Community

Jul 19, 2012 -- 1:09PM, Lawolf wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 12:59PM, Phoenix182 wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 9:38AM, Lawolf wrote:

Yeah this discussion has gone like this since the start of the tread: People who see 5MWD as a problem with the game rules: hey, this has been a long known problem with D&D. Here are some possible solutions to fix/alleviate the problem. People who do not see it as a problem: NO IT'S NOT. I have never seen it in my games. You all must be bad players/DMs/ not know how to roll play. You are clearly having badwrongfun. We should not do anything to fix this problem even though the solutions you propose would not adversely affect us (because we never experienced the problem anyway). It is sad really...

Meanwhile those of us on the other side feel largely the same (but opposite) way about the situation. So now where are we?

It's all about subjectivity, perspective, and warrants.

Except that me and my compatriots have been trying to compromise.  We have given dozens of suggestions on how to unobtrusively provide mechanical disincentives for th 5 minute work day.  Now look at your posts. Every single one basically says you don't perceive the 5MWD as a problem so we must not be playing D&D right.  Nobody with that point of view has presented any possible solutions to the problem besides "Learn to Play n00b!" We get that you don't think it is a problem, but at least realize that a large number of people do, and DM Fix It is not a valid solution.

Except it is a valid solution because the problem lies in your design not in the system's.

No story pushing them forward?  They 5mwd every time.

Encounters not made hard enough? They 5mwd and trivialize every encounter.

So easiest solution: Either design a more compelling story, or design encounters to be harder so as to justify their execution of the 5mwd. 

Congratulations you are a game designer for a hobby.  Maybe you should at least try to be good at your hobby.  That is kind of the point of a hobby.  If you got a video game and the enemies were all incredibly easy to defeat, and the story is completely unmotavating you aren't goin to play it very much.  News Flash: In D&D those two things are almost entirely within the DM's perview.

Yeah some things could easily be added to the system:  The Mormegils daily design is freakin awesome.  The spell burn system you suggested earlier is pretty good, but should remain in a sidebar.  Not as a given of the system.  

Getting rid of dailies though, or switching the refresh point does nothing but make new and different problems(that can't be solved via encounter or campaign design).  

So still I ask for someone to give me an example of the 5MWD that can't be solved by better Campaign or Encounter design.
 

Jul 19, 2012 -- 8:48AM, Alpha_dork wrote:

You mentioned in an earlier post that you believed there was a group of 4E supporters that were unreasonable and simply refused to compromise.

As someone who's tried very hard to propose solutions that would work for both sides, there's are supporters of older editions that are every bit as stubborn and unreasonable as some of the 4E people. 

I haven't seen any 3e people who want to ban completely the 4e peoples playstyle.  If you have references I'd be interested in seeing them.   Thats all I said.  I'm sure both sides have warriors who fight for their position ardently.

As for you, I wasn't thinking of you specifically.  There are a lot of reasonable 4e fans.  I wasn't lumping everyone into that bucket.  I just said that there was a segment of the 4e playerbase that want the game exactly their way and claim anyone playing another way is just doing it wrong.  They speak in absolutes instead of in perferences.  There are plenty of 4e people I respect on these boards. 

Jul 19, 2012 -- 9:06AM, Uskglass wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 8:09AM, Emerikol wrote:

I think maybe I need to start a DM consulting business and help some of you all out.  Maybe if you figured out how to do it in a fun way you wouldn't be so anti-dailies.

 

Nice. Let's do that: let's just have ONE module with your contact details so people can call you for a crash course on how to DM.

Just tell them to have their credit cards ready 

Jul 18, 2012 -- 9:36AM, Kalex_the_Omen wrote:

Jul 18, 2012 -- 9:33AM, LordofKhyber wrote:

Dealbreaker right there. I'm not sinking money into this train wreck.

Mearls just sold a Pathfinder Core Rules book to me. 

3e/3.5e/PF is a huge train wreck.  How have you helped yourself by buying the most broken, unbalanced RPG possibly ever produced?

Rifts says hi. :P I'm in agreement than 3.x was out of control, as is PF in terms of balance.... but yeah. Rifts says hi. :P

I used to design encounters. I no longer have the time to do so, so I use published encounters. I have run into 5MWD issues - particularly in Against the Giants and Tomb of Horrors, but for different reasons. Tomb was heavily draining resources to the point where members had one surge after the first or second encounter - and they were choosing their path through the tomb. They just happened to keep choosing the hardest encounters first. It is why Acererak is now a God in my campaign. As forAtG, the island toward the end is massive, choose your path, and takes days to get from point to point with a dwarf on foot. Encounters were random, and the die didn't trigger them often so the end result is they'd travel a few hours, hit an encounter, travel some more then rest for the evening

Jul 19, 2012 -- 1:38PM, Taikishi wrote:

I used to design encounters. I no longer have the time to do so, so I use published encounters. I have run into 5MWD issues - particularly in Against the Giants and Tomb of Horrors, but for different reasons. Tomb was heavily draining resources to the point where members had one surge after the first or second encounter - and they were choosing their path through the tomb. They just happened to keep choosing the hardest encounters first. It is why Acererak is now a God in my campaign. As forAtG, the island toward the end is massive, choose your path, and takes days to get from point to point with a dwarf on foot. Encounters were random, and the die didn't trigger them often so the end result is they'd travel a few hours, hit an encounter, travel some more then rest for the evening

so your saying the problems were entirely created by you.  There were ways to solve those problems that would have taken little to no work.  Yet again easily solved with better campaign or encounter design.

However your point is valid in respect to the pregenerated adventures.  Either they should provide difficult encounters (tomb of horrors seems to have done this correctly) to make it so that the players using the kill sleep kill sleep model aren't trivializing every encounter.  Or they should have some kind of timing element that forces the characters to move along quickly and without needless amounts of rest.  However none of it needs to be mechanical within the core system.  That is something that can be handled in each adventure, and on an adventure by adventure basis.  Possibly even being handled mechanically within some adventures.  So yes for pregen adventures the 5MWD is an issue they need to deal with.  However that is only true because a pregenerated adventure path does half the job of a DM anyways by inventing all of the NPC's and adventures.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 1:25PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 1:09PM, Lawolf wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 12:59PM, Phoenix182 wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 9:38AM, Lawolf wrote:

Yeah this discussion has gone like this since the start of the tread: People who see 5MWD as a problem with the game rules: hey, this has been a long known problem with D&D. Here are some possible solutions to fix/alleviate the problem. People who do not see it as a problem: NO IT'S NOT. I have never seen it in my games. You all must be bad players/DMs/ not know how to roll play. You are clearly having badwrongfun. We should not do anything to fix this problem even though the solutions you propose would not adversely affect us (because we never experienced the problem anyway). It is sad really...

Meanwhile those of us on the other side feel largely the same (but opposite) way about the situation. So now where are we?

It's all about subjectivity, perspective, and warrants.

Except that me and my compatriots have been trying to compromise.  We have given dozens of suggestions on how to unobtrusively provide mechanical disincentives for th 5 minute work day.  Now look at your posts. Every single one basically says you don't perceive the 5MWD as a problem so we must not be playing D&D right.  Nobody with that point of view has presented any possible solutions to the problem besides "Learn to Play n00b!" We get that you don't think it is a problem, but at least realize that a large number of people do, and DM Fix It is not a valid solution.

Except it is a valid solution because the problem lies in your design not in the system's.

No story pushing them forward?  They 5mwd every time.

Encounters not made hard enough? They 5mwd and trivialize every encounter.

So easiest solution: Either design a more compelling story, or design encounters to be harder so as to justify their execution of the 5mwd. 

Congratulations you are a game designer for a hobby.  Maybe you should at least try to be good at your hobby.  That is kind of the point of a hobby.  If you got a video game and the enemies were all incredibly easy to defeat, and the story is completely unmotavating you aren't goin to play it very much.  News Flash: In D&D those two things are almost entirely within the DM's perview.

Yeah some things could easily be added to the system:  The Mormegils daily design is freakin awesome.  The spell burn system you suggested earlier is pretty good, but should remain in a sidebar.  Not as a given of the system.  

Getting rid of dailies though, or switching the refresh point does nothing but make new and different problems(that can't be solved via encounter or campaign design).  

So still I ask for someone to give me an example of the 5MWD that can't be solved by better Campaign or Encounter design.

Castles and crusades game.  A group of 3 adventurers (A wizard, a rogue, and a fighter/rogue) is asked to clear out a nearby goblin cave because the goblins have been killing farm animals and the villagers are afraid.  We have no healer so the DM solved the HP 5MWD problem by giving us a pool of fatigue and body (Fatigue is the top half of HP and recovers after a 10 minute rest, Body recovers slowly at 1/day).  Without casting spells a group of 3 or fewer goblins present no threat at all, 4-5 are a challenge, and 6+ can lead to a TPK (or at least 1 man down).  The problem is that 5 goblins have a decent chance of killing someone with a few lucky rolls.  

We are in the goblin caves and we find a patrol of 5 goblins.  The caves are an old abandoned silver mine and are abot 10 feet wide.  We get the drop on the goblins and the wizard decides that it is better to cast sleep and take out the goblins in 1 shot rather than risk a party member dropping  (it also meant we didn't alert others to our presence).  We continue further, and find a second patrol.  Same tactic, we nuke em then slit the sleeper's throats.  At this point we decide we should head back to town, because why risk our own death, and we probably reduced the goblins numbers significantly.  On our way back a patrol is returning to the cave mouth, this one with 2 war dogs and 5 goblins.  The third and final sleep spell puts them all out except for a single dog who we fill with arrows.  

By this time it is only 11:30 AM (game time).  Our adventurers had been awake only a few hours. Now the DM has the decisio.  Use gamist knowledge (assuming the DM should even have to keep track of the wizards spells) and retool all planned encounters to only send weak challenges at us because our grenade launcher is out of ammo, or come up with some reason as to why a goblin cave that had lost 15 soldiers would somehow be stronger after taking such a hit the next day.  Our group has no reason to continue into the caves without our wizard as casting support.  It makes more sense for us to play it safe and return to town.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 1:33PM, Emerikol wrote:

I haven't seen any 3e people who want to ban completely the 4e peoples playstyle.  If you have references I'd be interested in seeing them.   Thats all I said.  I'm sure both sides have warriors who fight for their position ardently.

I don't have time to search for specifics, but there are people (not sure if they're 2E or 3E) that are very insistent that fighters receive no "spells/magical abilities" (the term often used for 4E fighter martial exploits). 


I understand the resistance to actual "magical powers" (what defines that could fill plenty of forum space as is evident from the "Quadtric Wizard/Linear Fighter" thread). I've seen posts from people who seem to regard any kind of "daily resource" (other than hit points) for the fighter as some sort of insult to all that is good and right about our treasured memories of older editions.

I know that some have suggested that a martial class with more 4E-style powers might be part of the game. The problem (for me) is that it won't be the Fighter and thats not what I want from  D&D Next.

I am being stubborn on this? Darn right I am. The reason is that (despite my preference for non-Vancian casting) I looked at the wizard and cleric in the playtest materials and thought they were a nice blend of ideas from all the editions.

The Fighter (and Rogue) simply aren't. They're 2E style classes with 3E feats delivered under the guise of Themes. Other than maybe backgrounds there is no influence from 4E at all (Fighter's Surge is much more akin to Barbarian Rage from 3E).


To me this looks like Vancian coming back for the people that want it and a big pile of steaming jack for the fans of the 4E style martial classes (will state again that doesn't mean AEDU for me, it means some sort of class defining options)


As I said in many threads, we should be able to make two fighters that are different not only in our "RP vision" of them, but in how they play due to the choices the player makes. These choices should include Race, Background and Theme (for those using them) and some sort of features embedded in the class design that allows a choice for the player.      

Jul 19, 2012 -- 1:59PM, Lord_Daxl wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 1:12PM, Orzel wrote:

@Lord_Daxl The barricading inside thing I never got. But teleporting away or running away makes sense when you are bruised, battered, winded, and down to a small percentage of your spells. And if you are moderately healthy and know there is a good chance of ending up in the previously mentioned condition if you continue, you might rest a bit to get your better abilities back too unless you are role playing a trill seeking reckless crazy person. If the system doesn't make a very good reason for your PC to go get himself possibly killed now rather than possibly killed later with a better chance of survival, the DM has to. And not every continuing excuse feels contrived. Currently the game asks you after your pistol runs out if you want to bring a knife to a pistol fight today or a pistol to a rifle fight tomorrow.

I just don't see being cautious and running away at times, or trying not to get yourself killed as some sort of behavior that needs to be prevented by the system.

If players want to be reckless, let them be reckless.  If they want to be extremely cautious, so be it.  

Why does the system need to tell me how I am suppose to play my character.

Exactly!  Right now the system tells us that the best course of action is to go Nova, then rest.  Yes there are ways DMs can change this, but all else being equal this is the best strategy for party survival.  Now if some encounter resources were introduced or if limits were placed on going nova (manaburn!), then players would have the free choice to be reckless or conservative at their leisure.  

Look at 4e (It didn't fix the 5MWD problem but they tried at least): A group with a number of encounter based options will be fine charging into to battle after battle.  This group can also choose that after a single fight, they had to spend a few healing surges so they are done for the day.  Their is very little pressure in the game design for one method over the other.  Even better, if the group does want to go nova, everyone has the capability to do so, meaning no classes are left out of the nova parade.  

Jul 19, 2012 -- 1:58PM, Lawolf wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 1:25PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 1:09PM, Lawolf wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 12:59PM, Phoenix182 wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 9:38AM, Lawolf wrote:

Yeah this discussion has gone like this since the start of the tread: People who see 5MWD as a problem with the game rules: hey, this has been a long known problem with D&D. Here are some possible solutions to fix/alleviate the problem. People who do not see it as a problem: NO IT'S NOT. I have never seen it in my games. You all must be bad players/DMs/ not know how to roll play. You are clearly having badwrongfun. We should not do anything to fix this problem even though the solutions you propose would not adversely affect us (because we never experienced the problem anyway). It is sad really...

Meanwhile those of us on the other side feel largely the same (but opposite) way about the situation. So now where are we?

It's all about subjectivity, perspective, and warrants.

Except that me and my compatriots have been trying to compromise.  We have given dozens of suggestions on how to unobtrusively provide mechanical disincentives for th 5 minute work day.  Now look at your posts. Every single one basically says you don't perceive the 5MWD as a problem so we must not be playing D&D right.  Nobody with that point of view has presented any possible solutions to the problem besides "Learn to Play n00b!" We get that you don't think it is a problem, but at least realize that a large number of people do, and DM Fix It is not a valid solution.

Except it is a valid solution because the problem lies in your design not in the system's.

No story pushing them forward?  They 5mwd every time.

Encounters not made hard enough? They 5mwd and trivialize every encounter.

So easiest solution: Either design a more compelling story, or design encounters to be harder so as to justify their execution of the 5mwd. 

Congratulations you are a game designer for a hobby.  Maybe you should at least try to be good at your hobby.  That is kind of the point of a hobby.  If you got a video game and the enemies were all incredibly easy to defeat, and the story is completely unmotavating you aren't goin to play it very much.  News Flash: In D&D those two things are almost entirely within the DM's perview.

Yeah some things could easily be added to the system:  The Mormegils daily design is freakin awesome.  The spell burn system you suggested earlier is pretty good, but should remain in a sidebar.  Not as a given of the system.  

Getting rid of dailies though, or switching the refresh point does nothing but make new and different problems(that can't be solved via encounter or campaign design).  

So still I ask for someone to give me an example of the 5MWD that can't be solved by better Campaign or Encounter design.

Castles and crusades game.  A group of 3 adventurers (A wizard, a rogue, and a fighter/rogue) is asked to clear out a nearby goblin cave because the goblins have been killing farm animals and the villagers are afraid.  We have no healer so the DM solved the HP 5MWD problem by giving us a pool of fatigue and body (Fatigue is the top half of HP and recovers after a 10 minute rest, Body recovers slowly at 1/day).  Without casting spells a group of 3 or fewer goblins present no threat at all, 4-5 are a challenge, and 6+ can lead to a TPK (or at least 1 man down).  The problem is that 5 goblins have a decent chance of killing someone with a few lucky rolls.  

We are in the goblin caves and we find a patrol of 5 goblins.  The caves are an old abandoned silver mine and are abot 10 feet wide.  We get the drop on the goblins and the wizard decides that it is better to cast sleep and take out the goblins in 1 shot rather than risk a party member dropping  (it also meant we didn't alert others to our presence).  We continue further, and find a second patrol.  Same tactic, we nuke em then slit the sleeper's throats.  At this point we decide we should head back to town, because why risk our own death, and we probably reduced the goblins numbers significantly.  On our way back a patrol is returning to the cave mouth, this one with 2 war dogs and 5 goblins.  The third and final sleep spell puts them all out except for a single dog who we fill with arrows.  

By this time it is only 11:30 AM (game time).  Our adventurers had been awake only a few hours. Now the DM has the decisio.  Use gamist knowledge (assuming the DM should even have to keep track of the wizards spells) and retool all planned encounters to only send weak challenges at us because our grenade launcher is out of ammo, or come up with some reason as to why a goblin cave that had lost 15 soldiers would somehow be stronger after taking such a hit the next day.  Our group has no reason to continue into the caves without our wizard as casting support.  It makes more sense for us to play it safe and return to town.

Not stronger but just as strong the next day.  Really not even contrived for goblins.  They are like vermin they live in large nests with many warrens filled with many goblins.  

If there is no time constraint then yes going back to rest is the best option.  The DM could have given you a larger reward for clearing out the cave sooner.  He could have made it so that the reward was bigger for completing the objective more quickly.  Not even a contrivance here the longer you take the more dead animals the more it costs the town the less they can reward you.

Now another solution could be encounter design.  If the second group you had found was only 3 goblins what would you have done?  Would you have had a normal combat and continued on?  Would you have continued to just rest on your laurals and let the wizard do everything?  Why does everyone's character go for that?  Also even if you do the next day could have two fun results:

Option 1 the goblins are all gone, you get the reduced reward,  it took you two days to tell them the goblins are gone, and you miss out on the exp for defeating the goblins.

