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

[seebs]

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.

Yeah, it's like how much it's sucked for Apple going from being pretty much the primary provider of computers (Apple II or so era) to elementary schools to a smallish share of the computers-in-schools market. Clearly, the most important thing is to try to make a thing absolutely everyone likes, and not to figure out what you're good at, be good at it, and let other people do other things without being driven into jealous fury.

 

[Lanefan]

I had suggested that D and D 5e is a much smaller fraction of the market share of GAMES (not just RPGs) than say 2e was.

I'd hazard a guess that every non-CCG game out there that has been around since the 2e era has a smaller fraction of the market now than it did then.

I had suggested further that 5e has done better in total sales than 4e (but much worse than 3/3.5) because the rpgers came back - NOT because of their success at attracting the GAMISTS.

This also makes sense: the gamists had 4e, thus would be less likely to jumpt to a less-gamist 5e. The rest of us, however, kinda sat out the 4e era...or diverted to Pathfinder.

As for comparing with 3e and 3.5e (and I'm intentionally splitting those out), a repeat of the boom that happened when 3e came out was never likely for 5e. 3e, for all its flaws, just happened to be the right thing at the right time as D&D came out of a dark ages period called the late 2e era. 3.5e was more of a follow-on.

Either way, when WotC even takes the most casual look and sees this:

3e - successful
PF - successful
4e - much less successful
OSR - successful (relative to anyone's expectations)

It's not a big leap of logic to see where 5e is going to go.

I had suggested further that 5e will suffer a long slow death if it fails to reach out into the GAMISTS that dominate gaming across most genres.

5e, as with any e, will probably suffer a long slow descent - which may or may not lead to its death - regardless; though I congratulate WotC on taking steps to give it legs (e.g. keeping bloat to a minimum, giving a sense of ownership to DMs by intentionally making it kitbashable, etc.).

I base these assertions not just on strong anecdotal evidence (how many people I run into that play D and D)

The only way I can refute that is by offering my own equally-unconvincing evidence, making this one a washout.

but on gaming conventions attendance

Convention attendance overall seems to be doing just fine these days, and the RPG sections within them never seem to have much room at the table.

game store playing

This one's a red herring. What matters is home play - those people who get together week after week or month after month and keep this train going. And beyond anecdotal evidence and maybe sales figures, this one's hard to measure - and made even harder by there being enough 5e material (legally) online to play a basic game without buying anything at all.

space dedicated in game stores/book stores to the game, the frequency of new products of the game coming out

I batched these two together as they are related. WotC have with 5e very intentionally taken a course of having fewer releases, but making each one significant. Gone - thankfully! - are the days of endless splats and bookshelves full of niche products and side products (and, let's face it, junk that the FLGS has to almost give away just to get rid of it)...which of course means that less bookshelf space will be required for it in the store. In fact, other than adventure modules and maybe a setting or two, what more releases does 5e even need? Maybe an equivalent to 1e's Unearthed Arcana at some point, to scoop up all the rulings and errata and tweaks into one place? Other than that... >shrug<

online buzz, and number of new blood postings in these forums.

Not sure if new blood in the forums is much of a measure, given as many people seem to be doing all their discussing on twitter and facebook and the like. Online buzz in general, I can't really speak to.

Lan-"role over, Beethoven"-efan

 

[CapnZapp]

There are other solutions to the "5-minute workday" problem of players resting too often. Probably the easiest is random encounters: For every short rest the players have to roll for a random encounter once, for every long rest they have to roll for a random encounter 4 times. Rolls a made with a d20, and rolling lower or equal to the "danger level" of the environment results in a random encounter. Danger level is 0 for sleeoing in an inn, 1 for sleeping in average outdoor surroundings, and up to 5 for sleeping in more dangerous places (like the middle of a dungeon).

The beauty of the system is that it is mostly cosmetic. That is to say that announcing a higher danger level is having a large psychological effect on most players, so that they'll automatically rest less frequently. But as a random encounter doesn't technically invalidate the benefit of a long rest, a group could still get to full health and spells after a night with several random combat encounters.

Except you need to *delay* those random monsters, until after they've emerged from the inn or magnificent mansion.

