General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Changing encounters to dailies will have the result of players wanting to reinvent the 5-minute work day, the phenomon to which encounter powers were designed remove. I'm assuming that you would not want or allow this, since it does the exact oppossite of what you are trying to do (i.e., more extended rests effectively make Daily powers into Encounter powers).
Encounters will also become harder to balance. As it's already been pointed out, encounters assume that encounter powers will be used every encounter. However, what I haven't seen pointed out already is that monsters, unlike players, will have no reason to convserve their Daily powers.
It really does not sound like a fun change to me, but to each their own.
__________________ Law's Game Style: Storyteller 83%, Tactician 75%, Specialist 67%, Method Actor 58%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 25%, Butt-Kicker 17%
How do you think this impacts the player's ability to strategize?
Not at all, I'd guess, except they have to convince the DM that they can take an extended rest here and now instead of running out the clock. Giving the DM that extra bit of responsiblity in making a judgement call might be a good thing for the game.
Remember, the goal isn't to shaft the players.
The goal is to prevent/avoid the one encounter a day fights that the players are otherwise entitled to. I completely understand that players won't want to give up an advantage if they don't have to, despite how the game becomes objectively worse (because one encounter a day fights are robbed of excitement and strategizing of resources).
If the rules already in the first place support the notion of multi-day strings of encounters then the burden of voluntarily abstaining from an advantage doesn't fall on the players.
Now, with that out of the way, to your question...
Yes, if the DM (ab)uses this new rule to always keep players in the dark as to when and where they might take an extended rest, everything becomes guesswork and something (important) is lost from the game.
So I believe the DM should be clear on what conditions need to be fulfilled in order for the PCs to take their extended rest; as much as possible (without completely breaking world immersion).
As for the desert trek, the DM can tell the adventurers how many days they think they have left until they reach the next oasis (or whatever). Of course you can have seven encounters in one day, or you could have gotten lost in the desert (adding traveling time), but ideally, there should at least be hints that point towards these facts for purposes of resource conservation ("you're probably lost, so hang on to your dailies and surges").
As for the Mummy's dungeon, I think it works best if the DM tells the players outright how many extended rests he's allocated ("you have time for one meal, so that's one extended rest").
Different adventures require different amounts of extended rests, and this way makes for a tighter integration between rules and adventure. 4E is very gamist anyway, so allowing two rests in the Catacombs of Chill while you get five in the Haunted House of Horrors (despite how there might be no "reality"-related reason for the difference) is not a problem in my view.
Allowing the players to "convince" the DM to give out extra extended rests might work too, of course - it's not a board game, and leaving things up to the DM will by definition be for the best.
However, as long as the game does not impose any kind of penalty for taking an extended rest (except the incredibly vague notion of "some adventures run by the clock and resting might have consequences"), I think this should be used sparingly.
If at all. Games-wise, what's appropriate here is to use in-game tools to procure extra Extended Rests. Don't remember its name off-hand, but there was one ritual that gave you the benefits of on additional extended rest.
Just begging the DM for extra rests should have consequences, and ideally these should be codified by the adventure. Perhaps one extra rest adds additional monsters. Perhaps you need to concede defeat for the second (that is, by taking that second extended rest, the Dark Lord eats the princess, and you will have to move on to the next adventure).
What I mean by all of this, I guess, is that begging the DM for more extended rests is hardly an interesting strategy. Strategy would instead be what you have today ("should we explore these rooms or go straight for the Mummy?") only expanded into all kinds of adventures.
What I meant by "convincing the DM" was something like - you set up a great place to rest, there's a font of healing nearby, the doors are barred and the temple to Pelor has been reconsecrated - why shouldn't we get an extended rest?
I think if you go all "gamist" you lose something; players will just start thinking, "We'll get extended rests when the DM lets us, there's nothing we can do." However, if the DM remains impartial and takes a look at what's going on in the game world, then players can influence when they can grab that extended rest (by influencing the game world through their characters).
None of that is opposed to your idea, though.
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
The thing is, your encounter powers are tactical opportunities to alter any encounter. Changing this would grant the perception that your only major options are charge, at-will A, and at-will B. Humans and Druids become uberpowerful just because they add an option C.
Even if you altered the challenge level, you haven't compensated for the loss in complexity. Joe-Fighter who just wants to roll a d20 then a damage die then go back to sleep will excel in this campaign.
I think it might depend on the dungeon. A relatively static dungeon (e.g. mostly traps, undead and constructs that defend a specific room or area and do not patrol) would probably require the least changes. Narratively, the PCs take on a room, expend most of their "encounter" resources, and rest a day.
For more dynamic dungeons where more encounters per day may be expected, the DM would have to use a lower XP budget for each encounter. A party may thus end up facing one or two equal-level opponents per encounter (or one opponent plus a few minions), or more lower-level opponents.
Precisely. So either it will slow down the pace, or you have to make easier encounters. Pretty much what I said.
__________________
355 hours played
Gnoguh, human fighter/cleric (kensei->adamantine soldier)
Carric, elf cleric/ranger (radiant servant->saint)
Torn, tiefling wizard/cleric (divine oracle->sages of ages)
Truxas, human feylock/bard (feytouched->feyliege)
Tagron, human rogue (daggermaster->deadly trickster) 21th level Musings of an Epic Virgin
Encounters will also become harder to balance. As it's already been pointed out, encounters assume that encounter powers will be used every encounter. However, what I haven't seen pointed out already is that monsters, unlike players, will have no reason to convserve their Daily powers.
