Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Rest Variants (DMG pg. 267)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 9011100" data-attributes="member: 6777737"><p>I don't entirely understand the question, but not in the way you think I don't understand it. </p><p></p><p>These optional rules are designed to alter the play style and change the entire campaign's tone. Now, of course, these rules are too simple to <em>fully </em>effect the change they're claiming they make. They're too brief to do that. But they're a reasonable starting point for most tables that are looking for a different play experience. They do still change the tone of the campaign and the style of play at the table <em>significantly</em>.</p><p></p><p>Asking if I "like" or "dislike" these optional rules is asking what style of play I like, but, like a lot of online discussions on short rests, this feels like someone trying to sell gritty survival rules as a panacea to the twin problems of short-rest-reliant classes and the 6-8 adventuring day.</p><p></p><p>So it's asking people to conflate the rest and recovery system working well with a style of play they don't want to use. That's not useful. It's like telling people to play a different game. Worse, it ignores that WotC chose the default style of play that they did on purpose. D&D at the default rules is what WotC's market research has shown most tables want when they imagine D&D. Nothing else makes sense. If the game can't provide that midline style of play that the default rules are intended to provide, then <em>the game is fundamentally broken</em>. It's what the game fundamentally needs to be primarily designed for, and it's failing at that design. It's okay if gritty survival or epic heroism doesn't work that well because they're less popular, but it's unacceptable if the default rules fall apart. And that's precisely where we are.</p><p></p><p>People want the default style of play. But the short-rest-reliant classes don't work well, and the adventuring day designed to facilitate that design also doesn't work well. It was supposed to encourage short rests, but instead it just results in unhappy fighters, warlocks, and monks. Changing the rest schedule will force the PCs to short rest, but it does so by changing the style of play, which makes the entire table unhappy.</p><p></p><p>If your table loves it, great, but there's no reason to think that it's what everyone wants. It's not a solution. It's a <em>workaround</em>. One D&D is trying to provide a solution.</p><p></p><p>So, I don't understand the question. I don't understand why you're asking me to change my style of play -- which I don't want to do -- just because I've correctly identified that the short-rest-recovery system doesn't really work very well. It doesn't matter if it's a successful workaround, the results are still just as undesirable. It's not that I like or dislike the rules. It's that I can evaluate them well enough without even playing them to know that I'd rather have the broken default than the more functional gritty realism.</p><p></p><p>That seems to be an opinion shared by many other people because reducing short rest reliance has been a theme of the One D&D playtest. That means it's got to have been pretty significant in the annual system surveys they've been running for years.</p><p></p><p>I'd say that the short-rest Warlock has about as much chance of surviving into One D&D as the Warlord does of reappearing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bacon Bits, post: 9011100, member: 6777737"] I don't entirely understand the question, but not in the way you think I don't understand it. These optional rules are designed to alter the play style and change the entire campaign's tone. Now, of course, these rules are too simple to [I]fully [/I]effect the change they're claiming they make. They're too brief to do that. But they're a reasonable starting point for most tables that are looking for a different play experience. They do still change the tone of the campaign and the style of play at the table [I]significantly[/I]. Asking if I "like" or "dislike" these optional rules is asking what style of play I like, but, like a lot of online discussions on short rests, this feels like someone trying to sell gritty survival rules as a panacea to the twin problems of short-rest-reliant classes and the 6-8 adventuring day. So it's asking people to conflate the rest and recovery system working well with a style of play they don't want to use. That's not useful. It's like telling people to play a different game. Worse, it ignores that WotC chose the default style of play that they did on purpose. D&D at the default rules is what WotC's market research has shown most tables want when they imagine D&D. Nothing else makes sense. If the game can't provide that midline style of play that the default rules are intended to provide, then [I]the game is fundamentally broken[/I]. It's what the game fundamentally needs to be primarily designed for, and it's failing at that design. It's okay if gritty survival or epic heroism doesn't work that well because they're less popular, but it's unacceptable if the default rules fall apart. And that's precisely where we are. People want the default style of play. But the short-rest-reliant classes don't work well, and the adventuring day designed to facilitate that design also doesn't work well. It was supposed to encourage short rests, but instead it just results in unhappy fighters, warlocks, and monks. Changing the rest schedule will force the PCs to short rest, but it does so by changing the style of play, which makes the entire table unhappy. If your table loves it, great, but there's no reason to think that it's what everyone wants. It's not a solution. It's a [I]workaround[/I]. One D&D is trying to provide a solution. So, I don't understand the question. I don't understand why you're asking me to change my style of play -- which I don't want to do -- just because I've correctly identified that the short-rest-recovery system doesn't really work very well. It doesn't matter if it's a successful workaround, the results are still just as undesirable. It's not that I like or dislike the rules. It's that I can evaluate them well enough without even playing them to know that I'd rather have the broken default than the more functional gritty realism. That seems to be an opinion shared by many other people because reducing short rest reliance has been a theme of the One D&D playtest. That means it's got to have been pretty significant in the annual system surveys they've been running for years. I'd say that the short-rest Warlock has about as much chance of surviving into One D&D as the Warlord does of reappearing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Rest Variants (DMG pg. 267)
Top