(Any discussion about wandering monsters that doesn't acknowledge the triviality of a Rope Trick or leomunds tiny hut (etc) I can't take seriously)

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Tony Vargas]

I had suggested that D and D 5e is a much smaller fraction of the market share of GAMES (not just RPGs) than say 2e was.

Especially if you consider 2e in the early 90s, before CCGs took off, rather than towards the end of it's run when it was bloated and TSR was collapsing around it.

I had suggested further that 5e has done better in total sales than 4e (but much worse than 3/3.5) because the rpgers came back - NOT because of their success at attracting the GAMISTS. I had suggested further that 5e will suffer a long slow death if it fails to reach out into the GAMISTS that dominate gaming across most genres.

I still have to take issue with your use of 'rpgers' to refer to returning D&D players (who, yes, have probably made 5e a success relative to other post-fad editions of the game - though, still, no hard nor complete numbers to back that up), and 'gamists' to refer to vast pool of gamers & potential gamers who have either never played (TT) D&D or tried it and walked away.

For one thing, approaching an RPG from a so-called gamist perspective /is/ still playing an RPG, you're as much a roleplayer as anyone else sitting at a D&D table. For another, no matter how much you may emphasize less GNS-'gamist' aspects of an RPG, you can't get away from the fact that it's a Game.

I'd hazard a guess that every non-CCG game out there that has been around since the 2e era has a smaller fraction of the market now than it did then.

Exactly. D&D relative to anything not restricted to the RPG market is tiny. Big fish, small pond. Shouldn't be news to anyone.

This also makes sense: the gamists had 4e, thus would be less likely to jumpt to a less-gamist 5e. The rest of us, however, kinda sat out the 4e era...or diverted to Pathfinder.

And that's just re-hashing the edition war. 5e is for fans of all past editions, including those who liked 4e. Which was as much 'narrativist' as 'gamist' in the ways it departed from D&D tradition, in it's vain attempt to win 'Core Brand' status with $50-100 million revenue for Hasbro.

As for comparing with 3e and 3.5e (and I'm intentionally splitting those out), a repeat of the boom that happened when 3e came out was never likely for 5e.

The d20 boom was really more of a consolidation than a boom. d20, and D&D in triumphant return as it's flagship, did very well, at the price of most other games then popular, most notably Storyteller.

It's not a big leap of logic to see where 5e is going to go.

Apparently it was a big leap, because they didn't just re-issue 2e or anything. They came up with a game with options that incorporated both the classic game and the d20 versions, and even left the door open to adequate support for 4e styles, though we've seen vanishingly little movement in that direction.

5e, as with any e, will probably suffer a long slow descent - which may or may not lead to its death

One positive of the brief WotC (pre-Hasbro) tenure was the SRD/OGL, which means D&D can never really die - at least, not 3e D&D, or now some of 5e, since it has a limited SRD out. People well always be able to clone them.

It's not just 5e, specifically, though, that is positioned to fade into history, it's the TTRPG hobby, in general. The main cause for hope is the crossover with the current boardgame boom drawing in new players who come to an FLGS for a board game, see D&D being played, and give it a try. Because, let's face it, there are still few other creadible entry points to the hobby, and D&D, while it has name recognition, is not the most welcoming, readily grasped, or easy to love game for new players.

What matters is home play - those people who get together week after week or month after month and keep this train going.

That's vital to keeping something going with a 'cult' status, but growth depends on more open & active play, in the public eye. Fortunately, there's a lot of that, we've had FLGS play programs since 2010, and RPG play as a spectator sport also from around that time, if not a bit earlier. Then there's social media, meetup, and the like. The hobby is out there, with D&D 5e is it's primary face.

Not sure if new blood in the forums is much of a measure, given as many people seem to be doing all their discussing on twitter and facebook and the like. Online buzz in general, I can't really speak to.

There is some 'new old blood' - I get people with join dates in the last few years telling me how they've been playing since the 70s or 80s.

There are other solutions to the "5-minute workday" problem of players resting too often. Probably the easiest is random encounters: For every short rest the players have to roll for a random encounter once, for every long rest they have to roll for a random encounter 4 times.

Freakishly, this adds a further impetus to rest early, while you're still fresh enough to handle the extra encounters you must fight for your rest.

The beauty of the system is that it is mostly cosmetic. .. as a random encounter doesn't technically invalidate the benefit of a long rest, a group could still get to full health and spells after a night with several random combat encounters.