Most monsters would not have daily powers, though.
Quote:
It really does not sound like a fun change to me, but to each their own.
That's an interesting perspective. Could I ask what it is, specifically, that makes the change seem less fun to you? Is it because the need to narrate short rests as six hours long instead of five minutes long makes the PCs seem less heroic? Is it because it reduces the number of viable narratives or requires mechanical changes to make some of them work, e.g. DMs have to avoid missions with short time limits or use fights with a smaller XP budget?
The thing is, your encounter powers are tactical opportunities to alter any encounter. Changing this would grant the perception that your only major options are charge, at-will A, and at-will B. Humans and Druids become uberpowerful just because they add an option C.
Even if you altered the challenge level, you haven't compensated for the loss in complexity. Joe-Fighter who just wants to roll a d20 then a damage die then go back to sleep will excel in this campaign.
Tactical players will get bored very quickly.
The underlying assumption appears to be that the PCs will be faced with more than one fight per day. That approach is certainly possible, if the DM reduces the XP budget per encounter. However, if the standard assumption is that the players will face one encounter per day instead of multiple encounters per day, that single encounter could have all the tactical richness of a standard encounter under the regular 4e time frame. The players will just have to trust that the DM will not spring more than one encounter before they take a six-hour rest, in much the same way that players trust that the DM will not spring another encounter on them before they take a five-minute rest.
Precisely. So either it will slow down the pace, or you have to make easier encounters. Pretty much what I said.
However, all the slowing down takes place in the game narrative, not at the table. After all, it is just as easy for the DM to say, "You rest for six hours and get all your encounter abilities back." as it is for the DM to say, "You rest for five minutes and get all your encounter abilities back."
However, all the slowing down takes place in the game narrative, not at the table. After all, it is just as easy for the DM to say, "You rest for six hours and get all your encounter abilities back." as it is for the DM to say, "You rest for five minutes and get all your encounter abilities back."
Do you consider this an issue and if so, why?
You'd have to ask yourself it is reasonable to assume that it takes the party to wait one day between encounters. You naturally don't have to play this out, just as you do it with most extended rests. But it still raises the question - what are the PCs doing all day? And so you might actually want to add non-combat encounters in between to not make it appear as if the PCs sit down and sleep half the day, then run into some monsters, beat them up, and sit down again.
Of course, not that these concerns stopped the 15 minute adventuring day in 3.x for those that had it.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
However, all the slowing down takes place in the game narrative, not at the table.
Yes, but part of the enjoyment is the narrative. Consider what it would look like if you turned your game into a book afterward. Would the pace be exciting?
The players will notice that the narrative effectively says, "Your progress is slow." Even if the player activity in a game session is the same, the game-world time passing will be noted, and it will be disappointing.
While emulating specific fiction isn't really D&D's thing, the fact of the matter is that player expectations are partly set by heroic fiction (novels and movies). Heroes don't take a month to take on the Evil Wizard's castle, unless there's a siege involved. Conan doesn't stop for a 6 hour nap after taking on one fight. Heroes keep on rolling!
I love the idea of divorcing world-time and time required for short/extended rests. It makes you able to run different types of adventures out of the norm.
The one that comes to mind is a kind of political adventure with a lot of skill challenges and roleplaying, over a long period of time. With the normal rest system, the party is at the top of their game for every combat, as you might only have 1 combat encounter in a single day. But if you make every day a short rest and every week an extended rest, it gets a bit more interesting combat-wise.
However, trying to codify a single system or change won't work. It is absolutely dependent on the type of adventure you are trying to run.
One idea I want to play around with to flesh out adventures while keeping the long workweeks is "level 0 minions." These are your basic red-shirts. They exist solely for the PCs to mop the floor with them. They present absolutely no physical danger to the PCs. If they players attack them, they die. Their sole purpose for existing are for roleplaying combats and to populate dungeons, etc. without greatly increasing the difficulty of the adventure.
However, all the slowing down takes place in the game narrative, not at the table. After all, it is just as easy for the DM to say, "You rest for six hours and get all your encounter abilities back." as it is for the DM to say, "You rest for five minutes and get all your encounter abilities back."
Do you consider this an issue and if so, why?
As others have pointed out, this is the 15 minute adventuring day.
And you bet I want to know what my character's been doing all day. I will not, normally, accept a hand wave. As usual, however, some will love it, some will hate it, and some won't even notice the difference!
__________________ Scrag 'em all and let the gods sort 'em out!
IMHO, I think this system could work decently well for intrigue or city driven adventures where one encounter a day or so is the norm. It may even be better suited for that style so not every fight is nova'd.
That said, if you head into dungeons you'll be quickly moving into the 15 minute dungeon days unless you dramatically shift the expected XP budget for each encounter.
True, but this might not sit well with players and DMs who have a more simulationist approach and would prefer to tie the recovery of certain abilities to a specific period of rest.
Not to start a SNG fight, but 4e takes Simulationism out by the woodshed and beats the tar out of it.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