Option 2 the goblins while fewer are now ready for raiders.  They have dug in and laid traps.  The fights become harder than they were before, and now there are various traps to deal with throughout the day.  Feel free to hit and run as much as you want, but every day that reward is going to drop a little bit.

Problem solved, while I am at work, in under a half hour, with little to no effort, and nothing but better encounter design and campaign design. 

Jul 19, 2012 -- 10:14AM, AbdulAlhazred wrote:

I'd just observe that it is the overall sense of the contempt that one camp seems to be holding for the other here that makes constructive discussion impossible. It is like you and several other posters here seem to unconsciously believe that basically everyone would really want to do it the way you like, if only they were skilled enough to reach that standard. lol.

I will say though, it is far more apparent and blatant with certain other posters. Still, there is a thread running through this whole "there is no problem, you're just doing it wrong" position. In fact just in summarizing the argument there I think we can plainly see the issue with it.

I'd suggest that anyone who's about to post something that summarizes to "you're doing it wrong" should probably just not bother to post it. Meanwhile I will say that there were some good interesting ideas back a ways here. I think the thread has pretty well long-since jumped some shark from which it can never get back from, but it was pretty good while it lasted

We all give and take I suppose.  I think we talk past each other a bit too.  For me the five minute work day is not a game breaking problem because there are realistic and logical in game solutions for it.  And while I agree that there may arise an occasional situation where it might apply that these are rare and hardly of concern.  I realize some people may feel like those solutions are railroading but I honestly feel like it's completely realistic.  I really do have a hard time understanding how the other side thinks.  

The bigger question though is that people do not like resource management as a class feature.  I'm all for a variety of classes that offer varying levels of resource management in various forms.  We all like what we like.  But do not say that the five minute workday is inherently broken because it is not.  Some people may not want to play that sort of game where the DM has a world where these things have consequences.  Thats fine but a lot of us do.  We like that aspect of the game.  So if we can agree to allow classes that have it and classes that do not then we are hopefully all good.

I hate the warlord class with a white hot passion.  I think it's the most verisimilitude breaking gamist construct devised by man.  But given those feelings I could care less if one exists so long as it's stuff is avoidable in my games.  Simple as that.  I think a game where we all get rid of everything we all hate will be the worst game ever.  We have to include the things we really like as much as possible for it to be good.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 12:24PM, Dopkalfar wrote:

Heroes of the Fallen Lands presents a Rogue (Thief) and two Fighter builds that avoid martial dailies.  They still Second Wind, but you can choose NOT to ever do it.  By the way, in my 3.5 campaign, the martial character, built from only PHB material, has dailies.  He's a multiclassed rogue/barbarian with a few per-day magic items.

I think Essentials was light years better than the original 4e.  Yeah I haven't started a new campaign of late but I'd much prefer to play it in Essentials than in original 4e.  I'd probaby prefer to play Pathfinder though and just avoid the classes that have martial dailies.  Or houserule them out.  

I have lots of issues with 4e as a game.  Not just martial dailies.  I like the structures of the former D&D games.  I like the vancian utilitarian wizard.  I like the simple fighter as an option (Essentials though does get that pretty good with the Slayer I admit).   The question you always have to ask is which game is easier to houserule to what you want.  No game is perfect.  Pathfinder probably wins that battle if I have to choose 4e or Pathfinder.  I might though instead go retroclone and add the extra complexity.  Mostly I feel the lack of a skill system in older games.  Otherwise they work for me pretty good.





 

Jul 19, 2012 -- 2:14PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Not stronger but just as strong the next day.  Really not even contrived for goblins.  They are like vermin they live in large nests with many warrens filled with many goblins.  

If there is no time constraint then yes going back to rest is the best option.  The DM could have given you a larger reward for clearing out the cave sooner.  He could have made it so that the reward was bigger for completing the objective more quickly.  Not even a contrivance here the longer you take the more dead animals the more it costs the town the less they can reward you.

Now another solution could be encounter design.  If the second group you had found was only 3 goblins what would you have done?  Would you have had a normal combat and continued on?  Would you have continued to just rest on your laurals and let the wizard do everything?  Why does everyone's character go for that?  Also even if you do the next day could have two fun results:

Option 1 the goblins are all gone, you get the reduced reward,  it took you two days to tell them the goblins are gone, and you miss out on the exp for defeating the goblins.

Option 2 the goblins while fewer are now ready for raiders.  They have dug in and laid traps.  The fights become harder than they were before, and now there are various traps to deal with throughout the day.  Feel free to hit and run as much as you want, but every day that reward is going to drop a little bit.

Problem solved, while I am at work, in under a half hour, with little to no effort, and nothing but better encounter design and campaign design. 

Except that didn't solve anything.  You proposed 2 solutions.

A) Continue on without our caster support and say goodbye to our lives if we happened to run into another patroll of 5 goblins and 2 wardogs (or even worse the goblin chieftan).

B) Accept a lesser reward (arbitrariliy) for our mission and survive.  Traps we can deal with (rogues remember), not to mention that why would the goblins not have trapped their caves in the first place if they had the capacity to do so?

Instead of solving anything, you just arbitrarily reduced our reward for our characters staying in character and deciding the best course of action is one where we don't suicidally charge into an unknown cave against unknown enemies.  

Jul 19, 2012 -- 2:04PM, Alpha_dork wrote:

I don't have time to search for specifics, but there are people (not sure if they're 2E or 3E) that are very insistent that fighters receive no "spells/magical abilities" (the term often used for 4E fighter martial exploits). 

I've seen people who want a simple fighter or that would play a complex fighter that didn't use a daily resource mechanism but I haven't seen them say it can't exist.  I'd like to see a reference if you happen to run across it.  I've only seen a few people on these boards actually try to declare that superior design should rule and all the rest of us should just shut up and learn to play a "good" game.   And let me emphasize that this isn't every 4e poster.  And you are not responsible for these other people.  It's not an attack upon the game or upon those not making such claims.  All I'm saying is that there is this group and they are all pro-4e and they want to stomp out all other ideas.

 

I think what people are missing is that most of the people in the thread want party motivation modules as modules and not hard coded into the core.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 2:25PM, Emerikol wrote:

The question you always have to ask is which game is easier to houserule to what you want.  No game is perfect.  Pathfinder probably wins that battle if I have to choose 4e or Pathfinder. 
 

Anedoctical experience here: 4e/Essentials is super-easy to house rulles: almost all systems are self contained, with little or no ramifications. Evey time we went to house rule a 3.x game it was pretty tough.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 12:42PM, Lord_Daxl wrote:

I really have a hard time grasping, that after murdering half the denizens of a dungeon, the fact that their companions may want to come throw me out of their home while I'm sleeping there, is considered contrived.

Its not, its perfectly reasonable.

What is contrived is that when you're in a city poking around and trying to solve a mystery, you get jumped 5 times in one day because otherwise the game balance doesn't work.

Its also contrived when you're travelling along a road and get attacked by bandits 5 times in one day.

Its contrived when you're traveling through the wilderness and hear the DM roll a dozen times on his random encounter chart.

If you play narrative games, sometimes it will make sense for there to be many encounters in a day, other times it won't. All we ask for is a system that balances at all points along this spectrum, not just one.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 2:26PM, Lawolf wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 2:14PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Not stronger but just as strong the next day.  Really not even contrived for goblins.  They are like vermin they live in large nests with many warrens filled with many goblins.  

If there is no time constraint then yes going back to rest is the best option.  The DM could have given you a larger reward for clearing out the cave sooner.  He could have made it so that the reward was bigger for completing the objective more quickly.  Not even a contrivance here the longer you take the more dead animals the more it costs the town the less they can reward you.

Now another solution could be encounter design.  If the second group you had found was only 3 goblins what would you have done?  Would you have had a normal combat and continued on?  Would you have continued to just rest on your laurals and let the wizard do everything?  Why does everyone's character go for that?  Also even if you do the next day could have two fun results:

Option 1 the goblins are all gone, you get the reduced reward,  it took you two days to tell them the goblins are gone, and you miss out on the exp for defeating the goblins.

Option 2 the goblins while fewer are now ready for raiders.  They have dug in and laid traps.  The fights become harder than they were before, and now there are various traps to deal with throughout the day.  Feel free to hit and run as much as you want, but every day that reward is going to drop a little bit.

Problem solved, while I am at work, in under a half hour, with little to no effort, and nothing but better encounter design and campaign design. 

Except that didn't solve anything.  You proposed 2 solutions.

A) Continue on without our caster support and say goodbye to our lives if we happened to run into another patroll of 5 goblins and 2 wardogs (or even worse the goblin chieftan).

B) Accept a lesser reward (arbitrariliy) for our mission and survive.  Traps we can deal with (rogues remember), not to mention that why would the goblins not have trapped their caves in the first place if they had the capacity to do so?

Instead of solving anything, you just arbitrarily reduced our reward for our characters staying in character and deciding the best course of action is one where we don't suicidally charge into an unknown cave against unknown enemies.  

A) Continue on without caster support and possibly make it through and get the biggest reward possible/save the town from their problem as fast as possible.  Did you gather any intel on the cave to get an idea of numbers?  Did you do any scouting to know how many goblins there may be?  With that knowledge you could have deduced how many goblins there were.  You could have attempted the 5 man groups to try and make it through the fights without forcing the caster to expend his daily resources.  You are rogues right?  Why not just start ghosting goblins to thin out their groups.  Start playing shadow games with them.  Snipe some dudes and hold to the shadows.  Intimidate them to make them think there are more than just the three of you.  sleep groups when you need to (the 5 goblin 2 wardog units).  Not the games fault you are only using the dumbest possible strategy to clear a dungeon with 3 party members.  This isn't an MMO you don't need to do pulls and take on the whole group.  You can operate from the shadows and attack people from the dark without aggroing the rest of the group.  If you had started with the knowledge that you want to clear the dungeon as fast as possible what would that have done to your strategy.  Hell if it is a closed cave system just build a freakin bonfire in the entrance of the cave to pull all of the oxygen out of the cave and force the goblins to run out of the cave through the fire and into your traps.  All you have to worry about now is the outside patrols.

B)Not arbitrarily.  There are now consequences for your actions.  All actions have consequences.  This is a lesson you should have learned long ago.

My fixes aren't things to be tacked onto your situation it is how it would have been written from the beginning.  the changes would have been there from the beginning.  Even better I would have put one dead town member on the heads of the goblins.  they normally kill the animals around town but they branched into the townsfolk recently and we think it is just going to get worse.  Over the first night the goblins launch a counter offensive that you sleep through and kill/kidnap another town member.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 2:34PM, Uskglass wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 2:25PM, Emerikol wrote:

The question you always have to ask is which game is easier to houserule to what you want.  No game is perfect.  Pathfinder probably wins that battle if I have to choose 4e or Pathfinder. 
 

Anedoctical experience here: 4e/Essentials is super-easy to house rulles: almost all systems are self contained, with little or no ramifications. Evey time we went to house rule a 3.x game it was pretty tough.

As long as you are willing to live within the 4e design universe, you are probably right.  But breaking out of that universe (which would be why I'd be houseruling that edition) is all but impossible.  Writing my own game might be easier.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 2:43PM, Emerikol wrote:

As long as you are willing to live within the 4e design universe, you are probably right.  But breaking out of that universe (which would be why I'd be houseruling that edition) is all but impossible.  Writing my own game might be easier.

True, you have to work within that framework. I just found that framework to have a a lot of flexibility (for example resulting in orginal 4E and Essentials, which have definitely a different feel from one another). Actually, my statament before was not correct: 3.x was good in that regard too, till you tried to hack the magic system. 

Jul 19, 2012 -- 2:39PM, Authw8 wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 12:42PM, Lord_Daxl wrote:

I really have a hard time grasping, that after murdering half the denizens of a dungeon, the fact that their companions may want to come throw me out of their home while I'm sleeping there, is considered contrived.

Its not, its perfectly reasonable.

What is contrived is that when you're in a city poking around and trying to solve a mystery, you get jumped 5 times in one day because otherwise the game balance doesn't work.

Its also contrived when you're travelling along a road and get attacked by bandits 5 times in one day.

Its contrived when you're traveling through the wilderness and hear the DM roll a dozen times on his random encounter chart.

If you play narrative games, sometimes it will make sense for there to be many encounters in a day, other times it won't. All we ask for is a system that balances at all points along this spectrum, not just one.

Hmm, 5 equally challenging encounters in a day. What if you had 2 encounters in the day that were as challenging as the 5 encounters combined? Could the encounter power-based system with some daily powers handle that? If the amount of abilities you have are based around an encounter it will limit the types of encounters you can have. There will be some flexibility but not as much as the system that is balanced over an adventure.

"The five-minute workday" comes about if the player runs out of abilities or doesn't have the ability he/she needs at the moment. If you misuse your abilities in either system you can run out of them for a specific encounter. Encounter abilities don't stop people from playing poorly. Things like rituals basically takes care of the second case.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 3:31PM, Lord_Daxl wrote:

The problem is a wizard can nova and wreck an encounter, this is what needs fixed.  Putting in some arbitrary mechanic to force the players to do a certain number of encounters isn't going to fix it.

It may go all the way to the fundamental way we are wired.  A wizard going nova and killing a monster is not wrecking the encounter to me.  It was either a wise use of party resources or it wasn't.  This deep seated need for perfect spot light time 24/7 is baffling to me.  But I do think it is why some can't stand the way thing were and others can.  The rest of us just don't get that feeling.  I mean if the fighter rushes in and cuts an enemy to ribbons before anyone else can act, did he do something wrong?  That happened on occasion too in my campaigns.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 3:52PM, Emerikol wrote:

It may go all the way to the fundamental way we are wired.  A wizard going nova and killing a monster is not wrecking the encounter to me.  It was either a wise use of party resources or it wasn't.  This deep seated need for perfect spot light time 24/7 is baffling to me.  But I do think it is why some can't stand the way thing were and others can.  The rest of us just don't get that feeling.  I mean if the fighter rushes in and cuts an enemy to ribbons before anyone else can act, did he do something wrong?  That happened on occasion too in my campaigns.

He did something wrong if doing so drained 90% of his HP.

Seriously though.

The whole problem is the D&D is:
1) Most editions of D&D were designed to play using one playstyle (X encounter a day)
2) Most editions of D&D without heavy DM intervention actually favor a different playstyle (Nova, run, rest, return)
3) In order to play any other playstyle, the DM(s) must be of significant talent, experience, and readiness to counter the forces that drive the intended and favored playstyle in an organic and noncontrived manner
4) Not every DM has the required talent, experience, time, readiness, or drive

Therefore

D&D Next should:
1) Be Playstyle Neutral or a close to Neutral as it can get
2) Have optional tools for DMs without the required talent, experience, time, readiness, or drive to adapt the game to their preferred playstyle mechanically if the wish
3) Have guidelines for DMs without the required talent, experience, time, readiness, or drive to adapt the game to their preferred playstyle narratively without additional mechanics

Jul 19, 2012 -- 4:12PM, Orzel wrote:

The whole problem is the D&D is:
1) Most editions of D&D were designed to play using one playstyle (X encounter a day)
2) Most editions of D&D without heavy DM intervention actually favor a different playstyle (Nova, run, rest, return)
3) In order to play any other playstyle, the DM(s) must be of significant talent, experience, and readiness to counter the forces that drive the intended and favored playstyle in an organic and noncontrived manner
4) Not every DM has the required talent, experience, time, readiness, or drive

Therefore

D&D Next should:
1) Be Playstyle Neutral or a close to Neutral as it can get
2) Have optional tools for DMs without the required talent, experience, time, readiness, or drive to adapt the game to their preferred playstyle mechanically if the wish
3) Have guidelines for DMs without the required talent, experience, time, readiness, or drive to adapt the game to their preferred playstyle narratively without additional mechanics

2) This style never has to work. It doesn't take any "talent, experience, time, readiness, or drive". If the players run, the enemy recovers to the state that the players first encountered them in.
3) If the DM has none of these qualities (especially drive), why is he DM'ing?

Jul 18, 2012 -- 9:36AM, Kalex_the_Omen wrote:

Jul 18, 2012 -- 9:33AM, LordofKhyber wrote:

Dealbreaker right there. I'm not sinking money into this train wreck.

Mearls just sold a Pathfinder Core Rules book to me. 

3e/3.5e/PF is a huge train wreck.  How have you helped yourself by buying the most broken, unbalanced RPG possibly ever produced?

Doesn't this question just answer itself?

You have helped yourself by buying the most broken, unbalanced RPG possibly ever produced.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 4:42PM, darius wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 4:12PM, Orzel wrote:

The whole problem is the D&D is:
1) Most editions of D&D were designed to play using one playstyle (X encounter a day)
2) Most editions of D&D without heavy DM intervention actually favor a different playstyle (Nova, run, rest, return)
3) In order to play any other playstyle, the DM(s) must be of significant talent, experience, and readiness to counter the forces that drive the intended and favored playstyle in an organic and noncontrived manner
4) Not every DM has the required talent, experience, time, readiness, or drive

Therefore

D&D Next should:
1) Be Playstyle Neutral or a close to Neutral as it can get
2) Have optional tools for DMs without the required talent, experience, time, readiness, or drive to adapt the game to their preferred playstyle mechanically if the wish
3) Have guidelines for DMs without the required talent, experience, time, readiness, or drive to adapt the game to their preferred playstyle narratively without additional mechanics

2) This style never has to work. It doesn't take any "talent, experience, time, readiness, or drive". If the players run, the enemy recovers to the state that the players first encountered them in.
3) If the DM has none of these qualities (especially drive), why is he DM'ing?

If the party novas and kills 20% of the enemies, 20% of them are dead. It is up to the DM to make the remaining 80%, the survivors, defensively stronger in sensible ways that their players will buy.