I don't see that as a plus.

 

[Nupo]

There is some 'new old blood' - I get people with join dates in the last few years telling me how they've been playing since the 70s or 80s.

Raises hand.

 

[Nupo]

I haven't read all 82 pages of this thread, so if this was already covered I apologize. The original post complains about not wanting to do all the work and would rather use published adventures. Well all the published modules, adventure paths or what ever they are called these days that I have looked at seem like a heck of a lot of work. Heck most of them are novel length. I look at them and think that would take forever to read all that and figure out everything. Don't get me wrong, I love reading, but these things seem like a lot of work. To me it seems the easier path is to create it yourself. You don't have to spend all that time trying to figure out where someone else is going with it, and what's going on. Plus you get the advantage of being able to tailor it the the needs and preferences of your group of players. Saying all this, I haven't actually purchased an adventure since the early 80's. Every time I pick one up and look through it, I end up putting it back and making my own.

 

[clearstream]

There are other solutions to the "5-minute workday" problem of players resting too often. Probably the easiest is random encounters: For every short rest the players have to roll for a random encounter once, for every long rest they have to roll for a random encounter 4 times. Rolls a made with a d20, and rolling lower or equal to the "danger level" of the environment results in a random encounter. Danger level is 0 for sleeping in an inn, 1 for sleeping in average outdoor surroundings, and up to 5 for sleeping in more dangerous places (like the middle of a dungeon).

A useful analytical tool is to ask "How much interest is added for what cost at the table?" Our expectation of 1 random encounter (4 rolls x 25% in a dangerous place) is mechanically meaningful if our encounter-to-encounter travel times are such that resources expended won't be available for some subsequent series of encounters. If our encounter-to-encounter travel times are measured in days, we won't benefit from that potential interest. Hence we need to go further and make our cycle of rests match the temporal and spatial scale of our campaign.

The beauty of the system is that it is mostly cosmetic. That is to say that announcing a higher danger level is having a large psychological effect on most players, so that they'll automatically rest less frequently. But as a random encounter doesn't technically invalidate the benefit of a long rest, a group could still get to full health and spells after a night with several random combat encounters.

I can see two ways to go with this. One is of course to follow the designer FAQ which offers what for me is a frankly bizarre interpretation of the RAW, and that is unless combat comes to an hour in total it won't interrupt a long rest. In which case, the non-cosmetic consequence is limited to whatever resources are expended to deal with the random encounter(s). The other is to ignore the designer FAQ and say that combat does indeed interrupt a rest. I favour the latter because for me it pays out more mechanical interest for each random encounter's cost in time at the table.

 

[Tobold]

In which case, the non-cosmetic consequence is limited to whatever resources are expended to deal with the random encounter(s).

Actually RAW are even worse than that: The resources expended during the long rest are replenished at the end of that long rest.

That opens up an opportunity to play it like you thought, and replenish only resources spent before the long rest. That would at least give the encounter some consequence.

 

[Nupo]

I can see two ways to go with this. One is of course to follow the designer FAQ which offers what for me is a frankly bizarre interpretation of the RAW, and that is unless combat comes to an hour in total it won't interrupt a long rest.

I'm not familiar with 5e rules, but are rounds still six seconds? If so, an hour of combat would be 600 rounds!

 

[clearstream]

Actually RAW are even worse than that: The resources expended during the long rest are replenished at the end of that long rest.

That opens up an opportunity to play it like you thought, and replenish only resources spent before the long rest. That would at least give the encounter some consequence.

Ugh, what a gruesome point! Features recover when you "finish" a rest. That really makes a ruling that long rests can't be interrupted by anything less than an hour of combat risible.

FWIW my opinion is that Crawford's ruling moves away from the original intent of the wording. That's because no one with knowledge of the game could reasonably speak about combat as an interruption in terms of an hour. Hour long combats don't happen (yes, I know they are theoretically possible, and of course one might set up a mass battle scene that ran an hour, but they are too rare - too special case - to base a core rules wording upon). It's far more reasonable to suppose the sentence was NOT written with an hour of combat in mind (and the language admits of either reading). I frankly don't know why the retcon. Any speculation as to the point of it? Where is the value in denying DMs the obvious tool for interrupting long rests!?