Spinning this out of a thread over on the D&DNext boards.
Apparently many people have a problem with the phenomenon known as "the 5-minute work day". Now, I'm not going to go into a definition of it or the reasons behind it since, if you're reading this, you should be familiar with them. if not, a quick search of the boards will reveal it to you. Though, I'd suggest avoiding those threads anyway...they're silly. :P
Now, some people are absolutely clamoring for a mechanical fix to the 5mwd (yup, abbreviating it from here on out) because they don't want to contrive methodology to prevent it. On the other hand, countless DMs have never had a problem with the 5mwd but the assumption seems to be we have avoided that problem through bizarre contrivances or avoiding entire story structures.
First of all, let me be clear that I do not tell stories to my players. I do not find it to be the point of the DM to regale my players with stories. On the contrary, I present situations/peoples/things that are present in the world the players characters are experiencing and let the players craft stories with their actions. That is to say, I thrust no expectations onto the players. If there is some sort of mystery going on and the players can up with a clever way to immediately uncover the truth then more power to them. If they are faced with a combat encounter or situation and plan their strategy to minimize their risk and then execute the plan to perfection...again, more power to them. Is this how those situations always go? Heck no, but I do not go in with expectations one way or the other because doing so guarantees it would influence my impartiality (remember, you're the referee...gotta remain impartial).
Secondly, let me point out that I've experienced the FULL range of narratives in D&D games from both sides of the shield from classic dungeon crawls to murder mysteries to court intrigue to courtly swashbuckling to Princess-Bride-esque comedy etc etc.
Here is the truth of the matter, and it is going to pain some people to read...in fact, they will get outright hostile and angry. I do not care. It is the truth. The 5mwd phenomenon is created through the fault of the DM. It is a player response to what they are being presented. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Let's move on to dissecting the issue and its resolution.
Now, one of the big things is that these DMs claim it is a natural phenomenon generated by the game because it is an "optimal strategy". Mind you, I am a "play-to-win" gamer in my life. It is how I play games, it is how I expect others to play games with me (or to not complain when I do at the very least) and it is how we teach the younger players on our airsoft team to play. The concept that the 5MWD is an "optimal strategy" is complete bunk in the face of the point of Dungeons & Dragons. As a refresher, here is the words of the designers themselves...
"Players create heroic fantasy characters -- mighty warriors, stealthy rogues, or powerful wizards -- which they guide through an ongoing series of adventures, working together to defeat monsters and other challenges and growing in power, glory, and achievement."
The point, as stated here, is growing in power/glory/achievement (via the defeat of monsters and other challenges). So, the other DMs say that the 5MWD lets players defeat monsters in an optimal manner. They go in, murder, then go out and rest...then rest and repeat. However, the point of the game ISN'T slaying monsters. Slaying monsters is the process by which one gets closer to the point (growing). One of those DMs went as far as to suggest (in DEFENSE of the 5MWD as an optimal strategy) that it only stretched out dungeons from, for instance, one day to three days. That would be a tripling of the time required to clear a dungeon.
Ergo, if a team of adventurers using the 5MWD method reach a dungeon it will take them (lets say) three times longer to clear that dungeon than a team of adventurers NOT utilizing the 5MWD. But, you say, they both cleared the dungeon and killed the monsters so they accomplished the same thing! Right? Well, yes, but that's not the point. The point is to grow your character and the latter group grew at THREE TIMES the speed of the former group because of how much the first group was slowed by utilizing the 5MWD. In that way, the 5MWD is clearly SUB-optimal. Is it a safe strategy? Sure, I suppose. However, if the second group is gaining XP 3 (THREE!!) times faster than the first group, it is easy to see that the second group is, in fact, playing the game "better"...better in that they are achieving the games goal (growth) faster.
So...optimal strategy? Debunked.
To be fair, however, I DO NOT expect players to use optimal strategies all the time so that argument is not the end-all-be-all. Nor is it even fair to say to your players "Hey! Use better strategy!" since the game is theres to play how they see fit.