The qualities mentioned are related to dealing with workday and encounter issues. The DM needs talent, experience, time, readiness, and/or drive to create a believable excuse to make continuing a viable or sensible choice proportional to the chance of breaking their players' suspensions of belief.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 5:39PM, Orzel wrote:

If the party novas and kills 20% of the enemies, 20% of them are dead. It is up to the DM to make the remaining 80%, the survivors, defensively stronger in sensible ways that their players will buy.

The qualities mentioned are related to dealing with workday and encounter issues. The DM needs talent, experience, time, readiness, and/or drive to create a believable excuse to make continuing a viable or sensible choice proportional to the chance of breaking their players' suspensions of belief.

How do the players know what percentage of the enemies are dead? Even if they knew that, how would they know where more enemies came from if they run away?

If "nova, run, rest, return" doesn't get the players anywhere then they won't do that.

The problem of resting to recoup resources doesn't stop if you have mostly encounter powers. Any resource that requires a "long rest" could trigger that behavior.

@Orzel
Since so much of this is caught up in class structures which are by default modular but in name are not.  The vancian wizard is not a module.  But he practically is a module because there will be sufficient classes for all playstyles.  If you though insist that certain components be set off in a special module zone with big warning signs then I disagree.  Just discuss the issues in the DMG and give guidance on choosing the classes for the type of game you want.

I think the DMG should teach DMs how to handle these issues and teach them well.  It really isn't that hard.  If I had a DM who really wanted to do it I could teach him in half an hour.

The best way to DM is to provide a dynamic world.  If you provide a static world then you are just selling your players short in so many ways.  Besides the issues of the 5 minute workday cropping up you are making the rest of the game a lot less interesting too.  Letting an enemy live to fight another day is a bad plan in real life and in my campaign.  

Dynamism can be at odds with a DM who favors depth and detail. Or one who favors ease of preparation. Every DM faces these kinds of tradeoffs, the best the system can do is support them  elegant and uniform core rules with the fewest possible exceptions to account for.

It's much easier to have a dynamic and adaptable game if there aren't two sets of rules that the players operate under.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 6:24PM, Emerikol wrote:

@Orzel
Since so much of this is caught up in class structures which are by default modular but in name are not.  The vancian wizard is not a module.  But he practically is a module because there will be sufficient classes for all playstyles.  If you though insist that certain components be set off in a special module zone with big warning signs then I disagree.  Just discuss the issues in the DMG and give guidance on choosing the classes for the type of game you want.

I think the DMG should teach DMs how to handle these issues and teach them well.  It really isn't that hard.  If I had a DM who really wanted to do it I could teach him in half an hour.

The best way to DM is to provide a dynamic world.  If you provide a static world then you are just selling your players short in so many ways.  Besides the issues of the 5 minute workday cropping up you are making the rest of the game a lot less interesting too.  Letting an enemy live to fight another day is a bad plan in real life and in my campaign.  

Again I think many are missing my point.
It's not a matter of making a dynamic world rather than a static one.
It's about making a beliveable dynamic world rather than a static wone or a dynamic world that breaks the player's immersion.
That is where the only real issue is. The raised bar for DMs.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 1:20PM, Phoenix182 wrote:

Compromise is the great destroyer. Choice is the great equalizer.

I don't want a compromised core, I want a stripped core and total modularity, which is what I've argued for from the beginning. I do not accept a core system that addresses a problem which in my (and others) view is non-existent. I DO accept modules to allow people to choose the options that work for them, as long as Option B has no impact whatsoever on core or Option A. That's what we need in my opinion (well, since 2+ different games is already off the table at least).

My comments (other than the first, which was merely my personal opinion on the article) were directed at people doing what you claim we're doing: demanding that one side is right and the other wrong, or calling for changes to the core that benefit them specifically while potentially altering the system for us needlessly. Now, I didn't pay much attention to the posts calling specifically for modular solutions since I wouldn't have any need of them. I fully support people coming up with those and discussing them at length. As far as I'm concerned if people come up with a thousand optional modules it's all good...as long as the core isn't inherently biased towards something we have no interest in playing.

So if YOUR preferred option was the Module instead of core you'd walk?

...

If so, you are hardly offering the kind of flexability you are demanding of others.





There's no "encounter design" solution to truly open ended worlds where the players are initiating contact with opponents and situations in their own order. 

But the whole "I'll tell you how to improve your adventure so this isn't a problem" isn't answering the base issue that we shouldn't be allowing problems which need the DM to intervene to "fix" them into the game in the first place!   

I think it would be easy enough for 5e to have both Daily and non-daily resource refresh options.

I implemented a recharge mechanic in 4e which is pretty much daily's return 3 fights later (or 3 non-combat encounters later if its an OoC daily)

You have 1/3 as many surges but HP and surges are maximized every short rest.

I'm not saying its perfect, and I certainly don't think its for everyone
(v-tude being a primary reason against, followed by added book keeping).

But I if I can hash out in an afternoon or so to jury-rig a way to eliminate party dependence on rest recovery and eliminate 5mwd, I think the Devs should be able to toss me a bone as a module if not just make it "Core" (this way, I've found, is much MUCH easier to DM)

Jul 19, 2012 -- 7:05PM, Orzel wrote:

Again I think many are missing my point.
It's not a matter of making a dynamic world rather than a static one.
It's about making a beliveable dynamic world rather than a static wone or a dynamic world that breaks the player's immersion.
That is where the only real issue is. The raised bar for DMs.

It's an opinion that "nova, run, rest, return" is a believable way to deal with problems in D&D. I don't think it is believable that you can kill 20% of an enemy force and they would not replenish their forces or try to track down those who attacked them.

If the game is balanced around the encounter, other immersion problems arise but the "run, rest, return" problem can still occur.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 6:24PM, Emerikol wrote:

Letting an enemy live to fight another day is a bad plan in real life and in my campaign.  

I dont know.  I like to let the enemy live - in our current campaign, one of our groups NPC's is a guy that we fought twice.  The first time we defeated him we let him go, the second time he encounted us he just surrended straight away.  He then gave us valuable intel on the bandit group we were after and since the group needed a tracker he eventually became a full time member of the group.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 10:41PM, Shasarak wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 6:24PM, Emerikol wrote:

Letting an enemy live to fight another day is a bad plan in real life and in my campaign.  

I dont know.  I like to let the enemy live - in our current campaign, one of our groups NPC's is a guy that we fought twice.  The first time we defeated him we let him go, the second time he encounted us he just surrended straight away.  He then gave us valuable intel on the bandit group we were after and since the group needed a tracker he eventually became a full time member of the group.

Huh. Our styles have some things in common.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 7:58PM, Admiral-JCJF wrote:

So if YOUR preferred option was the Module instead of core you'd walk?

I think many of us see CORE and MODULE differently to this.  The CORE is a set of the base systems that are never changed and MODULES can only be added on top of it, they can't change it.  MODULES can only replace other MODULES.

If they said vancian casting was the DEFAULT MODULE for wizards then that would probably be fine with people.  But saying it is CORE means that there will not be a method to replace it without extensive house ruling and redesign.

Jul 20, 2012 -- 5:07AM, PrawnPower wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 7:58PM, Admiral-JCJF wrote:

So if YOUR preferred option was the Module instead of core you'd walk?

I think many of us see CORE and MODULE differently to this.  The CORE is a set of the base systems that are never changed and MODULES can only be added on top of it, they can't change it.  MODULES can only replace other MODULES.

If they said vancian casting was the DEFAULT MODULE for wizards then that would probably be fine with people.  But saying it is CORE means that there will not be a method to replace it without extensive house ruling and redesign. 

Dont forget “Core option”.

The Core itself requires players to choose a preferred style, among several notable alternatives.

If certain playstyles reach a threshold of popularity, they should be “equally legal” “core options”.



Sometimes the Core doesnt have a default, and forces players to choose a style. For example, the simplest way to play is without themes and backgrounds. But presumably, most players will prefer them and select the playstyle with them.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 7:58PM, Admiral-JCJF wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 1:20PM, Phoenix182 wrote:

Compromise is the great destroyer. Choice is the great equalizer.

I don't want a compromised core, I want a stripped core and total modularity, which is what I've argued for from the beginning. I do not accept a core system that addresses a problem which in my (and others) view is non-existent. I DO accept modules to allow people to choose the options that work for them, as long as Option B has no impact whatsoever on core or Option A. That's what we need in my opinion (well, since 2+ different games is already off the table at least).

My comments (other than the first, which was merely my personal opinion on the article) were directed at people doing what you claim we're doing: demanding that one side is right and the other wrong, or calling for changes to the core that benefit them specifically while potentially altering the system for us needlessly. Now, I didn't pay much attention to the posts calling specifically for modular solutions since I wouldn't have any need of them. I fully support people coming up with those and discussing them at length. As far as I'm concerned if people come up with a thousand optional modules it's all good...as long as the core isn't inherently biased towards something we have no interest in playing.

So if YOUR preferred option was the Module instead of core you'd walk?

I don't know how you twisted what you said to mean that.  He wrote a pretty brilliant summarization of what I've been trying to say here.  Don't fix things for classes you don't care for anyway.  The vancian wizard works just fine for those that like vancian wizards.  If you don't like them then don't use them.  The warlord doesn't work for me.  You don't need to do anything to make it work for me.  I don't want it.  So that class should be designed for people who like it and want what it offers.

In fact, @Phoenix182, this is so good I think you should blog it.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 7:58PM, Admiral-JCJF wrote:

...

If so, you are hardly offering the kind of flexability you are demanding of others.

He is offering exactly the same flexibility for everyone.  A stripped down core and then add in the modules you want.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 7:58PM, Admiral-JCJF wrote:

There's no "encounter design" solution to truly open ended worlds where the players are initiating contact with opponents and situations in their own order. 

I play my monsters as they would react in a D&D world if it existed.  I do nothing special other than play them to their appropriate intelligence.  That eliminates the 5 minute workday.  Because the 5 minute workday is an exploit.  It is not realistic at all.  People who do 5 minute workdays have a DM who refuses to play the other side with any sort of brain.   If the DM did then the players would realize that the 5 minute workday is a bad plan.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 7:58PM, Admiral-JCJF wrote:

But the whole "I'll tell you how to improve your adventure so this isn't a problem" isn't answering the base issue that we shouldn't be allowing problems which need the DM to intervene to "fix" them into the game in the first place!   

This really is the solution for people who want vancian wizards.  Those of us who want them though don't have the issue we already handle it.  If you can't or don't want to then avoid the class.  You've zero'd in on the five minute workday.  As DM I fix hundreds of problems every session by playing the monsters a particular way and/or design dungeons a particular way.  No game that has a DM can remove this as a feature of the game.  DMs need to DM.  The abuse of the five minute workday is DMing 101.  

Some anecdotal evidence for the "a good DM can fix it" crowd.

I've played with your version of a good DM.  He balanced encounters perfectly. He discouraged 5mwd just as you suggested with in world game consequences and time pressure campaigns.  He put in tons of time prepping every adventure and sets of encounters to make sure each player had their moment to shine.

And I left his game because his stories suck.

The DM I play with now is easily my favorite I have ever played with.  He puts in little to no prep work for encounters because (to be a little harsh, and blunt) he sucks at math.  He never thinks about what set of encounters across an adventuring day would balance the party.  He's never used a module or even set his campaign in an established setting.  He makes up everything on the fly.  Often times we go entire sessions with only one combat.  And no it's not necessarily a major boss battle.  Sometimes it's just a wandering couple of goblins for the heck of it.  By your definition of "a good DM" he is terrible.

But his stories are amazing.  He builds worlds (many campaign created in many unique settings) where character choice and roleplaying rule the day.

So the point is, (and others have pretty much said this previously with no real response) why should he have to constantly fight with a core system that relies on resource management for balance when none of his campaigns are designed with resource management in mind?

Sure RM is a valid playstyle, and I'm not saying you shouldn't have it.  But that's what modular should mean.  A core system that doesn't involve RM with a module for RM classes printed alongside it for people that want it.

I'm fine with a "wizard" being vancian.  I don't care what label any classes get.  As long as there's a completely RM free base class for every archetype, and no "per day" effects baked basic magic items.  Then you can add AEDU or Vancian powers/spells/maneuvers for whatever classes you want based on your campaign, and if they add an expansion of uber-powerful daily use magic items, we just won't use them.

And that's what "core" plus "modules" should mean.  A bare bones core that covers only the basic archetypes with virtually no fluff and little to no magic.  Something a gritty ultra-verisimilitude group would like.  Then modules for AEDU, RM, and varying degrees of magic-infused settings, as well as skillful, legendary, or EPIC!!! non-magic classes.

Anything you want in your game should be able to be added, but nothing should have to be painstakingly removed by DM's who don't have a degree in design, don't have the time to invest in what you call "proper DM-ing," but have the story-telling chops that make people wait in line to get into a session with him (I've seen this happen).  Then when the core is balanced and smooth, each group can decide what modules they want to make their game work.  And if they want to break balance by adding vancian spellcasters but not buff a basic fighter in any way, that is their decision. It should always be a DM's choice to add complexity.  This is different than forcing him to strip it out if he doesn't want it.

As for the concerns about convention style gaming, I'll admit I've never done that, so I 'm not necessarily qualified to speak on how that works, but I can see whoever is setting up the game just posting expressly that they are using modules X, Y, and Z, and you can then build your characters accordingly without fear of "mother may I."

This is the only way differing groups can ever play the same game and be satisfied.  It absolutely can work.  It just doesn't appear to be what they are actually doing...


(Side-note, I would prefer a caster who's limiting factor is a Spellcasting check with more powerful spells being higher DC to cast.  You attempt to "nova" at any time, but more often than not you'll have to roll several times to make it actually happen.  The truly game-breaking spells would wind up needing a nat20 to happen, and if they pull that off, they deserve to "win".  I could go on , but that's probably a topic for a different thread -- and again, I don't want this core, and I'm not asking anyone else to be forced to play with it.  Just want the option without having to re-write core to get it.)

Jul 19, 2012 -- 3:31PM, Lord_Daxl wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 2:12PM, Lawolf wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 1:59PM, Lord_Daxl wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 1:12PM, Orzel wrote:

@Lord_Daxl The barricading inside thing I never got. But teleporting away or running away makes sense when you are bruised, battered, winded, and down to a small percentage of your spells. And if you are moderately healthy and know there is a good chance of ending up in the previously mentioned condition if you continue, you might rest a bit to get your better abilities back too unless you are role playing a trill seeking reckless crazy person. If the system doesn't make a very good reason for your PC to go get himself possibly killed now rather than possibly killed later with a better chance of survival, the DM has to. And not every continuing excuse feels contrived. Currently the game asks you after your pistol runs out if you want to bring a knife to a pistol fight today or a pistol to a rifle fight tomorrow.

I just don't see being cautious and running away at times, or trying not to get yourself killed as some sort of behavior that needs to be prevented by the system.

If players want to be reckless, let them be reckless.  If they want to be extremely cautious, so be it.  

Why does the system need to tell me how I am suppose to play my character.

Exactly!  Right now the system tells us that the best course of action is to go Nova, then rest.  Yes there are ways DMs can change this, but all else being equal this is the best strategy for party survival.  Now if some encounter resources were introduced or if limits were placed on going nova (manaburn!), then players would have the free choice to be reckless or conservative at their leisure.  

Look at 4e (It didn't fix the 5MWD problem but they tried at least): A group with a number of encounter based options will be fine charging into to battle after battle.  This group can also choose that after a single fight, they had to spend a few healing surges so they are done for the day.  Their is very little pressure in the game design for one method over the other.  Even better, if the group does want to go nova, everyone has the capability to do so, meaning no classes are left out of the nova parade.  

To go back to your castle & crusades example, there is a problem, it's the fact that the wizard can trivialize an entire encounter with one spell.  It's not a 5mwd problem.  If they were just resting from getting beat up fighting a few groups of goblins no one would think it was a problem.  Likewise, if a party went to fight a dragon and they all contributed and came back battered and rested the rest of the day I doubt many would view it as a problem.

The problem is a wizard can nova and wreck an encounter, this is what needs fixed.  Putting in some arbitrary mechanic to force the players to do a certain number of encounters isn't going to fix it.

1) The 5MWD is easily preventable.
2) Preventing it still leaves a problem.

I feel that 5MWD and the Nova wizard are symptoms of a deeper, more fundamental problem.  That problem is pacing (including how pacing affects difficulty).

In this example, we have a situation where encounters are trivial as long as the wizard has spells but too risky/difficult without them.  (Or if you don't agree that is the case, imagine a different example where it is the case.)  Nerfing sleep (which I agree is overpowered in this example) still leaves the problem that the encounters of 5 goblins and 2 dogs are too hard without a sleep spell.  There are different approaches or reactions to this:

1) The DM can adjust difficulty dynamically to throw easier monsters at the players.  Many people won't find this solution satisfying.
2) Require the players to come up with nonstandard tactics -- stealth kills of isolated goblins, smoking them out, etc.  Once again, this depends on DM personality.  Some DMs might allow it, some might make it harder (goblins never go about in groups less than 3, the rock is semi-porous, whatever), and some might consider the very thought to be cheese.
3) Vary the difficulty of the encounters -- some have 5 goblins and 2 wardogs and require sleep, while others just have 3 goblins.  Of course, it's possible that the players and/or DMs misjudge what is easy and hard.
4) Make sure the wizard isn't useless after casting a few spells.
 
1-3 are more DM based, but are hit-or-miss, depending on gaming preferences at the table.  4 is a nice mechanical fix that reduces the penalty for continuing.  (I have a side rant on DMs too frequently thinking of influencing players in terms of penalties instead of rewards -- reward continuing onwards in some way -- even if not mechanically, you can have a prisoner who tells you where a secret cache of healing potions lie).  While things can be done by DM decisions, it's nice to not have to constantly fight an uphill battle.

Really.  Make sure the wizard isn't useless after casting a few spells.  There are lots of options that can be discussed and debated.  Encounter powers.  Partial refreshes.  Whatever.  Focus on this instead of arguing about the 5MWD itself.  Yes, it can be prevented.  No, that isn't enough to fix the underlying problem.

