control the throttle. If they want to recon a whole dungeon and then blow through it in turbo mode--I'm totally cool with that.
That said, I understand where you're coming from. It's not that I don't empathize, I just think it's interesting to see the different kinds of problems we tend to have.
I remember a Faerun game we did and while some characters were doing political investigations in Semberholm, some other PCs had decided to explore the catacombs under the tree city. Basically I had them make some rolls and let them know the upshot of the kinds of creatures they found and fought and what valuables they were able to recover. Just like a trip to the blacksmith--enough flavor to paint the scene and give them a vivid payoff for going and doing it, but certainly we didn't play it through room by room.
In regards to wind walk the power is, maybe, OK as a kind of one off. The real problem is that it really makes sense to use it every single adventure.
I understand the idea that it might be fun to narrate the adventure real quick once or twice but would you want that to be what just about every game was about? Some adventures are easy to abort, others represent something that the DM thinks the players (and himself) will get a real kick out of exploring. Hence this kind of thing only works if the DM can turn it on and off at his discretion - which means it does not really work as a spell or power.
Now I completely buy the fact that, with you as a DM, with your group you can overcome these kind of issues. That does not mean that such a spell or power works well for the game. What happened in my group was that the players would end up fighting among themselves. I was OK to roll with it and provide whatever game they wanted but my players enjoyed different aspects of the game. Some where power mongers. For them leveling up and getting phat lewt was really the highlight, while others pored over the story and sucked up the detail. Some enjoyed exciting tactically interesting combats and finally I had some that really played for the out of character cracks and jokes.
What I found was wind walk and powers like it (there is a magic item that makes you undetectable by undead that caused the same kinds of problems) caused a rift in the players with those that just wanted Phat Lewt arguing that any advantage should be taken while the players that loved the way adventures unfold and the drama hated this sort of thing. My tactically orientated player was at first on the side of the Phat Lewt crew because he thought in terms of tactical advantage but then became really annoyed and frustrated when it turned out that this just made all the combats boring slaughters.
My point is that the game should not include these kinds of landmines that can only really be handled by advanced DMs running very cohesive groups whose interests are already well established and known to the DM.
Yeah. No, I totally understand what a beast high level spells can be in people's games. I've been on the recieving end of things like that myself. Sorry if I sounded insensitive about it.
Y'know as much as it bothers me when game design starts skewing toward in game concerns at the expense of story--I don't know that I hate the idea of making magic into something that fits nicely into the world.
I'd classify windwalk up there with things like ressurrection spells, as things that once they exist in noticable numbers, start making such an effect on the world that I'm not sure you aren't better off without them. Return of the Kobold King is one thing. Return of the Kobold King exactly as he was, every week forever turns the D&D world into World of Warcraft. Why even DO anything. Why adventure if your every accomplishment can be undone with some guy waving his wand behind you to reset all your victories. Again, I don't know if it would be a bad thing as a corner case, if it happened once in a while--but as a reality in every setting, in every D&D game?
I wouldn't mind if D&D got weaned off of magic...just a little bit. That sometimes when something bad happened to a character--it just happened. It's like the old round-and-round about Cure Disease:
"You come into a town that's suffering under a debilitating plague. The mayor runs over to the adventurers and makes a tearful plea that they must journey to the lost ruins of..."
"I cure him."
"Me too."
"I go into town and start curing everyone until I run out of cures."
"Uhh...umm...this is a SPECIAL disease that no magic can cure! Totally unlike all the ones characters contract from fighting monsters that magic is fine for."
That stuff just gets dumb quick. I'd love to see the plot defusing magic of D&D get rescaled a bit to be totally honest--and if a PC actually DIES because of it, or heaven help them they actually get SICK and can't just wand wave it away...so much the better.
Yeah. No, I totally understand what a beast high level spells can be in people's games. I've been on the recieving end of things like that myself. Sorry if I sounded insensitive about it.
Actually I love talking about stuff like this. I live for this kind of in depth analysis of the game. So if I sound like you've hurt my feelings nothing could be further from the truth.
Y'know as much as it bothers me when game design starts skewing toward in game concerns at the expense of story--I don't know that I hate the idea of making magic into something that fits nicely into the world.I'd classify windwalk up there with things like ressurrection spells, as things that once they exist in noticable numbers, start making such an effect on the world that I'm not sure you aren't better off without them. Return of the Kobold King is one thing. Return of the Kobold King exactly as he was, every week forever turns the D&D world into World of Warcraft. Why even DO anything. Why adventure if your every accomplishment can be undone with some guy waving his wand behind you to reset all your victories. Again, I don't know if it would be a bad thing as a corner case, if it happened once in a while--but as a reality in every setting, in every D&D game?
I wouldn't mind if D&D got weaned off of magic...just a little bit. That sometimes when something bad happened to a character--it just happened. It's like the old round-and-round about Cure Disease:
"You come into a town that's suffering under a debilitating plague. The mayor runs over to the adventurers and makes a tearful plea that they must journey to the lost ruins of..."
"I cure him."
"Me too."
"I go into town and start curing everyone until I run out of cures.""Uhh...umm...this is a SPECIAL disease that no magic can cure! Totally unlike all the ones characters contract from fighting monsters that magic is fine for."
That stuff just gets dumb quick. I'd love to see the plot defusing magic of D&D get rescaled a bit to be totally honest--and if a PC actually DIES because of it, or heaven help them they actually get SICK and can't just wand wave it away...so much the better.
Cure Disease is definitely the kind of spell I categorize as being a problem spell akin with wind walk. Its both better and worse in some minor ways.