What the use of the 5mwd reveals, however, is that the players have ZERO impetus on their characters. This is where the 5mwd-stricken DMs will accuse me of foisting contrived time limits upon my players when this could not be further from the truth.
Why would players have no forward momentum? Why would they not care about time (remember the 5mwd might be reducing their productivity to a third!) in regards to their characters? I have a strong feeling it's actually a side-effect of taking the "focus" on the PCs too far. See, while the players characters ARE the main characters in the game, they cannot be the "spotlight" of reality. That is to say, just because the focus is on the PCs it does not mean the world stops. Someone on the other thread argued "What does it matter what is going on away from the PCs? They aren't experiencing it!" and that is a ridiculous notion if I've ever heard one. The point is that if the world is not growing around and with the characters then the PCs aren't really influencing and playing in a world. Instead, they're going through the motions...they're being put into situations without actual context in the greater campaign beyond what the DM decides.
It also results in the 5MWD because, since the world stops when the PCs do, there is NO REASON for them to move at anything resembling a reasonable pace. Instead of playing in a game world, the PCs (not the players!) are essentially booting up an Xbox to play whenever they feel like it. The world is a static interface that responds to the PCs instead of moving along with them. It is less a world and more a Hollywood set where, like a video game, the world just renders around the players far enough for them to see...and nothing else exists. The PCs know that nothing will happen if they aren't engaging it, so why bother worrying about anything but the task at hand? This allows them to sit back and rest whenever they want, essentially wasting HUGE chunks of game-world time.
And that is the crux of the 5MWD.
I asked my players seperately about the 5MWD and the overwhelming response was "Why would I want to waste that much time? I have stuff to do. My character has things to accomplish". I won't clog this post with the list of responsibilities, undertakings and such that the players have had their characters engage in, but suffice to say, they want to see these things done in a reasonable time frame...actually, as fast as possible in most cases. Furthermore, they know OTHER PEOPLE in the world are also progressing on their own time tables. That is to say, the world is still in motion whether or not they're there to experience exactly what is going on. This means that, just like in real life, time is a VITAL resource because there is only so much they can do in any given amount of time. There are only so much treasure they can find, so many monsters they can slay, so many wrongs they can right, etc, etc. It also means that the players do not always know what the world is going to throw at them so frivolous use of resources is ill-advised.
When the world lives and breathes around the PCs and the players are invested in their characters and their characters goals, time becomes about the most important resource imaginable. Heck, it's why my players send their henchman and such to go accomplish tasks while they're off doing other things...it lets them be, effectively, two places at once. It lets them accomplish things faster. That is the "secret" to eliminating the 5MWD without relying on arbitrary time limits, contrivances, DM-fiat or new mechanics set-up entirely to counter a problem that doesn't really exist in the mechanics of the game.
In closing...when the world moves with or without the players, the players will move with the world so that they can start influencing it to move the way they want. When the world doesn't move, neither will the players and, hence, you will have 5-minute work days. Now, does that mean that as DM you need to present an awesome, logical world with consequences and momentum to your players? YUP! But...that's your job anyway. So have at it! As always, I'm more than willing to help show how to do just that.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
I tend to agree that the 5MWD is a problem caused primarily by the DM in most cases.
To me, the single most common failing when faced with a 5MWD situation is that the DM fails to provide consequences to player decisions. When a group of player "choose" correctly, they experience good consequences; however, when they choose "poorly"... The consequences are often overlooked or down-played. Unfortunately, a consequence free world, players will not put as much thought into their choices. This, in my opinion, is the most common way of creating a 5MWD situation.
While YagamiFire's style of DMing does differ from my style, we do (well at least from this post) share some common beliefs. A living game world is essential to "good" game and creating a living game world is ultimately the responsibility of the DM. Yes, the players can, do and should influence a world, but it is, ultimately, the responsibility of the DM to make changes in the game world to reflect the consequences of the choices of the player. In addition, the world still needs to change (and in some cases grow) to keep the players interested in the game.