Jul 20, 2012 -- 7:32AM, JihVed wrote:

Some anecdotal evidence for the "a good DM can fix it" crowd.

I've played with your version of a good DM.  He balanced encounters perfectly. He discouraged 5mwd just as you suggested with in world game consequences and time pressure campaigns.  He put in tons of time prepping every adventure and sets of encounters to make sure each player had their moment to shine.

And I left his game because his stories suck.

The DM I play with now is easily my favorite I have ever played with.  He puts in little to no prep work for encounters because (to be a little harsh, and blunt) he sucks at math.  He never thinks about what set of encounters across an adventuring day would balance the party.  He's never used a module or even set his campaign in an established setting.  He makes up everything on the fly.  Often times we go entire sessions with only one combat.  And no it's not necessarily a major boss battle.  Sometimes it's just a wandering couple of goblins for the heck of it.  By your definition of "a good DM" he is terrible.

But his stories are amazing.  He builds worlds (many campaign created in many unique settings) where character choice and roleplaying rule the day.

So the point is, (and others have pretty much said this previously with no real response) why should he have to constantly fight with a core system that relies on resource management for balance when none of his campaigns are designed with resource management in mind?

Sure RM is a valid playstyle, and I'm not saying you shouldn't have it.  But that's what modular should mean.  A core system that doesn't involve RM with a module for RM classes printed alongside it for people that want it.

I'm fine with a "wizard" being vancian.  I don't care what label any classes get.  As long as there's a completely RM free base class for every archetype, and no "per day" effects baked basic magic items.  Then you can add AEDU or Vancian powers/spells/maneuvers for whatever classes you want based on your campaign, and if they add an expansion of uber-powerful daily use magic items, we just won't use them.

And that's what "core" plus "modules" should mean.  A bare bones core that covers only the basic archetypes with virtually no fluff and little to no magic.  Something a gritty ultra-verisimilitude group would like.  Then modules for AEDU, RM, and varying degrees of magic-infused settings, as well as skillful, legendary, or EPIC!!! non-magic classes.

Anything you want in your game should be able to be added, but nothing should have to be painstakingly removed by DM's who don't have a degree in design, don't have the time to invest in what you call "proper DM-ing," but have the story-telling chops that make people wait in line to get into a session with him (I've seen this happen).  Then when the core is balanced and smooth, each group can decide what modules they want to make their game work.  And if they want to break balance by adding vancian spellcasters but not buff a basic fighter in any way, that is their decision. It should always be a DM's choice to add complexity.  This is different than forcing him to strip it out if he doesn't want it.

As for the concerns about convention style gaming, I'll admit I've never done that, so I 'm not necessarily qualified to speak on how that works, but I can see whoever is setting up the game just posting expressly that they are using modules X, Y, and Z, and you can then build your characters accordingly without fear of "mother may I."

This is the only way differing groups can ever play the same game and be satisfied.  It absolutely can work.  It just doesn't appear to be what they are actually doing...


(Side-note, I would prefer a caster who's limiting factor is a Spellcasting check with more powerful spells being higher DC to cast.  You attempt to "nova" at any time, but more often than not you'll have to roll several times to make it actually happen.  The truly game-breaking spells would wind up needing a nat20 to happen, and if they pull that off, they deserve to "win".  I could go on , but that's probably a topic for a different thread -- and again, I don't want this core, and I'm not asking anyone else to be forced to play with it.  Just want the option without having to re-write core to get it.)

So you are saying DM number two never lets you know how many combats you will have in a day, and therefore you don't nova the encounters you are in because you may need those resources later.  Congratulations for finding a DM that has solved the "problem" correctly, or just doesn't consider it to be a problem.  For the most part in my personal games I don't need to do anything like the things I am suggesting because my players aren't nova blasting ****s.  I too just basically make it up as I go along because I'd rather just have the players write the story as they go.  I especially liked this in the playtest because designing encounters took basically 10 seconds at the table with like no effort.  All I had to do was look at the HP, look at the AC, look at the special powers, and boom here is 8 orcs and an orc chieftan.

Jul 20, 2012 -- 11:41AM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Jul 20, 2012 -- 7:32AM, JihVed wrote:

Some anecdotal evidence for the "a good DM can fix it" crowd.

I've played with your version of a good DM.  He balanced encounters perfectly. He discouraged 5mwd just as you suggested with in world game consequences and time pressure campaigns.  He put in tons of time prepping every adventure and sets of encounters to make sure each player had their moment to shine.

And I left his game because his stories suck.

The DM I play with now is easily my favorite I have ever played with.  He puts in little to no prep work for encounters because (to be a little harsh, and blunt) he sucks at math.  He never thinks about what set of encounters across an adventuring day would balance the party.  He's never used a module or even set his campaign in an established setting.  He makes up everything on the fly.  Often times we go entire sessions with only one combat.  And no it's not necessarily a major boss battle.  Sometimes it's just a wandering couple of goblins for the heck of it.  By your definition of "a good DM" he is terrible.

But his stories are amazing.  He builds worlds (many campaign created in many unique settings) where character choice and roleplaying rule the day.

So the point is, (and others have pretty much said this previously with no real response) why should he have to constantly fight with a core system that relies on resource management for balance when none of his campaigns are designed with resource management in mind?

Sure RM is a valid playstyle, and I'm not saying you shouldn't have it.  But that's what modular should mean.  A core system that doesn't involve RM with a module for RM classes printed alongside it for people that want it.

I'm fine with a "wizard" being vancian.  I don't care what label any classes get.  As long as there's a completely RM free base class for every archetype, and no "per day" effects baked basic magic items.  Then you can add AEDU or Vancian powers/spells/maneuvers for whatever classes you want based on your campaign, and if they add an expansion of uber-powerful daily use magic items, we just won't use them.

And that's what "core" plus "modules" should mean.  A bare bones core that covers only the basic archetypes with virtually no fluff and little to no magic.  Something a gritty ultra-verisimilitude group would like.  Then modules for AEDU, RM, and varying degrees of magic-infused settings, as well as skillful, legendary, or EPIC!!! non-magic classes.

Anything you want in your game should be able to be added, but nothing should have to be painstakingly removed by DM's who don't have a degree in design, don't have the time to invest in what you call "proper DM-ing," but have the story-telling chops that make people wait in line to get into a session with him (I've seen this happen).  Then when the core is balanced and smooth, each group can decide what modules they want to make their game work.  And if they want to break balance by adding vancian spellcasters but not buff a basic fighter in any way, that is their decision. It should always be a DM's choice to add complexity.  This is different than forcing him to strip it out if he doesn't want it.

As for the concerns about convention style gaming, I'll admit I've never done that, so I 'm not necessarily qualified to speak on how that works, but I can see whoever is setting up the game just posting expressly that they are using modules X, Y, and Z, and you can then build your characters accordingly without fear of "mother may I."

This is the only way differing groups can ever play the same game and be satisfied.  It absolutely can work.  It just doesn't appear to be what they are actually doing...


(Side-note, I would prefer a caster who's limiting factor is a Spellcasting check with more powerful spells being higher DC to cast.  You attempt to "nova" at any time, but more often than not you'll have to roll several times to make it actually happen.  The truly game-breaking spells would wind up needing a nat20 to happen, and if they pull that off, they deserve to "win".  I could go on , but that's probably a topic for a different thread -- and again, I don't want this core, and I'm not asking anyone else to be forced to play with it.  Just want the option without having to re-write core to get it.)

So you are saying DM number two never lets you know how many combats you will have in a day, and therefore you don't nova the encounters you are in because you may need those resources later.  Congratulations for finding a DM that has solved the "problem" correctly, or just doesn't consider it to be a problem.  For the most part in my personal games I don't need to do anything like the things I am suggesting because my players aren't nova blasting ****s.  I too just basically make it up as I go along because I'd rather just have the players write the story as they go.  I especially liked this in the playtest because designing encounters took basically 10 seconds at the table with like no effort.  All I had to do was look at the HP, look at the AC, look at the special powers, and boom here is 8 orcs and an orc chieftan.

I never said I didn't "nova."  Sometimes I did if it felt like what my character would do (Yes, PC's can in character over-react to a presented encounter).  Sometimes other people do, too.  More often, it simply that casters have more to contribute to a party because he doesn't run the pre-determined encounters per day necessary to make them balance.  He doesn't like it, but he's such a talented DM that he can improvise something else if we nuke his plan.  Usually later he'll tell me what he had originally intended, and quite often it would have been way cooler.  My point is, if the system was balanced properly, he wouldn't be forced to alter his story to deal with things like that.  Making him choose between good story with obvious caster suprememcy and breaking story in the name of class balance, isn't a solution.

I want him not to have to think about "nova" or class blanace.  I want him to be able to run his game the way he imagines it and have the rules just work, behind the scenes, where they belong.  And not just for him.  There are plenty of other DMs out there that might be able to tell a much better story if they spend so much time worrying about fixing a broken rule system.

I get that some people like that brokeness or don't see it as a problem.  You're free to add it back in as a module.  Just make the default balanced and let us play with that.

Jul 20, 2012 -- 12:09PM, JihVed wrote:

Jul 20, 2012 -- 11:41AM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Jul 20, 2012 -- 7:32AM, JihVed wrote:

Some anecdotal evidence for the "a good DM can fix it" crowd.

I've played with your version of a good DM.  He balanced encounters perfectly. He discouraged 5mwd just as you suggested with in world game consequences and time pressure campaigns.  He put in tons of time prepping every adventure and sets of encounters to make sure each player had their moment to shine.

And I left his game because his stories suck.

The DM I play with now is easily my favorite I have ever played with.  He puts in little to no prep work for encounters because (to be a little harsh, and blunt) he sucks at math.  He never thinks about what set of encounters across an adventuring day would balance the party.  He's never used a module or even set his campaign in an established setting.  He makes up everything on the fly.  Often times we go entire sessions with only one combat.  And no it's not necessarily a major boss battle.  Sometimes it's just a wandering couple of goblins for the heck of it.  By your definition of "a good DM" he is terrible.

But his stories are amazing.  He builds worlds (many campaign created in many unique settings) where character choice and roleplaying rule the day.

So the point is, (and others have pretty much said this previously with no real response) why should he have to constantly fight with a core system that relies on resource management for balance when none of his campaigns are designed with resource management in mind?

Sure RM is a valid playstyle, and I'm not saying you shouldn't have it.  But that's what modular should mean.  A core system that doesn't involve RM with a module for RM classes printed alongside it for people that want it.

I'm fine with a "wizard" being vancian.  I don't care what label any classes get.  As long as there's a completely RM free base class for every archetype, and no "per day" effects baked basic magic items.  Then you can add AEDU or Vancian powers/spells/maneuvers for whatever classes you want based on your campaign, and if they add an expansion of uber-powerful daily use magic items, we just won't use them.

And that's what "core" plus "modules" should mean.  A bare bones core that covers only the basic archetypes with virtually no fluff and little to no magic.  Something a gritty ultra-verisimilitude group would like.  Then modules for AEDU, RM, and varying degrees of magic-infused settings, as well as skillful, legendary, or EPIC!!! non-magic classes.

Anything you want in your game should be able to be added, but nothing should have to be painstakingly removed by DM's who don't have a degree in design, don't have the time to invest in what you call "proper DM-ing," but have the story-telling chops that make people wait in line to get into a session with him (I've seen this happen).  Then when the core is balanced and smooth, each group can decide what modules they want to make their game work.  And if they want to break balance by adding vancian spellcasters but not buff a basic fighter in any way, that is their decision. It should always be a DM's choice to add complexity.  This is different than forcing him to strip it out if he doesn't want it.

As for the concerns about convention style gaming, I'll admit I've never done that, so I 'm not necessarily qualified to speak on how that works, but I can see whoever is setting up the game just posting expressly that they are using modules X, Y, and Z, and you can then build your characters accordingly without fear of "mother may I."

This is the only way differing groups can ever play the same game and be satisfied.  It absolutely can work.  It just doesn't appear to be what they are actually doing...


(Side-note, I would prefer a caster who's limiting factor is a Spellcasting check with more powerful spells being higher DC to cast.  You attempt to "nova" at any time, but more often than not you'll have to roll several times to make it actually happen.  The truly game-breaking spells would wind up needing a nat20 to happen, and if they pull that off, they deserve to "win".  I could go on , but that's probably a topic for a different thread -- and again, I don't want this core, and I'm not asking anyone else to be forced to play with it.  Just want the option without having to re-write core to get it.)

So you are saying DM number two never lets you know how many combats you will have in a day, and therefore you don't nova the encounters you are in because you may need those resources later.  Congratulations for finding a DM that has solved the "problem" correctly, or just doesn't consider it to be a problem.  For the most part in my personal games I don't need to do anything like the things I am suggesting because my players aren't nova blasting ****s.  I too just basically make it up as I go along because I'd rather just have the players write the story as they go.  I especially liked this in the playtest because designing encounters took basically 10 seconds at the table with like no effort.  All I had to do was look at the HP, look at the AC, look at the special powers, and boom here is 8 orcs and an orc chieftan.

I never said I didn't "nova."  Sometimes I did if it felt like what my character would do (Yes, PC's can in character over-react to a presented encounter).  Sometimes other people do, too.  More often, it simply that casters have more to contribute to a party because he doesn't run the pre-determined encounters per day necessary to make them balance.  He doesn't like it, but he's such a talented DM that he can improvise something else if we nuke his plan.  Usually later he'll tell me what he had originally intended, and quite often it would have been way cooler.  My point is, if the system was balanced properly, he wouldn't be forced to alter his story to deal with things like that. 

Okay so i'm falling short on recognizing what problem you are having here.  Unless railroaded heavily the players will always, that's right always, kill your plans.  Doesn't matter if there is any combat of any kind.

Jul 20, 2012 -- 12:09PM, JihVed wrote:

My point is, if the system was balanced properly, he wouldn't be forced to alter his story to deal with things like that.  Making him choose between good story with obvious caster suprememcy and breaking story in the name of class balance, isn't a solution.

Is making him choose between a good story and allowing you to change things because you had a good idea okay? 

Is making him choose between a good story and allowing you to change things because he couldn't think of everything okay?   

DMs need to be fluid enough to change their stories on the fly for a rather good number of things.  The players expending their resources all in one fight is one of those.  The problem isn't with the ability to nova.  The problem is allowing the 5 minute work day to be sucessful every time they try it.    

I get that some people like that brokeness or don't see it as a problem.  You're free to add it back in as a module.  Just make the default balanced and let us play with that.

It's not broken.  It's simply something that you dislike. 

@JihVed
You illustrated a perfect example of a well known fallacy.  The false choice.

Just because you disliked DM #1 because of a lack of story had nothing to do with his ability to manage the 5 minute workday.

Just because you liked DM #2 also had nothing to do with the 5 minute workday.


If you've been following the conversation (and maybe you haven't because hey these threads grow fast) we are all saying choose the subset of classes that suits your style.  But there does need to be a resource management vancian spell caster for us.  We aren't going to enjoy what we consider a watered down game that is all encounter or all at-will.

Classes are not modules.  Classes are all core.  But, they are modular in the sense that all that makes them up is removable by just not using the class.  This is why the vancian is baked into the wizard class. So if you don't like it you can drop it.  You can play the AEDU option or the spell point option.  

But eliminating resource management from the game will just end up with a dud game.  A bunch of people are going to say - This isn't D&D.  And for a lot of us they'd be right.  So we need vancian spellcasting in 5e to sell books to a large group of people.  Let's just agree to include a variety of options so that you can also play in other ways if thats your preference.




 

Ok, I just don't get the whole 'it's not a problem, it is bad DMing' argument, and I'm going to try one more time here to understand it. 

Let's take the Caves of Chaos playtest. My group ran in, had a few encounters, killed a few kobolds, and then decided it was time to leave and get their spells back. Why shouldn't they do this?

The kobolds certainly aren't going to get any stronger: they've just been weakened by an attack, had some of their members killed, others shaken, etc. Why should the PCs feel they have to keep going? The kobolds are just as likely to be weaker the next time the PCs come back. They may be preyed upon by other groups. They may fall to infighting. They may decide they don't want to sit there and wait for another attack, and that it is time to get out of dodge. The caves are not some endlessly respawning MMO dungeon: unless creatures can spawn new, adult, warriors in 8 hours, they are as likely to be weaker as they are to be stronger when the PCs return. And if you say, 'Ah, but they're now on alert!', well, they were on alert anyway: they were watching out for the Orcs, the Hobgoblins, the Ogre, etc. etc. They actually had scouts outside their cave entrance, hiding in the trees. So they're definitely not going to be stronger when the PCs come back, and even if they're just going to be at the same strength, that is a win for the PCs, because they will have their spells and HPs back. 

Why is it not a smart thing for the PCs to leave, rest and come back?

I'm sure you can contrive reasons for them to keep going-- they have to rescue a princess, or whatever-- but seriously, having to do this for every single adventure is simply ridiculous. This is not better than balancing things by encounter, and it certainly isn't objectively any more realistic. If I did this all the time-- put a time limit on them-- it would start straining the bonds of credibility. "Uhm, why do we have to hurry up and explore every nook and cranny in these long lost and forgotten caves? Oh, I see... there's ANOTHER princess to rescue. Ugh.' My players would start to see me as a vindictive DM. And they would be right to do so.

There isn't always a ticking clock-- at least, that is no more realistic than there not being one. I don't see any grounds for saying one play style is more realistic than any other, or one DM is any better than another for putting in a ticking clock. It seems to me that the other way around-- always having a ticking clock-- is what is unrealistic. 

@emerkol
Did you miss the part of my (admittedly long) post where I explicity stated I have no problem with a vancian wizard being in the core rulebooks?  I'm perfectly fine with that and I think having heavy RM classes in PH1 is fine. But if RM winds up in every class (as is hinted at by playtest) there will be no option to simply not play it.  And if encounter balance depends on per day mentality there will be no way to play the game sans RM without breaking balance.

However, if the basic design is balanced without RM, then you can easily add RM classes without breaking balance because the players that prefer RM already don't see it as unbalanced.

Good design with true modularity means we both get the game we want instead of just you.

