• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

shoak1

Banned
Banned
@shoak1 Based on your comments throughout the discussion, I have to ask...and I mean this 100% sincerely...why have you chosen to play 5th Edition rather than 4th or 3.x/Pathfinder? What are the strengths if 5E as they pertain to your desired style? Why are the two prior editions of the game not suited for your desired playstyle?

I'm genuinely curious.

4e was great as an example of DM Light and Big Challenge, but it was a complete departure from traditional D and D in the whole "power" thing, so it just didn't feel like D and D, and had some issues with length of encounters and OP PCs at higher level. 3.5 was great as far as DM Light and Big Challenge but there was a huge imbalance in power and fun between casters vs. non casters.

5e fixes the caster/non-caster problems of 3.5 and brings fun and balance to playing any class. But I hate the reactionary Big DM ("DM Empowerment" lol) and Big Story focus of 5e as well as the simplification and the incomplete/imbalanced /scattershot ruleset (it seems like it just missed final editing).
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

shoak1

Banned
Banned
Let me crystalize my point here re the path D and D has taken:

First, about me: I have played wargames, board games, rpgs, card, and computer games extensively beginning in 1976ish. First was D and D and wargames - then came the computer game versions of those along with Magic The Gathering. Then came extensive computer games and the strategy board games like Eurogames and Ameritrash. Played em all. I've gone to dozens of conventions of all genres and probably averaged playing 30 hours a week for the last 40 years. So I have extensive experience with gamers of all types.

Back in the day D and D was huge. But the influx of computer games and strategy board games started drawing peeps into Gamist mode, and they eschewed the Big Story and Big DM style of D and D. So you had an aging non-growing D and D fan base.

Then out came 4e to attract the gamists. But it went too far and alienated the D and D core. So in an effort to recapture that aging core 5e comes out proclaiming to be for everyone. The problem is that it was clearly made by Big DM and Big Story peeps who didn't really understand what really was needed to attract and keep the gamists (Big Challenge). Thus sales are big - of course they are - the core has returned. But its an aging core. And I can tell you that while 5e might have better sales than 4e (I have no idea actually), its nowhere near as dominant of a market share of games in general as it used to be. Its a sad remnant of its former self relegated to a niche market. Many of its supporters on this forum actually proudly proclaim that its not for everyone and actively encourage those detractors in this forum to take it or leave it - to go play a board game or computer/video game if you dont like Big DM and/or want Big Challenge !!!!

It's a shame really because 4e had the right idea - attract gamists and GROW!!! But they went too far and we had a revolution - and the revolutionaries are zealous in their grip on the game. These forums are a good example - dominated by Big DM and Big Story peeps (mostly old guard) - new players and DMs worried about balance get told they shouldn't keep their gamist thoughts and ideas like Big Challenge and DM Light ("Lemmee get this straight - you're saying our DM should just make stuff up and change rules as he thinks is best? What kind of game is this?!?!? DM Empowerment??? What about the players?!?!"). Now I see only two likely courses for D and D: a cycle of revolution counter revolution, or worse yet a slow and quiet death as the fan base ages.
 
Last edited:

Tony Vargas

Legend
...why have you chosen to play 5th Edition rather than 4th or 3.x/Pathfinder?
.
Its really not such a strange choice to support the current edition, even if you find it's not as good in some way. There is the benefit of engaging with the community in a positive way. DMing takes a certain energy and being part of that can help keep it charged, if that makes any sense. Also, addressing the games weaknesses helps to overcome them, in the immediate sense of finding solutions that work for you, and helping others find the same, and in the broader sense of awareness of them, which could, conceivably contribute, indirectly to the game improving over time. It also makes sense to introduce new players to the current face of the game, to keep the hobby growing & vibrant - or at least from fading into oblivion.

What are the strengths if 5E as they pertain to your desired style? Why are the two prior editions of the game not suited for your desired playstyle?.
For all the above reasons, there really don't need to be, 5e could be strictly inferior to 4e in every way, and it still wouldn't make sense to support it at the expense of 5e - because you really can't support a dead ed that can't be legally cloned & supported.