In addition, I think there are other tools that can be utilized by a DM to help manage the 5MWD. Most of these are dependent on the style of play of the DM and players; there are various styles each with its own set of tools. However, I want to stress the DM and players part. Alot of posts (at least in the DDN forums) tend to indicate, at least to me, a problem within the DM and player dynamic; mostly caused by the DM. For example, one poster complained about creating an adventure only to find out that the party composition precluded them from completing the adventure. It wasn't in regards to the 5MWD; however, it was made by a 5MWD complainer. That to me is a fundamental failure of the DM to know his players; that isn't a failure in the ruleset as some people attempted to claim. The DM role and Player role are separate to a degree, but they are intertwined together. A DM has be able to cater to his players; the players have to be able to communicate with the DM. Often, I see a breakdown in the understanding of the DM role in relation to the player role. A "hands off" DM isn't a bad thing; alot good DMs practice a "hands off" technique. However, a "know nothing about the player" technique invites failure on alot of different levels with a potential of creating a 5MWD problem.
Another failure that I see often is the unwillingness of the DM to prepare properly for a game. The DM has responsibilities, and failure to execute those reponsibilities will lead to problems in the game. The failure to prepare can lead to a 5MWD problem. I won't go into this one too much; it's very closely related to the living world dynamic in my opinion (well at least in regards to the 5MWD); although it isn't limited to the living world concept.
This is exactly how I run games, and is exactly why I've never seen the 5mwd. When the world doesn't stop for the players, it makes them want to actually live their lives. In the real world, no one who actually has a job to do wants to sleep for eighteen hours and work for four. It's crazy.
For anyone who disagrees, that's fine, and that's totally you're right, but please, at least consider the possibility that a living, breathing world that your players can connect with might indeed be the "real" fix to the problem. If you just flat out disagree, or don't want to consider it, that's fine, but flames and personal attacks won't be tolerated, friendly reminder.
A living game world is essential to "good" game and creating a living game world is ultimately the responsibility of the DM. Yes, the players can, do and should influence a world, but it is, ultimately, the responsibility of the DM to make changes in the game world to reflect the consequences of the choices of the player. In addition, the world still needs to change (and in some cases grow) to keep the players interested in the game.
I agree that a living world is a nice thing to have in a campaign and I always try to create one in the campaigns I run. However, that said, in such a world, how do the players really know that the consequences they are seeing are caused by the 5MWD and not by pre-determined plot points that progress the story. For example, the party took too long retrieving some ingredient for medicine and so the local noble died of some disease. The party could easily look at that and conclude that the noble was going to die no matter what they did (since it happened when they were not around and off-screen) and might never make the connection with the 5MWD (ie. just because you said it was because we took too long, we know you could have had the noble die even if got the medicine in an hour).
Now, just to pre-empt some criticism on players being able to intervene in a story. I consider this a separate issue then the party doing something successfully that was unexpected and also separate from the DM railroading players. In a game with consequences, as you suggest, having relevant consequences implies the existence of an ongoing story and one with events that take place off-screen that the players then learn about. Such a story can also easily feature plot points and story elements that are meant to progress some ongoing story and the player is not well equipped to separate such story points from consequences for taking too long by using the 5MWD thing.
@Cheethorne: I just answered Loki's bogus argument in the thread of crazy, and my answer also covers your question too. When players think that the DM is going to make certain things happen, it really takes them out of the world and strains their sense of disbelief. Players should be allowed to create their own stories.
Heroes should be carving their names in the world in unique ways, and sometimes they do that in ways we don't expect. I'll never forget the first time this big nasty boss I led up to for several adventures, who was going to be a recurring villain, got utterly wrecked through the most insane rolls on my own dice that I knew were not loaded. I was so angry. Yes, I was actually really angry, that ruined my whole story that I had planned out, the few but poignant plot twists, the foreshadowings, the symbolism, the whole Campbellian Journey that I wanted to put my players through....and then I realized the flaw in my thinking, and corrected it.