Jul 20, 2012 -- 1:53PM, Hurin88 wrote:

Ok, I just don't get the whole 'it's not a problem, it is bad DMing' argument, and I'm going to try one more time here to understand it. 

Let's take the Caves of Chaos playtest. My group ran in, had a few encounters, killed a few kobolds, and then decided it was time to leave and get their spells back. Why shouldn't they do this?

The kobolds certainly aren't going to get any stronger: they've just been weakened by an attack, had some of their members killed, others shaken, etc. Why should the PCs feel they have to keep going? The kobolds are just as likely to be weaker the next time the PCs come back. They may be preyed upon by other groups. They may fall to infighting. They may decide they don't want to sit there and wait for another attack, and that it is time to get out of dodge. The caves are not some endlessly respawning MMO dungeon: unless creatures can spawn new, adult, warriors in 8 hours, they are as likely to be weaker as they are to be stronger when the PCs return. And if you say, 'Ah, but they're now on alert!', well, they were on alert anyway: they were watching out for the Orcs, the Hobgoblins, the Ogre, etc. etc. They actually had scouts outside their cave entrance, hiding in the trees. So they're definitely not going to be stronger when the PCs come back, and even if they're just going to be at the same strength, that is a win for the PCs, because they will have their spells and HPs back. 

Why is it not a smart thing for the PCs to leave, rest and come back?

I'm sure you can contrive reasons for them to keep going-- they have to rescue a princess, or whatever-- but seriously, having to do this for every single adventure is simply ridiculous. This is not better than balancing things by encounter, and it certainly isn't objectively any more realistic. If I did this all the time-- put a time limit on them-- it would start straining the bonds of credibility. "Uhm, why do we have to hurry up and explore every nook and cranny in these long lost and forgotten caves? Oh, I see... there's ANOTHER princess to rescue. Ugh.' My players would start to see me as a vindictive DM. And they would be right to do so.

There isn't always a ticking clock-- at least, that is no more realistic than there not being one. I don't see any grounds for saying one play style is more realistic than any other, or one DM is any better than another for putting in a ticking clock. It seems to me that the other way around-- always having a ticking clock-- is what is unrealistic. 

Here's one totally not-contrived answer/solution to your question.

If they kill off a bunch of the goblins, say, leave and come back the next day expecting to clear out the same cave of the remaining goblins, prep spells and even develop tactics that will help them more effectively clear out large numbers of small creatures.

Unknown to them, however, the Ogre who lives nearby heard the ruckus the PCs were making that day, went in and finished off the goblins and took over their area.  When the PCs come back, there are no goblins but they are very likely to be taken by surprise by a large and probably well-prepared ogre (since he knew the PCs were fiddling around in the caves and killing off goblins).

Jul 20, 2012 -- 3:44PM, Satyris wrote:

Jul 20, 2012 -- 1:53PM, Hurin88 wrote:

Ok, I just don't get the whole 'it's not a problem, it is bad DMing' argument, and I'm going to try one more time here to understand it. 

Let's take the Caves of Chaos playtest. My group ran in, had a few encounters, killed a few kobolds, and then decided it was time to leave and get their spells back. Why shouldn't they do this?

The kobolds certainly aren't going to get any stronger: they've just been weakened by an attack, had some of their members killed, others shaken, etc. Why should the PCs feel they have to keep going? The kobolds are just as likely to be weaker the next time the PCs come back. They may be preyed upon by other groups. They may fall to infighting. They may decide they don't want to sit there and wait for another attack, and that it is time to get out of dodge. The caves are not some endlessly respawning MMO dungeon: unless creatures can spawn new, adult, warriors in 8 hours, they are as likely to be weaker as they are to be stronger when the PCs return. And if you say, 'Ah, but they're now on alert!', well, they were on alert anyway: they were watching out for the Orcs, the Hobgoblins, the Ogre, etc. etc. They actually had scouts outside their cave entrance, hiding in the trees. So they're definitely not going to be stronger when the PCs come back, and even if they're just going to be at the same strength, that is a win for the PCs, because they will have their spells and HPs back. 

Why is it not a smart thing for the PCs to leave, rest and come back?

I'm sure you can contrive reasons for them to keep going-- they have to rescue a princess, or whatever-- but seriously, having to do this for every single adventure is simply ridiculous. This is not better than balancing things by encounter, and it certainly isn't objectively any more realistic. If I did this all the time-- put a time limit on them-- it would start straining the bonds of credibility. "Uhm, why do we have to hurry up and explore every nook and cranny in these long lost and forgotten caves? Oh, I see... there's ANOTHER princess to rescue. Ugh.' My players would start to see me as a vindictive DM. And they would be right to do so.

There isn't always a ticking clock-- at least, that is no more realistic than there not being one. I don't see any grounds for saying one play style is more realistic than any other, or one DM is any better than another for putting in a ticking clock. It seems to me that the other way around-- always having a ticking clock-- is what is unrealistic. 

Here's one totally not-contrived answer/solution to your question.

If they kill off a bunch of the goblins, say, leave and come back the next day expecting to clear out the same cave of the remaining goblins, prep spells and even develop tactics that will help them more effectively clear out large numbers of small creatures.

Unknown to them, however, the Ogre who lives nearby heard the ruckus the PCs were making that day, went in and finished off the goblins and took over their area.  When the PCs come back, there are no goblins but they are very likely to be taken by surprise by a large and probably well-prepared ogre (since he knew the PCs were fiddling around in the caves and killing off goblins).

a) That is contrived.  And also highly unlikely the ogre could do anything to prepare himself more than he already would have.  What kind of monster lives in a cave and doesn't expect to have unwanted visitors?
b) The party is better off this way because instead of having to deal with some goblins/kobolds first then deal with the ogre while they are weakened, they can just solo the ogre. Basically, their job is even easier.

Jul 20, 2012 -- 3:57PM, Lawolf wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
a) That is contrived.  And also highly unlikely the ogre could do anything to prepare himself more than he already would have.  What kind of monster lives in a cave and doesn't expect to have unwanted visitors?
b) The party is better off this way because instead of having to deal with some goblins/kobolds first then deal with the ogre while they are weakened, they can just solo the ogre. Basically, their job is even easier.

Well first, I don't understand how it's contrived--if the ogre is living in his limited space primarily because of the strength of his neighbors, and he finds a weakness in them that provides him an unforeseen opportunity, then he's going to take it.

In addition, if the PCs go into the goblin caves expecting to find goblins and instead encounter an Ogre, that is in fact a disadvantage to them.  They have fewer monsters to kill overall, but being taken by surprise is a huge disadvantage.

This is only one example--just trying to show that there isn't a straightforward "things get easier if you kill some monsters and then leave" situation, even in the Caves of Chaos.  You don't get halfway through lotting someone's house, shoot their wife, leave, then come back the next night expecting to have an easier time of things just because there are now fewer people in the house.  It's absurd.

Jul 20, 2012 -- 3:57PM, Lawolf wrote:

Jul 20, 2012 -- 3:44PM, Satyris wrote:

Jul 20, 2012 -- 1:53PM, Hurin88 wrote:

Ok, I just don't get the whole 'it's not a problem, it is bad DMing' argument, and I'm going to try one more time here to understand it. 

Let's take the Caves of Chaos playtest. My group ran in, had a few encounters, killed a few kobolds, and then decided it was time to leave and get their spells back. Why shouldn't they do this?

The kobolds certainly aren't going to get any stronger: they've just been weakened by an attack, had some of their members killed, others shaken, etc. Why should the PCs feel they have to keep going? The kobolds are just as likely to be weaker the next time the PCs come back. They may be preyed upon by other groups. They may fall to infighting. They may decide they don't want to sit there and wait for another attack, and that it is time to get out of dodge. The caves are not some endlessly respawning MMO dungeon: unless creatures can spawn new, adult, warriors in 8 hours, they are as likely to be weaker as they are to be stronger when the PCs return. And if you say, 'Ah, but they're now on alert!', well, they were on alert anyway: they were watching out for the Orcs, the Hobgoblins, the Ogre, etc. etc. They actually had scouts outside their cave entrance, hiding in the trees. So they're definitely not going to be stronger when the PCs come back, and even if they're just going to be at the same strength, that is a win for the PCs, because they will have their spells and HPs back. 

Why is it not a smart thing for the PCs to leave, rest and come back?

I'm sure you can contrive reasons for them to keep going-- they have to rescue a princess, or whatever-- but seriously, having to do this for every single adventure is simply ridiculous. This is not better than balancing things by encounter, and it certainly isn't objectively any more realistic. If I did this all the time-- put a time limit on them-- it would start straining the bonds of credibility. "Uhm, why do we have to hurry up and explore every nook and cranny in these long lost and forgotten caves? Oh, I see... there's ANOTHER princess to rescue. Ugh.' My players would start to see me as a vindictive DM. And they would be right to do so.

There isn't always a ticking clock-- at least, that is no more realistic than there not being one. I don't see any grounds for saying one play style is more realistic than any other, or one DM is any better than another for putting in a ticking clock. It seems to me that the other way around-- always having a ticking clock-- is what is unrealistic. 

Here's one totally not-contrived answer/solution to your question.

If they kill off a bunch of the goblins, say, leave and come back the next day expecting to clear out the same cave of the remaining goblins, prep spells and even develop tactics that will help them more effectively clear out large numbers of small creatures.

Unknown to them, however, the Ogre who lives nearby heard the ruckus the PCs were making that day, went in and finished off the goblins and took over their area.  When the PCs come back, there are no goblins but they are very likely to be taken by surprise by a large and probably well-prepared ogre (since he knew the PCs were fiddling around in the caves and killing off goblins).

a) That is contrived.  And also highly unlikely the ogre could do anything to prepare himself more than he already would have.  What kind of monster lives in a cave and doesn't expect to have unwanted visitors?
b) The party is better off this way because instead of having to deal with some goblins/kobolds first then deal with the ogre while they are weakened, they can just solo the ogre. Basically, their job is even easier.

oddly it both is and isn't contrived, depending upon how you look at it.  Depending upon the definition of contrived you are using it could be consider contrived.  However when using that same definition of contrived the entire game is contrived.  Using the other definition of contrived one could argue that the ogre was invented spontaneuosly and is therfore not contrived.  However if the ogre was created deliberately just as a counter to their actions then yes it is contrived.  By those definitions any answer we give you will be contrived because we are deliberately telling you how to fix the "problem" you have created for yourself, or are deliberately creating tension to fuel the campaign by replacing the entire scenario you faced with a similar yet less "exploitable" one. 

In truth the real trouble here is that we are being asked to fix something that isn't a problem.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with what the players are doing.  It is the smartest set of options in front of them for the situation that was presented to them.  The only time a problem can arise here is if your players get bored with it.  If that happens then you should change the situations you present to them.  If the adventure is boring, due to a perceived 5mwd issue, then follow the advice and write an adventure that isn't boring.  Throw in some consequences for actions and build tension with timers and objectives.  You don't have to do it all the time but some of the time it is good.  If no one is bored or having a problem with how the game is going then why are you inventing this problem?

Jul 20, 2012 -- 1:53PM, Hurin88 wrote:

Why is it not a smart thing for the PCs to leave, rest and come back?

One of my favourites is to have rivals swoop in and steal the treasure before the PC's get back:

"So once again, Jones, what was almost yours is now mine."

Nothing drives PC's like the thought of treasure slipping from their grasp.

Good post.

It is utterly ridiculous to think that running into someone's house or living abode, killing some of their friends and family, taking a hit with a baseball bat. Fleeing back to your house/hideout to rest and recover and then go back the next day will be an easier time.

More than likely the owner and neighbors all have weapons of their own now, ADT has been called to install an alarm system, and the cops are on partrol.

Not to mention they have a description of you and they are going to be looking for you. Monsters that are intelligent should be expected to act the same way.

Jul 20, 2012 -- 5:09PM, ReaperTatt wrote:

Good post.

It is utterly ridiculous to think that running into someone's house or living abode, killing some of their friends and family, taking a hit with a baseball bat. Fleeing back to your house/hideout to rest and recover and then go back the next day will be an easier time.

More than likely the owner and neighbors all have weapons of their own now, ADT has been called to install an alarm system, and the cops are on partrol.

Not to mention they have a description of you and they are going to be looking for you. Monsters that are intelligent should be expected to act the same way.

The kobolds already have weapons. They already knew people might come to attack them-- that's why they posted the guards, hiding outside their cave. They do not suddenly grow stronger overnight: they're already armed and vigilant for intruders. So they do not, in fact, get stronger at all. Unless you want to contrive something to make them so.

Jul 20, 2012 -- 5:15PM, Garthanos wrote:

hit and run tactics with unpredictable pacing works great in real life.

it's also one of the favoured tactics of guerrilla groups facing a larger and well armed force...

Jul 20, 2012 -- 3:44PM, Satyris wrote:

Jul 20, 2012 -- 1:53PM, Hurin88 wrote:

Ok, I just don't get the whole 'it's not a problem, it is bad DMing' argument, and I'm going to try one more time here to understand it. 

Let's take the Caves of Chaos playtest. My group ran in, had a few encounters, killed a few kobolds, and then decided it was time to leave and get their spells back. Why shouldn't they do this?

The kobolds certainly aren't going to get any stronger: they've just been weakened by an attack, had some of their members killed, others shaken, etc. Why should the PCs feel they have to keep going? The kobolds are just as likely to be weaker the next time the PCs come back. They may be preyed upon by other groups. They may fall to infighting. They may decide they don't want to sit there and wait for another attack, and that it is time to get out of dodge. The caves are not some endlessly respawning MMO dungeon: unless creatures can spawn new, adult, warriors in 8 hours, they are as likely to be weaker as they are to be stronger when the PCs return. And if you say, 'Ah, but they're now on alert!', well, they were on alert anyway: they were watching out for the Orcs, the Hobgoblins, the Ogre, etc. etc. They actually had scouts outside their cave entrance, hiding in the trees. So they're definitely not going to be stronger when the PCs come back, and even if they're just going to be at the same strength, that is a win for the PCs, because they will have their spells and HPs back. 

Why is it not a smart thing for the PCs to leave, rest and come back?

I'm sure you can contrive reasons for them to keep going-- they have to rescue a princess, or whatever-- but seriously, having to do this for every single adventure is simply ridiculous. This is not better than balancing things by encounter, and it certainly isn't objectively any more realistic. If I did this all the time-- put a time limit on them-- it would start straining the bonds of credibility. "Uhm, why do we have to hurry up and explore every nook and cranny in these long lost and forgotten caves? Oh, I see... there's ANOTHER princess to rescue. Ugh.' My players would start to see me as a vindictive DM. And they would be right to do so.

There isn't always a ticking clock-- at least, that is no more realistic than there not being one. I don't see any grounds for saying one play style is more realistic than any other, or one DM is any better than another for putting in a ticking clock. It seems to me that the other way around-- always having a ticking clock-- is what is unrealistic. 

Here's one totally not-contrived answer/solution to your question.

If they kill off a bunch of the goblins, say, leave and come back the next day expecting to clear out the same cave of the remaining goblins, prep spells and even develop tactics that will help them more effectively clear out large numbers of small creatures.

Unknown to them, however, the Ogre who lives nearby heard the ruckus the PCs were making that day, went in and finished off the goblins and took over their area.  When the PCs come back, there are no goblins but they are very likely to be taken by surprise by a large and probably well-prepared ogre (since he knew the PCs were fiddling around in the caves and killing off goblins).

That's all fine... and the PCs are STILL better off for having left. They don't have to face the goblins OR the rest of the kobolds, and they can face one Ogre when they have full hps and spells. 

In fact, a single encounter like the Ogre will be relatively trivial for a fully rested group in the 5e we have right now, because things are balanced at something like 4-6 encounters a day. One Ogre? The party can smack that down with ease. So basically, it is STILL the most intelligent thing to do to leave, rest, and come back at full.

     

Jul 20, 2012 -- 5:14PM, Hurin88 wrote:

Jul 20, 2012 -- 5:09PM, ReaperTatt wrote:

Good post.

It is utterly ridiculous to think that running into someone's house or living abode, killing some of their friends and family, taking a hit with a baseball bat. Fleeing back to your house/hideout to rest and recover and then go back the next day will be an easier time.

More than likely the owner and neighbors all have weapons of their own now, ADT has been called to install an alarm system, and the cops are on partrol.

Not to mention they have a description of you and they are going to be looking for you. Monsters that are intelligent should be expected to act the same way.

The kobolds already have weapons. They already knew people might come to attack them-- that's why they posted the guards, hiding outside their cave. They do not suddenly grow stronger overnight: they're already armed and vigilant for intruders. So they do not, in fact, get stronger at all. Unless you want to contrive something to make them so.

The fact that kobolds are there at all IS contrived. The whole game is contrived. It is a contrived scenario that players role play through.

Trying to argue that a roleplaying game isn't contrived is illogical.

back to the kobolds. If they are getting hit and run by a bunch of interlopers, they are going to post more guards, the leader is going to demand more traps and will think of some strategy. Maybe engaging the other races in helping them.

Tons of stuff. The enemy always adapts to their adversary.

Let me be clear: I'm not saying that monsters will ALWAYS grow weaker if you leave and come back. But some posters on these boards seemed to assume that it is ludicrous to expect that monsters you attack and then return to later will be anything but much stronger. Some posters went further, and seemed to suggest that DMs should always make monsters get stronger if you leave them alone, and that any DM that failed to do that was a poor DM. These are ridiculous assertions. 

Some groups that get attacked will get stronger, some will get weaker, and some will stay the same. To say that anything other than making monsters stronger when the PCs return to them is bad DMing is not a valid argument. If it were, hit-and-run tactics would never work, wars of attrition would never work, guerilla campaigns would never work and soldiers would never retreat. One can give literally hundreds of examples from history where one side defeated another by gradually whittling it down by attacking, retreating, resting, and attacking again.

So again I say: if you have to contrive a world in which beings that are attacked automatically grow stronger after every attack in order to make your system work, you are not inherently being a better DM. One could say that you are being a worse one. I won't say that, but what I will say is that the argument that it is bad DMing to not make monsters stronger every time they get attacked just does not work, period.