The choice is harder with PF, and potentially more about Paizo and it's much better support for both cloned game and 'rebellious' fans. Just have to follow your conscience on that one. In term of systems I find it hard to make a case for PF or 5e over the other. 3.x/PF has far more player choice and PC customization, and much more voluminous support, 5e has the classic feel and DM Empowerment. I often think the ideal would be to run 5e, but play PF, which has an obvious downside of everyone did it.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
4e modules were.....awesome.
Based both on the ones I've run and the ones I've read but not run, I'll grant they have some decent features...but awesome? Not so much, for the most part. (with one notable exception that I'm aware of: Madness at Gardmore Abbey - which I own and have read through - looks quite interesting and well-designed, though I've yet to run it)

DCs aplenty
I'll give them this one. Good variance here.

encounter to encounter design
To me this is a bug rather than a feature, as I prefer there be some exploration between the encounters - sometimes a completely empty room generates as much tension as a room full of foes. I'm also not a fan of linear adventure design with no junctions or choice points - i.e. to get to the 5th encounter you have absolutely no choice but to slog through encounters 1 2 3 and 4 whether you want to or not - and some 4e modules are very bad for this.

And balanced encounters.
Sometimes too much so - I'd rather see a fairly wide range of CR/EL equivalents within a module, from near-pushover to edge-of-the-seat best-to-run-away levels. Some of the 4e modules tend to have a rather narrow range of encounter levels.

The one thing that 4e modules generally do accomplish very well indeed - which I'm surprised you don't note - is the dramatic set-piece memorable battle using varied terrain, a spread of opponents, and giving lots of tactical options for both PCs and their foes. Every 4e module I've seen has at least 2 or 3 of these, interspersed between lesser encounters and battles.

However - and quite germaine to the thread topic - the one thing that stood out to me when I started converting and running 4e modules (KotS in particular) is their seeming expectation that the party will probably blast through the whole adventure - or certainly great big chunks of it - in one run, without resting at all. Part of that, I think, is because 4e allows much faster resource recovery than earlier editions and (particularly the early) modules were written so as to highlight this. But it's a bloody nuisance when trying to convert for a non-4e game. :)

Lan-"Marauders of the Dune Sea, converted for 1e and with a little tweaking to add some choice points and extra passages in the dungeon part, actually played out really well"-efan
 

shoak1

Banned
Banned
To me this is a bug rather than a feature, as I prefer there be some exploration between the encounters - sometimes a completely empty room generates as much tension as a room full of foes. I'm also not a fan of linear adventure design with no junctions or choice points - i.e. to get to the 5th encounter you have absolutely no choice but to slog through encounters 1 2 3 and 4 whether you want to or not - and some 4e modules are very bad for this.

Yeah 4e was great for DM Light and Big Challenge, bad for Big Empowered DM and Big Story.

Sometimes too much so - I'd rather see a fairly wide range of CR/EL equivalents within a module, from near-pushover to edge-of-the-seat best-to-run-away levels. Some of the 4e modules tend to have a rather narrow range of encounter levels.

Again good for DM Light and Big Challenge, bad for Big Empowered DM and Big Story. Can you see why I see 5e as reactionary and not as The Game To Unite Us?


The one thing that 4e modules generally do accomplish very well indeed - which I'm surprised you don't note - is the dramatic set-piece memorable battle using varied terrain, a spread of opponents, and giving lots of tactical options for both PCs and their foes. Every 4e module I've seen has at least 2 or 3 of these, interspersed between lesser encounters and battles.

Yes, thank you for noting, I agree.

However - and quite germaine to the thread topic - the one thing that stood out to me when I started converting and running 4e modules (KotS in particular) is their seeming expectation that the party will probably blast through the whole adventure - or certainly great big chunks of it - in one run, without resting at all. Part of that, I think, is because 4e allows much faster resource recovery than earlier editions and (particularly the early) modules were written so as to highlight this. But it's a bloody nuisance when trying to convert for a non-4e game. :)

Right but since the CR and budgets in 4e were so spot on, and the linear path so clear, it was exceedingly easy to then tweak for the rest problem. In 5e, the rest problem, spotty accuracy of the CRs/ELs, and the sandboxy nature make it an utter wreck when looking for DM Light or Big Challenge. I think that's why its so hard for sandbox guys in 5e (especially DMs who didn't play much 4e) to appreciate playing the way we did in 4e. I'm often seen as a bit of a pariah here when in reality I'm just playing the way that was supported in 3.5 and 4e.

To be honest its easier for me to convert a 4e module to 5e than it is to convert a 5e module with its Big Empowered DM / Big Story style into DM Light and Big Challenge. But either way its a lot of work. And it would be nice to get an ounce of support from the alleged Game To Unite the Edition Factions (pouty face).
 
Last edited:

outsider

First Post
He confuses me, too. ;) In GNS BS terms he's an "incoherent" combination of gamism & simulationism. ;P 4e incoherence tended more towards gamism + narrativism.