Its better because the DM can see it coming a mile away. Its not likely to throw an unforeseen, potentially session damaging, wrench into the works. Its problem is that it ruins perfectly good story ideas and gains you more or less nothing in return. Its very existence basically eliminates most disease based adventures so that they are never run and, because of this, it almost never comes up in the game - or the handful of times it does its a triviality. Rats gave you the disease and now the cleric is going to have to spend a spell slot tomorrow to cure you of it...oh the tension, the drama...what might have that spell slot been useful for? How we will miss it!
I'd actually stick resurrection way up there under its own particularly difficult class of problem.
I outlawed resurrection in my last (3.5) campaign. I've always done this since 1E but this time it was different. This time the campaign ran really long, longer then anything I've done since I was in my teens and the problem with not having resurrection really did seem to come up for me.
I noted that I had a combat orientated player and a couple that were into Phat Lewt so combat had to be a big part of the game. The Tactically orientated player and the others were pretty much of the opinion that if combat was going to be a fair sized part of the game then it had better mostly be meaningful and that means putting some risk on the table. Thing is all the options seemed bad. They wanted to feel challenged and grew bored if there was no danger. But they hated loosing characters and hated any system that 'punished them' for death. Furthermore they took really worked their characters to make sure that their character was not the next to die but the result was very powerful characters that I countered by using viscous synergies and such resulting in phenomenally swingy combats. They'd go from full health to dead before you even had a chance to act.
There just seems to be no good answer to this quandary. Death tends to either seem trivial (because you just come back) or overly vindictive (because you just lost a favoured character or your character just got nerfed).
It also drives me insane to have resurrection floating around because, as you note, if its really out there and in use by everyone it dramatically alters the structure of the world and how it works. Presumably rich people either don't die or the PCs are super special and some how can come back from the dead - which apparently nearly nobody else can do (but resurrection potions are still presumably plentiful - you know, just in case some PCs wander by).
...you know now that I've ranted on this I think maybe I see a way out. I think I can get away with just having 'your dead' but no XP penalty or anything else - if you want to come back as a revinant to keep playing your character - fine I'll work that in. Might fly with my players, maybe...until they lose a guy they like and have been playing for 8 months.
Wonder if it would have been viable for WotC to license out the production of post-spellplague 4E Forgotten Realms supplement books to a 3pp. Perhaps such a 3pp could have had Ed Greenwood working full time on FR supplements.
I recall something like this was done for Dragonlance during the 3.5E era, with Margaret Weis Productions.
You know? This would have made a great idea. If WOTC fails to be profitable by supplying setting fluff books they could have to a certain degree licensed them out. Other companies could turn a profit releasing them. Instead of licensing out the whole of the major intellectual properties maybe WOTC could have lets say just licensed out Taladas for dragonlance. Maybe they could have licensed out alternative timelines in the Forgotten Realms. One company could have produced fluff as if the spellplague never occured. Another 3pp could produce books set in the arcane age. If WOTC is making their money selling rule supplements a series of 3pp supporting lesser incarnations of their major settings could have been a great way to net new players and recapture older players. If you don't like the current version of the Realms well then Company X is doing their own alternate licensed version set in such and such year. This would have allowed for some fantastic creativity.
If you can't see how a company may not want a cheap (and potentially popular) knock off of one of its trademark thingies floating arround I'm not sure you should be giving business advice to anyone.
aah the joys of friendly internet land conversation. We'll just rewrite your post. Lets see...aha....you could have said....
Well, my gut feeling on this is if WOTC let other companies make settings for their books it might cheapen their trademark settings if not done properly. I don't think it would be a good business model for them. What do you think?
see how that sparks conversation instead of inviting a pissing contest?
First off I'm not giving business advice to anyone. This is the internet...no one really cares about our opinions. We just think they do.
One... why do the products have to be cheap? MWP versions of dragonlance were well done. White Wolf's forray into Ravenloft wasn't all that bad. Gamma World wasn't fantastic but not a cheap knock off either.
Two...if the campaign settings were popular that would be a boon to WOTC. They are not in the setting business so much anymore. So a third party publisher producing setting books is less competition than a thrid party publisher producing rule books which are now WOTC's bread and butter. Two books a year for the official settings right? So I doubt a third party publisher is going to eat into the official setting sales. WOTC die hards are probably gonna pick up the official settings regardless. I know I will. If WOTC is not fleshing out their campaign worlds it would be nice to have someone else doing it. Sure it could be disasterous....and sure WOTC is not going to actually do it....again this is the internet and I'm just throwing out things that I and (lets emphasize the I) would like to see. I'm not saying WOTC is evil for not listening to my vision. I'm not saying WOTC better heed my words or else!
I'm honestly quite surprised at how many people are anti-setting books. That's why I made this post, to see if people have different views. Not to condemn them for their views.
Three...if the third party setting books are popular and people are drawn into the game because of them...then don't they have to buy all those expensive, fancy, money generating rule books?
If you can't see how a company may not want a cheap (and potentially popular) knock off of one of its trademark thingies floating arround I'm not sure you should be giving business advice to anyone.
aah the joys of friendly internet land conversation. We'll just rewrite your post. Lets see...aha....you could have said....
Well, my gut feeling on this is if WOTC let other companies make settings for their books it might cheapen their trademark settings if not done properly. I don't think it would be a good business model for them. What do you think?
see how that sparks conversation instead of inviting a pissing contest?
Yeah - thats Logo's, ignore him. I think he takes it as a point of pride to be as rude as possible to those he does not agree with. When I end up in an edition war he's usually the guy I fervently wish was not on my team.