And players that point this out are not being bad players.

Jul 20, 2012 -- 5:25PM, Hurin88 wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Some groups that get attacked will get stronger, some will get weaker, and some will stay the same. To say that anything other than making monsters stronger when the PCs return to them is bad DMing is not a valid argument. If it were, hit-and-run tactics would never work, wars of attrition would never work, guerilla campaigns would never work and soldiers would never retreat. One can give literally hundreds of examples from history where one side defeated another by gradually whittling it down by attacking, retreating, resting, and attacking again.

Wars of attrition are very long and drawn out affairs that do not an interesting and enaging RPG make. If the DM and players were to play through a protracted war of attrition, the game would win by attrition because both sides would become utterly bored. So using a war of attrition analogy is sort of lost on a game of this scope where tactical battles are key, not usually large strategic victories.

I do think it is a bad DM that doesn't role play the monsters reactions to the PC's guerilla tactics. Possibly they flee every time. What a fun game that would be. PC's attack, run to 5MWD, when they come back the place is abandoned. Fear permeates the land. The PC's wander about looking for something to fight that never materializes. Entire kingdoms and regions empty out in fear. The PC's "win"

Yay. What a fun scenario.

Jul 20, 2012 -- 5:35PM, ReaperTatt wrote:

Wars of attrition are very long and drawn out affairs that do not an interesting and enaging RPG make.

I think you've finally got the point.

The game should not be so poorly designed that characters break it when they act intelligently.

Jul 20, 2012 -- 5:09PM, ReaperTatt wrote:

Good post.

It is utterly ridiculous to think that [...] Fleeing back to your house/hideout to rest and recover and then go back the next day will be an easier time.

Well, rest, recover, and reload your rocket launcher. 

Take away the rocket launcher, and give something more reasonable, and it can be okay though.

Jul 20, 2012 -- 5:40PM, greatfrito wrote:

Jul 20, 2012 -- 5:09PM, ReaperTatt wrote:

Good post.

It is utterly ridiculous to think that [...] Fleeing back to your house/hideout to rest and recover and then go back the next day will be an easier time.

Well, rest, recover, and reload your rocket launcher. 

Take away the rocket launcher, and give something more reasonable, and it can be okay though.

If you attacked with a rocket launcher the day before, you probably woudn't make it home, especially when many of your enemies have rocket launchers all of their own.

Jul 20, 2012 -- 5:39PM, Hurin88 wrote:

Jul 20, 2012 -- 5:35PM, ReaperTatt wrote:

Wars of attrition are very long and drawn out affairs that do not an interesting and enaging RPG make.

I think you've finally got the point.

The game should not be so poorly designed that characters break it when they act intelligently.

That doesn't make any sense. War of attrition works both ways. The game is inherently broken if the "AI" (the DM) plays the monsters worse than a computer AI would play them. So trying to engage in a war of attrition would likely bore the players and could be reversed against them until they die.
better to get in, get the job completely done, and then leave.

Just have the whole nest of kobolds (all warriors and armed - THAT'S what's contrived about D&D modules) - track the players while they flee like cowards.

The kobolds are nature savvy primitives - it shouldn't be hard - they can jump the stupid mercenaries that murdered their cohorts and the Caves of Chaos remains dangerous to anyone who doesn't act at all the part of a hero.

----

I'm not sure attacking and running is ever intelligent.

A castle is brimming with guards, knights, wizards, etc. but they're not all ready to fight. We allow human NPCs to "live".

The all male warrior kobolds... is a stupid convention to get rid of any muddied waters of anything that resembles a "den of kobolds".

But let's say they're an advance party of all male warrior kobolds who hold up in the caves... their real village somewhere far away.

They're not all standing there like statues awaiting greedy adventurers hellbent on treasure (one would wonder why kobolds would need to be a threat - if they have currency to barter with, especially magical items - but this is D&D).

Anyway - back to the castle - if I ran up to the gates, killed the guards and ran away - would it be contrived that new guards were waiting for me the next time? New guards - some knights who rode out to avenge the guards I murdered - and maybe a few archers?

I don't think it would - I would think the DM is asleep at the wheel if nothing changed at all.

====

If you were playing paintball - and two of your friends just go plastered five feet from you - and you 1) saw a way to "kill" one of your opponents or 2) had a way to flee to a safer area to regroup.  Would you instead say - "No, I have chosen my room, I must stay here until the encounter plays out."?

Some people seem to be saying that - not unlike a video game - even though I'm slaughtering monsters in plain site of their allies - it would be totally unrealistic and "contrived" if the whole tribe came running after me.

=====

My thought?  Perhaps a dungeon should be one prolonged encounter - you "Enter Dungeon - Begin Fight" and the battle comes in waves (with the entire dungeon revealed at once).. and retreating from the fight takes actual effort. And retreat results in failure of that dungeon (just like running away would be failure for an encounter).

Five Minute Workdaying even exist in 4E. I have one player in our campaign that want to rest as soon as his Avenger has used his 2-3 Dailies and Items favorite Powers, even though he is still full on HP and Surges and that its been only 2 hours the group is up. 

And everytime he says the party should rest for the day, the rest of the table tell him to





 (i sure some of you know such guy too :P)

Jul 20, 2012 -- 5:39PM, Hurin88 wrote:

Jul 20, 2012 -- 5:35PM, ReaperTatt wrote:

Wars of attrition are very long and drawn out affairs that do not an interesting and enaging RPG make.

I think you've finally got the point.

The game should not be so poorly designed that characters break it when they act intelligently.

Win

Just trust DM's to handle the 5 minute work day in their own way.

I don't pay money for a game system with a huge flaw the designers admit exists and then tell me that they couldn't be bothered and that I or my DM have to finish their work for them. That is, honestly speaking, inacceptable.

Jul 21, 2012 -- 3:34AM, XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

Just trust DM's to handle the 5 minute work day in their own way.

Because many players can't.

DMing D&D has a mean learning curve.
Learning to DM on your own is a gradual one. Slowed and lengthene without guidance or a helpful system.

It took me a while to learn to DM. And during this time, my players had to deal with many issues formed by my inexperience.

As long as D&D creates a non-inuitive system where DMs must learn by failing, these issues will persist.
The 5 minute workday is evidence of it.

@Leichtenreiter: But didn't you purchase 1st - 4th Edition? 

Whether or not it exists (it has never existed in my campaign) is subject to at least "some" debate I think.

It only exists depending on the style of game you play.

Why not just say: "One Extended Rest per game night." If your game is mechanics heavy (and how to manipulate/abuse those mechanics) - then adding this extremely simple rule is pretty easy.

i can't speak for Leich Medhia, but i can speak for myself.

i bought 2nd ed when i was a kid. there was exactly three RPGs on the market i knew of: D&D, Dragon Warrior & Final Fantasy.

i didn't even know that tabletop RPGs were a thing.

when 3rd ed came out, i was generally frustrated with 2nd ed and while i knew of other RPGs, it was more through BBS's then gaming stores (which we didn't have). the only store that sold D&D books was a Coles bookstore a half hour drive away from home. the nearest gaming store (i learned later) was about an hour and a half. 

only after moving into an actual city did i start to experience TTRPGs as a medium, rather then there is D&D and... D&D.

i've got many books for many games, many of which i find are rather poor systems i won't play, but i still do mine them for ideas or concepts i can transfer to games i do like to play. 

Jul 21, 2012 -- 5:07AM, Leichenreiter wrote:

I don't pay money for a game system with a huge flaw the designers admit exists and then tell me that they couldn't be bothered and that I or my DM have to finish their work for them. That is, honestly speaking, inacceptable.

It is not a flaw, it is a feature of the game system. If you play monopoly, you can't just say "I don't feel like passing go, I will just go back to my boardwalk hotel and sleep". In D&D, players have the freedom to make decisions the DM never expects or prepare for. DMs often have to provide movtivation to players to get into the situations they have designed for them, 5-mintue workday or no. That is part of being DM.

Any resource that is not regained after every encounter can cause the 5-minute workday problem, as Plagescarred pointed out. So then should all resources be based around the encounter and regained after a short rest? The more resources that are based around the encounter, the less flexibility the DM has in how difficult the encounters can be and of how they can be staged. This could have the effect of making the world less believable just like how some say DM-based solutions to the 5-minute workday could.

um no, but there are different ways to make recharges that don't apply to a "workday" or "encounter".

see "per adventure" resources: things that work only once during an adventure. a "get out of jail free", "panic button" or to use the anime reference, Goku's Spirit Bomb: he only brings it out when **** gets real.

see "per session" resources: things that work once every session, like a signature attack or technique, a character flourish effectively. see Street Fighter's Akuma's Messatsu Gou Hadou or Zangeif's Final Atomic Buster.

a non-timed renewable resource: world of darkness' "Willpower" renews when characters do actions that emphasise their vitues or vices (and at the end of the adventure/chapter/whatnot). it's used to fuel a wide array of abilities. the Serenity system's plot points also fall into this category (as well as a per-session resource).

the 5 minute workday is an issue because you have an actual in-game cooldown timer. the characters know that if they wait 24 in-game hours, they can cast all their magic again. it's as much a law of their reality as gravity or the earth circling the sun is one in ours.

if you want to stop it, you remove how the timer functions. it can still have a cooldown though, you just need to change how it cools down.

Jul 21, 2012 -- 1:52PM, oxybe wrote:

um no, but there are different ways to make recharges that don't apply to a "workday" or "encounter".

see "per adventure" resources: things that work only once during an adventure. a "get out of jail free", "panic button" or to use the anime reference, Goku's Spirit Bomb: he only brings it out when **** gets real.

see "per session" resources: things that work once every session, like a signature attack or technique, a character flourish effectively. see Street Fighter's Akuma's Messatsu Gou Hadou or Zangeif's Final Atomic Buster.

a non-timed renewable resource: world of darkness' "Willpower" renews when characters do actions that emphasise their vitues or vices (and at the end of the adventure/chapter/whatnot). it's used to fuel a wide array of abilities. the Serenity system's plot points also fall into this category (as well as a per-session resource).

the 5 minute workday is an issue because you have an actual in-game cooldown timer. the characters know that if they wait 24 in-game hours, they can cast all their magic again. it's as much a law of their reality as gravity or the earth circling the sun is one in ours.

if you want to stop it, you remove how the timer functions. it can still have a cooldown though, you just need to change how it cools down.

Per-adventure resources: Either you get too few of these to make much of a difference (in allowing more flexible encounter difficulty/staging) or you get enough of these and it is close to what the Legends and Lore article is preposing. Resources balanced over the adventure.

Per-session: Why wouldn't someone want to end a session suddenly if they used these up? Especially if they suspect a big boss fight.

Non-timed renewable: I would think you will get lots of begging the DM and arguing over if an action a player did fulfills the requirements to renew their abilities.

If you want to stop the 5-minute workday problem, you just have to lot let it help the players. If it gets them nowhere, they will not do it.

Basing the system around encounter resources does not in any way reduce flexibility in encounter difficulty in any way.  If anything it increases flexibility.  A level 7 enc will always be an average challenge for a level 7 party.  If you want a tougher fight, give them a level 8 enc, easier - level 6.  With that in mind  dm can know that a level 7 fight is always a level 7 fight no matter what, instead of a level 7 fight only being an average challenge if they happen to have already faced two others today. Balancing the system accross days makes a mess of setting xp rewards because a specific monster is only a specific challenge if its the first thing they fight.

When you balance by encounter that (and 5mwd) dissapear.  Then when a dm adds a daily class to the party he can still use all the tools he always has to balance an adventure day for per day playstyles.

When you balance the system by day, there's no way to remove per day and have any sense of what a decent fight for a party should be.

In short, removing per day as the default for mechanics design (NOT FLAVOR OR PLAYSTYLE) means I can play the way I want, and it absolutely no impact on you playing the way you want.  Why then isn't non per day system design the better choice?

(Again this isn't about class design.  People who want per day can play that just fine without changing a per encounter designed system as long as the dm is capable/willing to balance them himself, like he always has and you already contend is not an issue for you)

Jul 21, 2012 -- 2:18PM, JihVed wrote:

Basing the system around encounter resources does not in any way reduce flexibility in encounter difficulty in any way. If anything it increases flexibility. A level 7 enc will always be an average challenge for a level 7 party. If you want a tougher fight, give them a level 8 enc, easier - level 6. With that in mind dm can know that a level 7 fight is always a level 7 fight no matter what, instead of a level 7 fight only being an average challenge if they happen to have already faced two others today. Balancing the system accross days makes a mess of setting xp rewards because a specific monster is only a specific challenge if its the first thing they fight. When you balance by encounter that (and 5mwd) dissapear. Then when a dm adds a daily class to the party he can still use all the tools he always has to balance an adventure day for per day playstyles. When you balance the system by day, there's no way to remove per day and have any sense of what a decent fight for a party should be. In short, removing per day as the default for mechanics design (NOT FLAVOR OR PLAYSTYLE) means I can play the way I want, and it absolutely no impact on you playing the way you want. Why then isn't non per day system design the better choice? (Again this isn't about class design. People who want per day can play that just fine without changing a per encounter designed system as long as the dm is capable/willing to balance them himself, like he always has and you already contend is not an issue for you)

What if the party somehow comes upon 2 of these encounters at once, or with too little or no rest inbetween. By their own actions, not the DM's design? If your resources are balanced around the average encounter, you should not be able to have enough to do this. If you have per day/adventure resources, you have enough.

Jul 20, 2012 -- 5:14PM, Hurin88 wrote:

Jul 20, 2012 -- 5:09PM, ReaperTatt wrote:

Good post.

It is utterly ridiculous to think that running into someone's house or living abode, killing some of their friends and family, taking a hit with a baseball bat. Fleeing back to your house/hideout to rest and recover and then go back the next day will be an easier time.

More than likely the owner and neighbors all have weapons of their own now, ADT has been called to install an alarm system, and the cops are on partrol.

Not to mention they have a description of you and they are going to be looking for you. Monsters that are intelligent should be expected to act the same way.

The kobolds already have weapons. They already knew people might come to attack them-- that's why they posted the guards, hiding outside their cave. They do not suddenly grow stronger overnight: they're already armed and vigilant for intruders. So they do not, in fact, get stronger at all. Unless you want to contrive something to make them so.

I disagree. A recently burned group is going to be more vigilante and if they've encountered a new threat like the PCs they will prepare defenses against that basic threat.  If they really are weaker though as you say, then they would flee.  They won't hang around to get slaughtered if they are truly weaker.  So however you play it as DM it's bad for the PCs.  I have no problem telling my players - yeah sucks.  You hit them and then went home to rest.  They must have taken the treasure and left.  

You have to admit there are only two options....
1.  They can become stronger by improving defenses and gathering allies.  Thus the threat increased.
2.  They can not become stronger and not being completely stupid they run.
3.  They are too stupid to run or are animalistic but in those cases often a nearby intelligent enemy will slaughter the weakened monster and take it's stuff.

My groups are just not willing to take all those risks unnecessarily.  If they get battered to near death then sure it's worth it to rest and suffer the consequences.  If they are conserving their resources as my groups do, they press on as long as they can because it's not worth it to stop.  In my campaigns this is very true and it doesn't feel contrived at all and thats the important thing.

Jul 21, 2012 -- 2:37PM, darius wrote:

What if the party somehow comes upon 2 of these encounters at once, or with too little or no rest inbetween. By their own actions, not the DM's design? If your resources are balanced around the average encounter, you should not be able to have enough to do this. If you have per day/adventure resources, you have enough.

you can mix and match resources you know. 

giving the players a handfull of different ones rather then throwing all the eggs in one basket, especially if they're each supposed to function with different purposes.

i've played more then a few systems that had non-timed/rechargable resources and for the most part they're more given akin to treasure.

the plot points of Serenity are used to activate various abilities and recharge at end of session or if a player, alternatively they can store them and any "overflow" (any beyond 6) goes strait into that charater's XP pool (note that the game uses an earlier version of the Cortex system) and resets at 6 at the start of the next session. 

the game stress some rather reckless behavior and uses the plot points as a sort of meta-treasure. you can't cash them in for in-character resources but it helps get you out of the scrapes you put yourself in. you'll need those plot points to get you out of scrapes or shave off the many potentially lethal blows.

my experience with WoD hasn't lead me to see any begging for points either. as i said in another thread with a similar subject: you gain these points if your action is usually done at the expense of other gains or if it could come bite you back in the ass later. 

you don't gain more willpower for RPing your character indulging in the vice of sloth for not wanting to get out of bed, you get points for willingly refusing a task that you could do because you just don't care, even if doing so could benefit the group.

sloth is spiritual, physical and emotional apathy. it's "i'll get to it later" or "i'll let someone else solve this problem" to the point where it can hurt you in the long term. i'll leave the more indepth biblical definition to someone else, but that's the gist of it.

same with the virtues: you don't gain all your willpower for showing mercy to a mosquito, you do so by letting a main villain escape rather kill him because you feel even the vilest of creatures can be redeemed by even the simplest of acts.

these need to be defined in a way that is clear and concise, so that both players & gms understand the situations that cause the refresh, but i've never seen anyone beg for those points.

Jul 21, 2012 -- 2:44PM, Emerikol wrote:

I disagree. A recently burned group is going to be more vigilante and if they've encountered a new threat like the PCs they will prepare defenses against that basic threat.  If they really are weaker though as you say, then they would flee.  They won't hang around to get slaughtered if they are truly weaker.  So however you play it as DM it's bad for the PCs.  I have no problem telling my players - yeah sucks.  You hit them and then went home to rest.  They must have taken the treasure and left.  

And for that, you can call yourself a great DM. But others would say you are a vindictive and unrealistic one. Who is right? You are claiming that anyone who doesn't do it the way you do it is a poor DM. Can't you see how biased that seems?

You have to admit there are only two options....
1.  They can become stronger by improving defenses and gathering allies.  Thus the threat increased.
2.  They can not become stronger and not being completely stupid they run.
3.  They are too stupid to run or are animalistic but in those cases often a nearby intelligent enemy will slaughter the weakened monster and take it's stuff.