Yeah, that's basically why I loved 4e. What I want is a challenging game with a strong/fun mechanical focus, with a thematic focus on group storytelling rather than creating a consistent fantasy physics simulator. What I like may not be totally coherent, but I loved it when I got it. :)

I can basically grok what shoak1 is looking for, and tbh I could probably have a fair amount of fun playing with him(due to us both seemingly having strong gamist preferences), but what he's playing isn't exactly what I'm looking for either.
 
Last edited:

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Again good for DM Light and Big Challenge, bad for Big Empowered DM and Big Story.
I really fail to see how having a wide range of CR/EL's within a module rather than a narrow range is bad for anyone.

I think that's why its so hard for sandbox guys in 5e (especially DMs who didn't play much 4e) to appreciate playing the way we did in 4e. I'm often seen as a bit of a pariah here when in reality I'm just playing the way that was supported in 3.5 and 4e.
I never played 4e, though I have and have read the (first set of) core three books and some other material.

That said, 4e - like any D&D - could still be run as a sandbox on the large scale if one so desired, and using modules with lots of choice points and exploration on the small scale; and were I ever to run it* I'd probably do just that. The main thing I'd have a difficult time with, I think, would be keeping it playable with a much much much slower level advancement such that the campaign could go on long enough (at least several years) to be worthwhile without the PCs' levels getting too stratospheric.

* - don't get yer hopes up; if I ever do change systems it would probably be to a greatly-modified 5e.

To be honest its easier for me to convert a 4e module to 5e than it is to convert a 5e module with its Big Empowered DM / Big Story style into DM Light and Big Challenge.
From what I understand, converting any module into 4e is trickier than converting a 4e module out to something else. I know the outward conversions I've done (from 4e to 1e) haven't been as much work as I thought they might be going in; but then my conversions are fairly general in nature most of the time.

And it would be nice to get an ounce of support from the alleged Game To Unite the Edition Factions (pouty face).
Well, AEDU is kinda still there if you look closely - A is still A, E is vaguely mirrored by short-rest, D is clearly mirrored by long-rest, and U is kinda maybe reflected by rituals.

I wonder if you'd very quickly get closer to what you're after if you dropped the short-rest mechanic and replaced it with per-encounter refreshment?

Lan-"throwing ideas at the virtual wall, to see if any virtually stick"-efan
 

shoak1

Banned
Banned
I really fail to see how having a wide range of CR/EL's within a module rather than a narrow range is bad for anyone.

Because too little challenge is....boring - if you are a Big Challenge guy. And too high an EL is not a challenge either, its a wipe.

I never played 4e, though I have and have read the (first set of) core three books and some other material.

In retrospect that's probably why you had difficulty seeing my general playstyle as common and normal (though not the most common style) as opposed to exceptional.

I wonder if you'd very quickly get closer to what you're after if you dropped the short-rest mechanic and replaced it with per-encounter refreshment?

Long rests would still be a problem.
 

Obryn

Hero
Ah, so uncoupling it from sleep or in-game character downtime completely and making it a purely game-mechanical thing.

Could work, I suppose, but I'd rather go the other direction and tie it to character actions (as in, sleeping).
Not quite what I said - I said tying it to the game-mechanical encounter 'clock.' You still need your token rests to get there, but keeping those durations vague and prohibiting early rests.

Based both on the ones I've run and the ones I've read but not run, I'll grant they have some decent features...but awesome? Not so much, for the most part.
Generally, WotC's 4e adventure design was terrible. As in everything 4e and WotC, they got way better at it after it was too late.

The first few Zeitgeist 4e adventures are damn near perfect showcases of what the edition's adventures should be like, IMO.

Lan-"Marauders of the Dune Sea, converted for 1e and with a little tweaking to add some choice points and extra passages in the dungeon part, actually played out really well"-efan
Oh man, that one was really terrible. I really, really hated it and refused to run it. :) I kickstarted my own game with Bloodsand Arena from Free RPG Day followed by some Tomb adventure from Dungeon.

I never played 4e, though I have and have read the (first set of) core three books and some other material.
This is a very internet thing to say. :angel:

From what I understand, converting any module into 4e is trickier than converting a 4e module out to something else. I know the outward conversions I've done (from 4e to 1e) haven't been as much work as I thought they might be going in; but then my conversions are fairly general in nature most of the time.
It is a harder process, yes. You can't just take a 1e adventure and put some orcs or bugbears in a dozen rooms and call it a day. (That is one reason Keep on the Shadowfell is such a terrible adventure to use for showcasing the edition. Hell, most of the HPE series - excepting H2 and P2 - are just plain terrible.)

shoak1 will probably disagree with me, but I have found that 4e works best for me and my table with minimal filler fights. Almost every encounter should drive the story or adventure forward. Most published 4e adventures don't operate with this philosophy, and IMO they suffered greatly as a result.