I stepped back, let the players take over, and the sessions practically ran themselves from then on. A really great essay that I'm probably going to post here soon, is called "Beg, Borrow, and Steal. (And Lie.) Another one written by the World of Darkness team. It deals with a minimalist approach in world and adventure design, and why that can sometimes even be best. Allowing the players to play their characters as they live and grow organically is one of the most rewarding experiences I have ever had. When I just gave it a chance, I realized that my unexpectedly dead super-villain was the best thing that happened to that campaign, and to this day consider it to be my best work, and it was hardly my work at all.
Now, I recognize that not everyone will agree with this philosophy, and that's okay. What I will do though, is encourage you to try it out a couple times before rejecting it. Now, there is nothing wrong with creating "Crisis points," which are moments where player characters will have to make choices and decide what to do, but the "story" will then hinge on what they do, and how they accomplishment. I now no longer know if they will kill my "big boss" or not. When my players started to realize that I was no longer controlling everything, and just let it all flow, they started to get a better appreciation of their own success, and actually started to fear real death a lot more, because it sunk in that I wasn't protecting them.
My God, I wish I knew twelve years ago what I know now.
I stopped reading that wall of text at the point where the OP started pretending that in-universe days were a relevant metric to character advancement. Judging by the other replies, it only got more unhinged from there.
A living game world is essential to "good" game and creating a living game world is ultimately the responsibility of the DM. Yes, the players can, do and should influence a world, but it is, ultimately, the responsibility of the DM to make changes in the game world to reflect the consequences of the choices of the player. In addition, the world still needs to change (and in some cases grow) to keep the players interested in the game.
I agree that a living world is a nice thing to have in a campaign and I always try to create one in the campaigns I run. However, that said, in such a world, how do the players really know that the consequences they are seeing are caused by the 5MWD and not by pre-determined plot points that progress the story. For example, the party took too long retrieving some ingredient for medicine and so the local noble died of some disease. The party could easily look at that and conclude that the noble was going to die no matter what they did (since it happened when they were not around and off-screen) and might never make the connection with the 5MWD (ie. just because you said it was because we took too long, we know you could have had the noble die even if got the medicine in an hour).
Now, just to pre-empt some criticism on players being able to intervene in a story. I consider this a separate issue then the party doing something successfully that was unexpected and also separate from the DM railroading players. In a game with consequences, as you suggest, having relevant consequences implies the existence of an ongoing story and one with events that take place off-screen that the players then learn about. Such a story can also easily feature plot points and story elements that are meant to progress some ongoing story and the player is not well equipped to separate such story points from consequences for taking too long by using the 5MWD thing.
You know honestly, each situation and each group of players have different needs, and I don't know your group's composition and dynamics. However, I would have gone through this progression in my last group.
First, you should involve the players early and provide some type of connection between the player and subject. This can be a personal connection or it can be something as simple as save my brother for a reward. During this phase, I would encourage the players to explore the subject's condition. When the players discover the sickness on their own (versus a situation where they are just told by someone), it involves them in the "story." I would use a broad skill set in this situation. The character with the heal skill would do a diagnosis. From there, various skills can come into play. For example, History could give them a clue as to where to look and maybe provide some recon (there's goblins in that area). Arcana could provide some insight if the ingredient is a magical reagent (which might hook the wizard ). I would involve as many players as I can. You can't force them, but you can prepare with the intention of involving all of them. I'll also point out that you need to know the player's character. A player with a relavent skill may not know that he or she has a relavent skill. If the wizard asks, "Does any of this sound familiar?" You can push him in the right direction. It is permissible to help push a low level and/or new group along some early on. If you get them in the habit of asking questions, they are more likely to participate. They won't need the push as much as they get into the game. When they discover these things on their own based on their character's skills, you need to make them think that their characters know the findings as a fact. This is where the DM and Player Dynamic really come into play. If you have a new group, you probably should explain that you don't lie about checks. They might fail a roll and get false data; however, you as the DM will give information based on the rolls. Then you have to make sure that your data that you plan on divulging "adds" up. This is just part of planning.