Actually, I don't have to admit there are only two options, because you've just given three (lol?!?!?).

And I hope you will note that in two out of the three, it is better for the PCs to leave and come back:

1. The monsters become stronger by improving defenses and/or gathering allies. The threat increases. But they can't do that in this case, really: they have no nearby allies and they were already as vigilant as they could be, because they were fighting off multiple groups of Orcs, Hobgoblins, etc. They can't spawn new kobolds and teach them how to fight in 8 hours. So while possible, this scenario is no more likely than the remaining two I will discuss below.

2. They can stay the same. They may or they may not run. Perhaps they have decided that this is still their best chance at survival, since leaving their caves would just expose them more. When the English attacked the Scots, did the Scots leave Scotland? Did the Welsh leave Wales, or the Britons Britain? Or did they stay and decide to fight? Spartans at Thermopylae? Etc. etc. Some fought even when they were going to loose, others hoped the attackers would not come back, others tried to negotiate or accepted foreign rule. Also, as you note, many animals and other monsters are unintelligent. They simply won't leave because they're too stupid to do so. And if that means they get slaughtered by nearby monsters, then all the better for the PCs: they get two treasures for the price of killing one monster. 

3. They can get weaker. They have just lost members. They may fall to infighting. They may be preyed upon by other groups. Again, they'll just be easier prey for the PCs. And if they decide to flee? Great! Kobolds outside their caves, where they are away from their traps and their rats and are exposed to the sunlight, are even weaker. And an entire tribe of them, with women and children, are going to be a snap to track. Easy treasure for the PCs.

Please note that it is a quite logical and intelligent choice for the PCs to rest in either #2 or #3 of these scenarios. If the monsters get weaker, the PCs gain... and even if the monsters stay the same, the PCs gain, because the PCs will get stronger by getting their HPs and spells back. So in two-thirds of cases, it is an intelligent decision to leave and come back. 

Yet you are suggesting that it is never a good idea to leave and come back. Again, I say, this flies in the face of reality, or if you don't like reality in a fantasy game, simple logic. Unintelligent monsters are too stupid to flee. Creatures and people don't generally tend to like leaving their homes unless they are certain of death: many will be brave enough to stay even then, and others too desperate. In your world, none of this exists? Monsters always either somehow grow stronger or they flee?

And you are saying that this is the only realistic way to play the game? Sorry, no, it is not.

My groups are just not willing to take all those risks unnecessarily.  If they get battered to near death then sure it's worth it to rest and suffer the consequences.  If they are conserving their resources as my groups do, they press on as long as they can because it's not worth it to stop.  In my campaigns this is very true and it doesn't feel contrived at all and thats the important thing.

Well bully for you. You do acknowledge however, I hope, that many other players would feel this is contived, and that their DM was being vindictive? And that many DMs would feel the same? But I guess they're just all playing the game wrong, and are bad DMs and bad players? And that the developers of the game itself, who have admitted this is a problem, are also just bad DMs and bad players? You have gotten it right, and all of the rest of these people are simply bad and wrong?

This is the only possible reality to you?

Jul 21, 2012 -- 4:07PM, Hurin88 wrote:

And for that, you can call yourself a great DM. But others would say you are a vindictive and unrealistic one. Who is right? You are claiming that anyone who doesn't do it the way you do it is a poor DM. Can't you see how biased that seems?

I turn away more players than I can take so somebody likes my style.

I'm saying that IF you have a problem with the 5 minute workday then there are realistic in game solutions.  You could also be someone who doesn't have a problem.  But when you start complaining about it then I assume you have a problem with it.  So I give you guidance on how to stop it.  The alternative of just completely elimination resource management is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  If you hate resource management then I'd recommend just play with the non-resource management classes.  If you are DM you can ban them.  But taking them away entirely will remove a lot of fun from a lot of people's games.  People who don't have five minute workday problems and only heard of the issue when them came on these boards.

Jul 21, 2012 -- 4:07PM, Hurin88 wrote:

And I hope you will note that in two out of the three, it is better for the PCs to leave and come back:

1. The monsters become stronger by improving defenses and/or gathering allies. The threat increases. But they can't do that in this case, really: they have no nearby allies and they were already as vigilant as they could be, because they were fighting off multiple groups of Orcs, Hobgoblins, etc. They can't spawn new kobolds and teach them how to fight in 8 hours. So while possible, this scenario is no more likely than the remaining two I will discuss below.

I disagree.  Perhaps I could "contrive" a situation where this was not always true sure but normally it's not true.

Jul 21, 2012 -- 4:07PM, Hurin88 wrote:

2. They can stay the same. They may or they may not run. Perhaps they have decided that this is still their best chance at survival, since leaving their caves would just expose them more. When the English attacked the Scots, did the Scots leave Scotland? Did the Welsh leave Wales, or the Britons Britain? Or did they stay and decide to fight? Spartans at Thermopylae? Etc. etc. Some fought even when they were going to loose, others hoped the attackers would not come back, others tried to negotiate or accepted foreign rule. Also, as you note, many animals and other monsters are unintelligent. They simply won't leave because they're too stupid to do so. And if that means they get slaughtered by nearby monsters, then all the better for the PCs: they get two treasures for the price of killing one monster. 

We are talking a wilderness area here with small roving bands.  Not an entire nation so get serious.  I'm not even saying the PCs won't triumph the second time.  I am saying that what they gain from resting is not going to be worth it unless they are seriously depleted and in danger of death.  The opportunity cost of resting is high.  

Jul 21, 2012 -- 4:07PM, Hurin88 wrote:

3. They can get weaker. They have just lost members. They may fall to infighting. They may be preyed upon by other groups. Again, they'll just be easier prey for the PCs. And if they decide to flee? Great! Kobolds outside their caves, where they are away from their traps and their rats and are exposed to the sunlight, are even weaker. And an entire tribe of them, with women and children, are going to be a snap to track. Easy treasure for the PCs.

The D&D world is rife with caves.  While I agree finding more allies and a better defense are best, moving is not that big a deal for such a group.

Jul 21, 2012 -- 4:07PM, Hurin88 wrote:

Please note that it is a quite logical and intelligent choice for the PCs to rest in either #2 or #3 of these scenarios. If the monsters get weaker, the PCs gain... and even if the monsters stay the same, the PCs gain, because the PCs will get stronger by getting their HPs and spells back. So in two-thirds of cases, it is an intelligent decision to leave and come back. 

You continually repeating it doesn't make it any truer.

Jul 21, 2012 -- 4:07PM, Hurin88 wrote:

Yet you are suggesting that it is never a good idea to leave and come back. Again, I say, this flies in the face of reality, or if you don't like reality in a fantasy game, simple logic. Unintelligent monsters are too stupid to flee. Creatures and people don't generally tend to like leaving their homes unless they are certain of death: many will be brave enough to stay even then, and others too desperate. In your world, none of this exists? Monsters always either somehow grow stronger or they flee?

I didn't say never.  I'm saying the opportunity cost is very high.  The smart move is conserve resources and press on against an enemy you've already encountered.  Obviously if the group gets ambushed and a party member dies and others are severely wounded, then getting out becomes paramount.  
 

Jul 21, 2012 -- 4:07PM, Hurin88 wrote:

And you are saying that this is the only realistic way to play the game? Sorry, no, it is not.

I'm saying that just resting willy nilly like there is no opportunity cost is not realistic.

Jul 21, 2012 -- 4:07PM, Hurin88 wrote:

Well bully for you. You do acknowledge however, I hope, that many other players would feel this is contived, and that their DM was being vindictive?

No reasonable player.  None of mine.  But I agree you exist so there is at least one player.  I feel though that you probably wouldn't make it past the pre-game discussion anyway.

Jul 21, 2012 -- 4:07PM, Hurin88 wrote:

This is the only possible reality to you?

I'm saying that removing an entire fun component of the game to cater to a select group that refuses to acknowledge many other reasonable and realistic options is not the way to go.  I have no problem with producing a fun game that affords fun options and then suggesting that those options too difficult or problematic can be ignored by those with the problem.

Jul 21, 2012 -- 2:37PM, darius wrote:

Jul 21, 2012 -- 2:18PM, JihVed wrote:

Basing the system around encounter resources does not in any way reduce flexibility in encounter difficulty in any way. If anything it increases flexibility. A level 7 enc will always be an average challenge for a level 7 party. If you want a tougher fight, give them a level 8 enc, easier - level 6. With that in mind dm can know that a level 7 fight is always a level 7 fight no matter what, instead of a level 7 fight only being an average challenge if they happen to have already faced two others today. Balancing the system accross days makes a mess of setting xp rewards because a specific monster is only a specific challenge if its the first thing they fight. When you balance by encounter that (and 5mwd) dissapear. Then when a dm adds a daily class to the party he can still use all the tools he always has to balance an adventure day for per day playstyles. When you balance the system by day, there's no way to remove per day and have any sense of what a decent fight for a party should be. In short, removing per day as the default for mechanics design (NOT FLAVOR OR PLAYSTYLE) means I can play the way I want, and it absolutely no impact on you playing the way you want. Why then isn't non per day system design the better choice? (Again this isn't about class design. People who want per day can play that just fine without changing a per encounter designed system as long as the dm is capable/willing to balance them himself, like he always has and you already contend is not an issue for you)

What if the party somehow comes upon 2 of these encounters at once, or with too little or no rest inbetween. By their own actions, not the DM's design? If your resources are balanced around the average encounter, you should not be able to have enough to do this. If you have per day/adventure resources, you have enough.

First off, if the system is designed for encounter balance, there is no such thing as too little or no rest.  Either they are separate encounters and your resources refresh allowing you to have enough to handle it; or they are in fact one encounter with twice the baddies and therefore should be far more difficult and not handled easily.

Secondly, balancing the system core (as in the lowest common denominator for all rule sets; not the entirety of rule sets printed in the core rulebook. These are separate uses of "core") for encounters does not preclude having an entire party of characters with per day classes.  If a DM allows per day classes he will have to balance encounters per day like he always has.  If he denies per day classes, he'll never have to think on a per day timeline.

And that's the point of a lowest common denominator as system core.  It doesn't preclude any playstyles at all.  If the most basic rule set covers a no resource management system, RM can be added on top of that without any impact whatsoever for people who want or don't want to use it.  There can even be a whole section of the DMG filled with guidelines and tips for DMs who wish to allow per day in their game and need help with designing daily sets of encounters around that.  When monsters are designed by encounter only, those same monsters work for a per day playstyle without any alteration.

The relevance to this thread is that many people see "per day" as the cause of a 5mwd.  If those resources are not forced on them as part of the system core, then the 5mwd disappears.  Other people don't think the 5mwd is an issue, or in fact doesn't really exist.  Those people can allow "per day" classes and not be impacted at all.  Still others see the 5mwd as an issue, but still want per day or per session or per adventure RM in their game.  They can also add that, with all the mechanics they need to make it work, without impacting the previous two groups at all.  Everyone gets to play the game exactly how they want to, with no one being negatively impacted.  How is this not the best design strategy?

Jul 21, 2012 -- 11:19PM, Emerikol wrote:

Jul 21, 2012 -- 4:07PM, Hurin88 wrote:

And for that, you can call yourself a great DM. But others would say you are a vindictive and unrealistic one. Who is right? You are claiming that anyone who doesn't do it the way you do it is a poor DM. Can't you see how biased that seems?

I turn away more players than I can take so somebody likes my style.

I'm saying that IF you have a problem with the 5 minute workday then there are realistic in game solutions.  You could also be someone who doesn't have a problem.  But when you start complaining about it then I assume you have a problem with it.  So I give you guidance on how to stop it.  The alternative of just completely elimination resource management is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  If you hate resource management then I'd recommend just play with the non-resource management classes.  If you are DM you can ban them.  But taking them away entirely will remove a lot of fun from a lot of people's games.  People who don't have five minute workday problems and only heard of the issue when them came on these boards.

Y'know, when I read this post by itself, it really seems like you and I are actually arguing for the same thing.  We both want a core rulebook that handle both "per day" and "RM free."  You specifically recommend just playing RM free classes and banning per day ones for people who prefer that playstyle.  I recommend allowing per day classes for people that want them.  This is, in effect, the same thing.  The only difference is in the connotation between "remove X if you don't want it" and "add X if you like it."

"Add X" is a better approach from a salesman's point of view.  Offer a customer extras if they want them, and they think "I have choice.  I can get what I want!"  Tell a customer to remove features they don't want on their own and they think "This product was not designed for me.  I am paying for features I don't want.   This is unacceptable."   The product is exactly the same in both cases, but the first customer is much more likely to buy.


The other thing you seem to be doing that is the bigger point of contention in this thread is dismissing everyone else's personal experiences as invalid, offering storyline fixes for an issue that you have yourself admitted that you have never experienced.  Can you not see how that leaves a bad taste in their mouths?  I'm sure you're a great DM.  I don't question the quality of the people gaming at your table.  Yet you have repeatedly questioned the quality of both the players and the DM's at other people's tables, offering them advice on how to run things your way.  That is not constructive behavior.  Whether you intend it that way or not, others view it as a personal attack and react accordingly.

Providing theoretical non-system fixes for an issue you've never experienced helps no one.  If the system core (again, "core" meaning "the most basic mechanics that flavor and rulesets are added to, not "the sum total of options provided in the core rulebooks") is fixed in a way that has no impact on you, why would you care?

Jul 21, 2012 -- 11:29PM, Emerikol wrote:

I disagree.  Perhaps I could "contrive" a situation where this was not always true sure but normally it's not true.

Why are you the one that gets to define what normal is? 

Jul 21, 2012 -- 4:07PM, Hurin88 wrote:

I didn't say never.  I'm saying the opportunity cost is very high.  The smart move is conserve resources and press on against an enemy you've already encountered.  Obviously if the group gets ambushed and a party member dies and others are severely wounded, then getting out becomes paramount.  
 

No, the smart move is retreat, regroup and come back stronger.
 

Jul 21, 2012 -- 4:07PM, Hurin88 wrote:

I'm saying that just resting willy nilly like there is no opportunity cost is not realistic.

I agree that those resting should not assume that the enemies will be the same. But assuming they will be stronger is simply ridiculous.  

Jul 21, 2012 -- 4:07PM, Hurin88 wrote:

No reasonable player.  None of mine.  But I agree you exist so there is at least one player.  

Then good. Why are you still arguing the point then?  
 

Jul 21, 2012 -- 4:07PM, Hurin88 wrote:

I'm saying that removing an entire fun component of the game to cater to a select group that refuses to acknowledge many other reasonable and realistic options is not the way to go.  I have no problem with producing a fun game that affords fun options and then suggesting that those options too difficult or problematic can be ignored by those with the problem.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. You seem to be conceeding the point I've been trying to make for pages on end. Are you accepting that it is not an unreasonable option to rest an retreat and come back later?  

Jul 22, 2012 -- 2:32AM, JihVed wrote:

Y'know, when I read this post by itself, it really seems like you and I are actually arguing for the same thing...

Jul 22, 2012 -- 2:32AM, JihVed wrote:

"Add X" is a better approach from a salesman's point of view.  Offer a customer extras if they want them, and they think "I have choice.  I can get what I want!"  Tell a customer to remove features they don't want on their own and they think "This product was not designed for me.  I am paying for features I don't want.   This is unacceptable."   The product is exactly the same in both cases, but the first customer is much more likely to buy.

My issue with the above is that I do not want my playstyle OR yours for that matter put in a special section.  I want all the classes in the Players Handbook and I want the book to say that every class is a module.  Then I want the DMG to explain modularity and give guidance to DMs on constructing the modules that best suits their playstyle.  If you put anything in a separate area you are making a value judgment about that.  I can make equally valid criticisms of your playstyle just as you can of mine.  So I refuse to willingly get sectioned off.  Instead lets just put it in the DMG so you can pick and choose.  The default is all classes.

Jul 22, 2012 -- 2:32AM, JihVed wrote:

The other thing you seem to be doing that is the bigger point of contention in this thread is dismissing everyone else's personal experiences as invalid, offering storyline fixes for an issue that you have yourself admitted that you have never experienced.  Can you not see how that leaves a bad taste in their mouths?  I'm sure you're a great DM.  I don't question the quality of the people gaming at your table.  Yet you have repeatedly questioned the quality of both the players and the DM's at other people's tables, offering them advice on how to run things your way.  That is not constructive behavior.  Whether you intend it that way or not, others view it as a personal attack and react accordingly.

I questioned the quality of the DM only if that DM says that in prior games, where there was potential for a 5 minute workday, they had a problem with the 5 minute workday and it was insolvable.  I gave many suggestions that do work even if you don't like the result.  So if the fix is worse than the problem, I'd say you don't really have a 5 minute workday problem.

Jul 22, 2012 -- 2:32AM, JihVed wrote:

Providing theoretical non-system fixes for an issue you've never experienced helps no one.  If the system core (again, "core" meaning "the most basic mechanics that flavor and rulesets are added to, not "the sum total of options provided in the core rulebooks") is fixed in a way that has no impact on you, why would you care?

The terms may be getting us.  I want all classes listed in the same way in the Players Handbook.  I want the classes text at the start of that book to say that not all classes are right for every campaign and consult with your DM on what ones are best for you.  The DMG should then have a whole section on modules and why any module should or should not be chosen.  There are more than 2 reasons to use or not use a class.  Perhaps a DM thinks Psionics is not a flavor he prefers.  So he drops it.  Perhaps a DM thinks that martial healing and daily powers are hokey then that DM can drop those classes.  All of this should be discussed in the DMG.  But all classes should be listed in alphabetical order in the classes section.

Technically I don't believe classes will be modules.  Although we both know a class is a module by default.  I know that the PHB will have many many modules.  And I agree that being a module or not is not a big deal.  But since classes are not lets treat them as individual modules and train DMs to choose wisely.

Jul 22, 2012 -- 3:44AM, Hurin88 wrote:

No, the smart move is retreat, regroup and come back stronger.