(Yes, you can also run 4e as a sandboxy game, but still with the same questions - Does this fight mean anything? Is it in an interesting spot with interesting opponents? What will be accomplished, win or lose? Or you can stick with it as a tactical resource game, and just go to town like shoak1 is doing and which I'm not.)
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Yeah 4e was great for DM Light and Big Challenge, bad for Big Empowered DM and Big Story.
Obviously, I tend towards the latter. I was fine with running 4e, both at encounters, which tended towards the former, because it was just very easy to pick up and run an Encounters module (prior to the crystal cave and MiBG, anyway), and in my own games, which were more 'Big Story.'

. Can you see why I see 5e as reactionary and not as The Game To Unite Us?
Well of course it's reactionary, but it's also the One Edition to unite them all (...and in the Darkness Bind Them) ;p

. In 5e, the rest problem, spotty accuracy of the CRs/ELs, and the sandboxy nature make it an utter wreck when looking for DM Light or Big Challenge.
5e is not innately sandboxy, the DM can take it either way...

The main thing I'd have a difficult time with, I think, would be keeping it playable with a much much much slower level advancement such that the campaign could go on long enough (at least several years) to be worthwhile without the PCs' levels getting too stratospheric.
Adjusting overall advancement in a campaign like that is as simple as applying a divisor to exp awards. NBD.

From what I understand, converting any module into 4e is trickier than converting a 4e module out to something else.
Converting via some sort of formula was problematic in either direction, because 'level' had a much more consistent mapping to challenge in 4e, so encounters were pretty close to a specific level of challenge.

However, because prep in 4e was so easy, you could 'convert' a module very simply, but not trying to do so precisely. For instance, when I converted Temple of the From from 0e to Essentials, I looked through the monsters in the module, and found a preponderance of them were around 9th-level appropriate in 4e, so I pegged the pregens at 8th level, and the monsters that were far below that range I minionized or aggregated into swarms. Then I tossed together and infiltration skill challenge to quickly get into the dungeon (TotF could be used as a centerpiece, virtually of a campaign, I was running it in one sessions at a convention) and an exploration skill challenge to navigate the dungeon if the party got bored with mapping (which, in both the playtest & at the convention, they did, quickly).

I've I'd tried to convert every creature by some sort of apply a formula to every stat conversion guideline, it'd've been not only tedious, the result would likely have been unusuable.

Going the other direction, I converted both the first part of HoS and the Twisting Halls to 5e, and, well, it didn't go so well. For one thing, this was shortly after 5e release, so I didn't have the full encounter guidelines, bunches of kobolds looked just fine by the encounter guidelines, but were overwhelming thanks to BA. I pulled all sorts of cheap DM tricks to avoid the TPKs I had running HotDQ in let-the-dice-fall-where-they-may 'playtest mode,' so the result was salvageable.
In contrast, converting B2 and H1 to 5e was barely even a conversion process - I'd invert ACs as I went, that was about it, it meant some monsters hps were a little low, but I could fudge those if they seemed too easy.
Well, AEDU is kinda still there if you look closely - A is still A, E is vaguely mirrored by short-rest, D is clearly mirrored by long-rest, and U is kinda maybe reflected by rituals.

Well, AEDU is kinda still there if you look closely - A is still A, E is vaguely mirrored by short-rest, D is clearly mirrored by long-rest, and U is kinda maybe reflected in rituals
Rituals reflect Rituals in 4e. AEDU was not just the presence of an intermediate recharge period in addition to D&D's traditional at will and n/day usages
(apropos of little, there were obscure n/hr, min, round, turn (10min), week, fortnight, month, and year recharges in AD&D, and I'd be surprised if, in all the published 3.x material there wasn't something that recharged more often than daily) - that'd've been AED, as the Utilities were, individually on one of those schedules, too.
Rather, AEDU refered to the resource advancement that all classes more or less used, rather like how all classes in 5e use the same proficiency progression.
AEDU meant that classes stayed roughly balanced regardless of day length. A campaign's pacing was thus freer to vary than it had been before or since. The Elephant was more of a mouse in 4e...

... But it was still a potential issue, iff you wanted a resource-attrition-based challenge reminiscent of a traditional dungeon.


I wonder if you'd very quickly get closer to what you're after if you dropped the short-rest mechanic and replaced it with per-encounter refreshment?
That could give you more consistent encounter balance, and I wouldn't consider making short-rest-recharges classes 'OP' too much of a risk, so it's a possibility, not to restore the benefits of AEDU (class balance &c), but as one step towards reducing the pacing issues this thread was originally about.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top