Second, you also want to set up the timeframe. I don't generally like a tight timeframe and avoid them when I can. That's just personal preference. I tend to give myself some play in the timeframe when possible. I wouldn't use an hour; I would use a couple of hours in your example. Actually, I would use a day or three for low level characters and add some travel time (the cure ain't next door after all; well most time ) to cut into that time. If you give a tight timeframe, it's real easy for the players to "lose" the game. With a looser timeframe, you can still "reward" the party for "playing hard" as long as they are still in the ballpark.
So, to summarize:
You should foster a good DM / Player dynamic. I use skill rolls, among other things, to help fulfill this. It represents what the player's character knows to be true, and you need to make sure that the players understand this (also let them know about a character not knowing everything and the possibility of failing a roll). Basically, don't tell the player; tell the character and reinforce that as much as possible. If the party's healer ends up saying, "He's going to die without this stuff"; it's better than you telling the player those "facts".
Involve the players early in the plot. The game is about their story. I don't know if you do this or not; however, alot of new DMs do make the mistake of handing the adventure to the players and expecting them to run with it. Don't hand the adventure to them; make them find the adventure as much as possible. It gives them a personal investment.
I advise, especially with a new group, to keep a looser timeframe over a tight timeframe. This allows for some mistakes, on the DM's part and player's part, while still having a ticking clock. Sometimes a player will look "at the clock" and realize that they are going to fail with a tight timeframe, and they just give up. I avoid this with new groups. The early adventures is where a player picks up habits; quitting ain't a good habit. In addition, DMing is more about adapting to situations than controlling situations. I prefer giving myself some wiggle room to make adapting alittle easier.
I stopped reading that wall of text at the point where the OP started pretending that in-universe days were a relevant metric to character advancement. Judging by the other replies, it only got more unhinged from there.
And I stopped reading the moment I saw the explenation, because it is a misrepresentation (or too much of a simplification at best) of the people clammering for a mechanical fix. Thank you for pointing out I should have read a little bit further for some laughs As if a group of players, barring actual story consequences, would care one bit whether they level in one in game day or in three. Players care about the leveling rate over actual real life time spend gaming*, and since most DMs resolve an extended rest in 5 seconds game time ("you sleep 6 hours and are back at the dungeon"), and fights at full strength actually take less time, the group often resting will in general level faster in real life time than the one going on as lang as possible.
In the end, I don't have the 5MWD problem in my games, but I do clammer for a mechanical sollution. My problem is that I as a DM have to spend time and energy on avoiding it (in fact, as a player I have to do the same) - time and energy I feel are better spend on other things. Simple. I am on the other hand also a fan of the strategy aspect of daily resources, so for me simply removing daily resources is not a good sollution.
* I seem to remember WotC having investigated this and concluding that the typical player wants a leveling rate of once per 5 4-hour gaming sessions.
I'd consider that a bit on the long side, since it results in it taking 100 sessions to get a character through their lifespan. 150 if you care about the bottom and extreme top of the progression.
I'll note that 4e developed an emergent solution to the daily nova problem in the form of most dailies having relatively stringent use conditions to be better than just using your encounter powers. Between "bail out" powers and optimization around the general case, people usually end up sitting on dailies due to it rarely being worth the effort to use them except for emergencies or cool factor when you KNOW it's the last fight you'll have.
As if a group of players, barring actual story consequences, would care one bit whether they level in one in game day or in three. Players care about the leveling rate over actual real life time spend gaming*, and since most DMs resolve an extended rest in 5 seconds game time ("you sleep 6 hours and are back at the dungeon"), and fights at full strength actually take less time, the group often resting will in general level faster in real life time than the one going on as lang as possible.