Ask my players.  It's not.  And my world is known for it's verisimilitude.  They don't feel the least bit railroaded.

Jul 22, 2012 -- 3:44AM, Hurin88 wrote:

I agree that those resting should not assume that the enemies will be the same. But assuming they will be stronger is simply ridiculous.  

That's one valid option.  In cases of highly intelligent enemies it's almost always true.  But stronger or weaker, there are consequences bad for the players as I pointed out.

Jul 22, 2012 -- 3:44AM, Hurin88 wrote:

Then good. Why are you still arguing the point then?  

Because if you design a game that a person who seems bent on screwing with the DM and refuses to accept the very basics of the game is a surefire way to get a lousy game.  Oh and they tried that once.

Jul 21, 2012 -- 4:07PM, Hurin88 wrote:

I'm saying that removing an entire fun component of the game to cater to a select group that refuses to acknowledge many other reasonable and realistic options is not the way to go.  I have no problem with producing a fun game that affords fun options and then suggesting that those options too difficult or problematic can be ignored by those with the problem.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. You seem to be conceeding the point I've been trying to make for pages on end. Are you accepting that it is not an unreasonable option to rest an retreat and come back later?  

In my campaign world, unless highly pressed and resource depleted, it is never wise to retreat.  It is also never wise to ever waste a resource unnecessarily.  That is a certain fact.  It is true enough times that the exceptions could never be counted on.  It's pretty easy to run a game like that and it's realistic.  

What I am saying though is that DMs who can't manage this element in their games in this way or refuse to do so, should select a subset of classes that do not use daily resource management.  But those of us that think daily resource management adds a lot to the game will continue to use it and use it effectively.  Classes are all defacto modules even if not listed as such.  The DMG should explain all this clearly.  The most successful campaigns are those where the DMs are empowered game rules wise.  At least thats been my own observation over the years.  

So if this issue really bugs you so much that you can't stand to run a game with it present, then I'd say cut out the RM classes or the RM aspects of classes.  I will cut out the stuff I don't like such as martial healing.

Jul 22, 2012 -- 6:51AM, Emerikol wrote:

The terms may be getting us.  I want all classes listed in the same way in the Players Handbook.  I want the classes text at the start of that book to say that not all classes are right for every campaign and consult with your DM on what ones are best for you.  The DMG should then have a whole section on modules and why any module should or should not be chosen.  There are more than 2 reasons to use or not use a class.  Perhaps a DM thinks Psionics is not a flavor he prefers.  So he drops it.  Perhaps a DM thinks that martial healing and daily powers are hokey then that DM can drop those classes.  All of this should be discussed in the DMG.  But all classes should be listed in alphabetical order in the classes section.

Technically I don't believe classes will be modules.  Although we both know a class is a module by default.  I know that the PHB will have many many modules.  And I agree that being a module or not is not a big deal.  But since classes are not lets treat them as individual modules and train DMs to choose wisely.

This is precisely what I want.  I never said I wanted RM clumped together and relegated to a shady appendix.  What you're describing above is exactly what I've been arguing for.  The only difference I can still see is that (as this article proposes and what is causing all the fuss) encounter design will still be forced to per day for party balance.  What I want is for a level x monster to always be a level x monster that is a an appropriate challenge for a level x party with no RM assumed.  If that is the case, designing appropriate encounters for non-RM classes becomes incredibly easy.  A DM with per day PC's will still have to balance that level x monster with consideration for how depleted those PC's resources are from previous fights, but this is no different than they always did when per day classes were played.

However if you design monsters so that they are only balanced assuming per day resources there is no way to remove that and have any idea what an appropriate challenge for a non RM party is.  That is my issue.  My preferred playstyle becomes incredibly clunky or impossible and your playstyle isn't affected.  With per encounter challenge design, my playstyle is smooth and easy and yours is still not affected.  How is this not a better choice?

Jul 22, 2012 -- 8:30AM, JihVed wrote:

...previous stuff we agree on...

However if you design monsters so that they are only balanced assuming per day resources there is no way to remove that and have any idea what an appropriate challenge for a non RM party is.  That is my issue.  My preferred playstyle becomes incredibly clunky or impossible and your playstyle isn't affected.  With per encounter challenge design, my playstyle is smooth and easy and yours is still not affected.  How is this not a better choice?

I think that for me the xp resources were always just an estimate.  I tend more sandbox anyway but I don't want you to assume that because I am that all people with my other views on RM are also sandbox.  But even so I've used the monster level/x.p./cr as a rough estimate all through D&D.  I learn my groups and I create environments appropriate to them.

I would say that an at level challenge would be easy for a fully prepped group and harder for a depleted one.  If you liked 4e, then this is easy as I thought their guidelines were super easy.  I had to add +2 to everything to even keep my groups challenged.  That made it risky sometimes against a level+6 encounter (and sometimes I wouldn't use the solo but rather another monster type) so I've never had a perfect system for me.  So I don't need one in 5e.  I learn how they think and then I apply my own experience adjustment.  Of course I hope they do their best.  But assigning level and x.p. is really hard.

 

sometimes retreating to re-group is a good option. When it becomes the ONLY option then it becomes highly unrealistic. The notion that every time the group can go in guns blazing, back out once spent, go recuperte for however long and then go back again to face a static situation is highly contrived in and of itself.

You would actually have to contrive a scenario and world where a small group of adventurers goes around attacking with everything, retreating to rest and then returning to face the same enemy who is none the wiser, hasn't made any tactical or strategic changes to their defenses, or who hasn't vacated the premises completely.

Sometimes (Rarely) that may occur, but to believe otherwise and play the game with static monsters that freeze in place once the party retreats after nova-blasting is a highly contrived scenario and beggars belief.

Who would have fun in a game like that?

Jul 22, 2012 -- 7:01AM, Emerikol wrote:

So if this issue really bugs you so much that you can't stand to run a game with it present, then I'd say cut out the RM classes or the RM aspects of classes.  I will cut out the stuff I don't like such as martial healing.

But here's the think you just don't seem to get, despite page after page of people trying to point it out to you: it's not just me that it bugs. It is many, many other posters. In fact, bugs THE DEVELOPERS THEMSELVES, who have admitted it is a flaw in the system. Can you understand that? I'm really not sure you're listening at all: it is a systemic problem that occurs in many people's games and has been recognized as such by the developers of the game themselves. Why can't you acknowledge this? 

Jul 19, 2012 -- 11:38AM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 11:16AM, AbdulAlhazred wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 11:09AM, Lord_Daxl wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 9:38AM, Lawolf wrote:

Yeah this discussion has gone like this since the start of the tread: People who see 5MWD as a problem with the game rules: hey, this has been a long known problem with D&D. Here are some possible solutions to fix/alleviate the problem. People who do not see it as a problem: NO IT'S NOT. I have never seen it in my games. You all must be bad players/DMs/ not know how to roll play. You are clearly having badwrongfun. We should not do anything to fix this problem even though the solutions you propose would not adversely affect us (because we never experienced the problem anyway). It is sad really...

That is a mis-characterization.

Camp 2 just believes that it is a problem that is best handled through better adventure design, and not with an arbitrary game mechanic.

On or about page 30, SleepsInTraffic gave the challenge to the "5mwd is a big problem" crowd to come up with a example of a 5mwd problem that couldn't be addressed with better adventure design.  It's page 80, and we're still waiting...

Yes, and the way that is explained sounds exactly like "you're doing it wrong". I'm sure we could do some thread archeology, but whatever. I think people should just not talk about other people's playing styles, at all. It is not anyone's business. All WotC can do is make a game that works for how people DO play. They could fill the whole core books with articles about how there's one right way to play, but I'm pretty sure I want a game, not an instruction manual on how I've been doing things 'wrong' for 35 years. So, I think the commentary on all sides should just remain limited to mechanics. If you don't have anything to say about those, then....

We might even produce some useful and clever thing. Who knows? Stranger things have happened...

 Are you freaking kidding me, they are ****ing instruction manuals.  The point is you can't come up with a scenario where encounter design or campaign design can't be used to rectify any problems, with little to no effect on your play style choices.  Unless your choice is to break the game on purpose, and I can't stop you there nor could any mechanics ever.  At no point should the system allow you to be bad at something.  That is what you are saying right there.  That's mostly what everyones been saying, "I shouldn't have to get better at encounter/campaign design in order to fix this problem they should invent an arbitrary mechanic that does it for me".  Simply no.  The game, like all games, is about self betterment.  If you refuse to better your writing skills (campaign design) or math skills (encounter design) it is no one else's fault as to why your campaigns are falling apart due to a problem that wouldn't otherwise exist were you better at those things.  

That is my major problem, every example I hear of the 5 minute workday sounds like either a terribly uncompelling story that I would grow bored of easily, or it is an encounter design issue where you are not making the combats compelling enough.  SO I'm still waiting for an example that does not get fixed by being better at, at least, one of those two things.  If you really don't want to have to do any work then your bigger concern should be the pre built adventures.  That is where they actually have to be concerned about the 5 minute workday. other than that it is up to us to make it not an issue.  There are many ways to do it, but it always comes from better writting and design on our end.  Although I do like Lawolfes spell burn system.  Although it should be a noted optional inclusion.

WHOA THERE!

Let me tell you, my 4e experience as a DM is highly rewarding. That's just the way it is. I have a very simple desire and that is to see all of the elements that went into making that true be available to me easily as tools in 5e so I can get the same thing. I don't really want to have to remember 12 different ways that 'powers' work, and I don't want to have to constantly be forcing the action along just to get some effect. You can tell me till you're blue in the face that I can do everything I want if I just do it your way. I'm not YOU. I have my own needs, wants, and desires from the game, and I sure as heck am going to go say so. There's nothing 'shallow' about the way we're playing 4e, OK? And if that's your judgement of it, FINE, but it changes nothing for me.

So, what I'm telling YOU is that 4e style tools and play basically solved the problem for me. I'll keep that solution, thank you. I don't see all these downsides you constantly all say you do. This game is FUN! AND I get to spend my mental bandwidth on story and adventure design. Yeay!

Jul 22, 2012 -- 9:56AM, ReaperTatt wrote:

sometimes retreating to re-group is a good option. When it becomes the ONLY option then it becomes highly unrealistic. The notion that every time the group can go in guns blazing, back out once spent, go recuperte for however long and then go back again to face a static situation is highly contrived in and of itself.

You would actually have to contrive a scenario and world where a small group of adventurers goes around attacking with everything, retreating to rest and then returning to face the same enemy who is none the wiser, hasn't made any tactical or strategic changes to their defenses, or who hasn't vacated the premises completely.

Sometimes (Rarely) that may occur, but to believe otherwise and play the game with static monsters that freeze in place once the party retreats after nova-blasting is a highly contrived scenario and beggars belief.

Who would have fun in a game like that?

You're arguing an extreme. The scenario doesn't have to be utterly static for things to reach a point where unless the game itself encourages you some to go on, you'll probably decide that the better part of valor is to hole up. This is not always going to result in some devastating counter action. You do take your chances, but often it makes perfectly good sense. I'd note as a side thing that some types of adversaries ARE quite static. The undead rarely do much, certainly not at lower levels. Any situation where you have a guarded fixed location like a tomb or anything along those lines that isn't going to move, then repeated assaults and retreats are perfectly sensible. Heck, even 4e players will go for that logic sometimes.

None of us are against dynamic adventures. It is just plain simple logic that if the PCs go through from start to finish of an encounter sequence without a break you don't have to improvise and things are just easier.

Jul 22, 2012 -- 12:41PM, Hurin88 wrote:

Jul 22, 2012 -- 7:01AM, Emerikol wrote:

So if this issue really bugs you so much that you can't stand to run a game with it present, then I'd say cut out the RM classes or the RM aspects of classes.  I will cut out the stuff I don't like such as martial healing.

But here's the think you just don't seem to get, despite page after page of people trying to point it out to you: it's not just me that it bugs. It is many, many other posters. In fact, bugs THE DEVELOPERS THEMSELVES, who have admitted it is a flaw in the system. Can you understand that? I'm really not sure you're listening at all: it is a systemic problem that occurs in many people's games and has been recognized as such by the developers of the game themselves. Why can't you acknowledge this? 

Yeah and other people have said it's a dealbreaker if absent from the game.  So I said provide options to play both ways.  DID YOU HEAR THAT???

I haven't read the actual quote that recognizes the problem of the 5MWD - but perhaps what the developers are recognizing is that a part of the gaming community can't help but abuse mechanics when DMs aren't equipped to handle mechanics that can be dealt with by storytelling.

I'd prefer the DMG teach DMs how to mitigate rules abusers with storyline.

The story is part of the game we're playing yes?

Because it needs to be said on these forums - this is my opinion, not fact.

Jul 22, 2012 -- 1:53AM, JihVed wrote:

First off, if the system is designed for encounter balance, there is no such thing as too little or no rest.  Either they are separate encounters and your resources refresh allowing you to have enough to handle it; or they are in fact one encounter with twice the baddies and therefore should be far more difficult and not handled easily.

Secondly, balancing the system core (as in the lowest common denominator for all rule sets; not the entirety of rule sets printed in the core rulebook. These are separate uses of "core") for encounters does not preclude having an entire party of characters with per day classes.  If a DM allows per day classes he will have to balance encounters per day like he always has.  If he denies per day classes, he'll never have to think on a per day timeline.

And that's the point of a lowest common denominator as system core.  It doesn't preclude any playstyles at all.  If the most basic rule set covers a no resource management system, RM can be added on top of that without any impact whatsoever for people who want or don't want to use it.  There can even be a whole section of the DMG filled with guidelines and tips for DMs who wish to allow per day in their game and need help with designing daily sets of encounters around that.  When monsters are designed by encounter only, those same monsters work for a per day playstyle without any alteration.

The relevance to this thread is that many people see "per day" as the cause of a 5mwd.  If those resources are not forced on them as part of the system core, then the 5mwd disappears.  Other people don't think the 5mwd is an issue, or in fact doesn't really exist.  Those people can allow "per day" classes and not be impacted at all.  Still others see the 5mwd as an issue, but still want per day or per session or per adventure RM in their game.  They can also add that, with all the mechanics they need to make it work, without impacting the previous two groups at all.  Everyone gets to play the game exactly how they want to, with no one being negatively impacted.  How is this not the best design strategy?

So if you a group somehow comes upon what the DM designed as 2 separate encounters, at the same time, the DM will arbitrarily pick a point where their abilities refresh? My example is one the DM did not plan, but can happen in a session. The players should lose unless the DM comes up with a reason to separate the encounters or refresh the players abilities. I think this is a little more immersion breaking and mechanical than coming up with reasons to discourage the tactic of running away after one encounter, resting, and returning, to exploit a daily refresh rate for abilities.

I don't know what "balancing the system core for encounters" really means other than the way players get their abilities. The opponents and obstacles are always basically self contained. A wizard opponent may get the same abilities as the daily power using PC wizard, but a DM doesn't worry about how he refreshes his abilities. A DM basically uses all abilities like encounter-abilities. How is a monster designed for an encounter-ability system different from a monster designed for a daily-ability system?

If it is the number of encounters per day or adventure you mean, it is just as easy to add encounter-ability classes into a game that is designed around daily-ability classes. Since the number of encounters per day does not matter to the encounter-ability class, the amount of instruction needed to help the DM convert to the encounter-based approach would be a sentence saying to simply disregard the guidelines on the recommended number of encounters per day or adventure.

The only daily resource that seems forced on all classes so far is hit points and hit dice. There are systems that have absolutely no per-day resource management, I don't think that will ever be D&D. Even 4th edition had plenty of per-day resources to manage.

I guess many people do see the so-called "5-minute workday" as a problem. There are also many people who fail to see that it has a pretty simple, logical solution, that doesn't require all abilities being regained after every encounter. Similarly, there are people who think there are problems with having all or mostly encounter-abilities, and others who don't think there is a problem. That said, it is really the same amount of work to have rules modules that overwrite such rules as daily Hit Points and add encounter power-wielding classes as it is to have rules modules that add in daily Hit Point rules and daily power-wielding classes. The game designers are going with the things that more more "iconic" to D&D as the default rules, who knows what other options they will provide. In past editions, other options were provided for such things, although it was not in the initially released materials.

Some DMs dont *want* to ruin the adventure story, just to force the adventures to fulfill disruptive mechanics.

Post 1000

Post 1001

 This thread is officially controversial.

Jul 23, 2012 -- 7:38AM, Haldrik wrote:

Post 1001

 This thread is officially controversial.

Ah, good thing we have an objective way to determine that hehe.

Okay, it's time for that most rare of internet argument occurrences... a reversal of opinion.

My point of contention concerning encounter/monster design has been demonstrated to be a moot point.  There were a few different points made that caused that click in my brain that let me see that I was fighting unnecessarily.

First, the point that Monster powers/resources by default are created with encounters in mind.  It would be a rare thing for PC's to fight the same monster across several "encounters" over a single day, so when designing the monster you assume that this will be the only interaction with that monster.

All that remained for me then was the budgeting around an assumed 4 encounters per day.  Then someone pointed out that if you take the recommended xp budget for a party and divide by 4 you then have the recommended xp necessary for an average level appropriate fight.

I recognize now that with that number in mind it becomes easy enough to gauge appropriate at level fights for a no RM party, and my complaint is moot.

I think I may have been too tied to the idea of 3e CR as a basis for monster design (I've played basic, 3e and 4e.  But most of my DM-ing was done in 3e).  Since xp reward is now static, monsters don't have a "level" per say.  Their effective CR would decrease as the PC's level increases (taking a smaller portion of the xp necessary to level up).

Congratulations, Emerikol! We are now pretty much in total agreement on our design hopes for DDN.  At least the ones we've discussed so far .  If I were less of a lazy person I would find everyone's post who made this click for me and credit them here, but oh well.  I guess my public humble pie eating will have to suffice.

(Note: I still dislike the use of storyline changes to address perceived system complaints.  I bend rules all the time to suit my needs, I'm just hoping to have to do that less with DDN.  Just saying...)