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
Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room
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="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7202205" data-attributes="member: 12731"><p>Since I was specifically summoned (this thread has otherwise veered into territory I'm not personally interested in, so don't hesitate to "mention" me if you feel frustrated you're not getting a reply these last weeks - I can't keep up with this thread anylonger):</p><p></p><p>My opinion is that when you boil it down, Hussar must be right - the game doesn't even begin to presume it can be used for a world simulation. It can only be used to simulate heroic journeys. Therefore "NPCs dont have encounters" must be correct, although I'd rather phrase it like: "NPCs dont have encounters unless the DM/scenario wants them to".</p><p></p><p>Re: the "whole point of this" I'd say it boils down to the following:</p><p></p><p>You can have trivial encounters and that's okay, whether they're there just as window-dressing, for verisimilitude, to allow the PCs a powertrip or whatever. </p><p></p><p>But if the game does assume 6-8 encounters for its balance to occur, it also needs to provide mechanisms to accomplish this. Dumping it all on the story (and thus the DM or adventure writer) <strong>is not acceptable</strong> (especially since few writers of published modules make any serious effort to help the DM out). </p><p></p><p>What's especially galling is how the game generously and freely hands out a truckload of "get out of jail" cards, one more ridiculously powerful than the other. Rope Trick, Teleport etc. Since they can't be allowed to have the effect they are assumed to be having (or balance goes out of the window) their only effect is to considerably increase the difficulty for the poor DM in ensuring said balance. </p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">A secondary consideration is that they are only available to certain party compositions.</span></p><p></p><p>In effect, <strong>the game does its outmost to free itself from any responsibility</strong> re: upholding the balance it so clearly assumes is there. In effect, the game dumps all of the work in the lap of the DM - and then makes its best to trip him or her over at every stage of the way. The only straightforward solution that can't be trivially circumvented by spells or other powers then becomes the story angle, the "princess gets eaten in three days, please hurry!" schtick. </p><p></p><p>But not only does this get very VERY old after a while, <strong>it doesn't even do that</strong> (in 99% of published modules). </p><p></p><p>In 99% of modules where there is a world-ending threat, it is incredibly vague, with nothing even resembling a detailed timeline, and often with no real assumption that the heroes can fail. Unless the DM decides to play hardball, you'd think the heroes can simply chicken race the scenario and call its bluff.</p><p></p><p>"So we didn't reach the dragon in three days, instead preferring to abuse the game's mechanics to trivialize every encounter and make sure we never are in any real danger. Now, is the princess still alive?"</p><p></p><p>Yes. "Okay, thought so. Now let us see if we can drop the dragon in a single round, considering how we are fully rested and with all our resources available."</p><p></p><p>No. "Oh well, can't win every time. At least we didn't risk our lives by pressing on when we could rest instead. And oh, if the princess' soul wants to return the living, we're okay with using part of the dragon hoard to pay for her resurrection. We think it's fair to part with 10% of the treasure in return for avoiding 90% of the danger." </p><p></p><p>It's so intellectually dishonest. It's the elephant in the room.</p><p></p><p>Do note I am not trying to change the way you lot play your game. Yes, that means YOU.</p><p></p><p>All I want is for the rulebooks to</p><p>a) acknowledge the issue... yes, getting heroes to take 8 encounters in a day can be bloody difficult, and how it doesn't suit some players at all to have several individually-trivial encounters instead of a single one offering a good challenge</p><p>b) accept some responsibility... a good game offers mechanical support for play groups where players aren't interested in voluntary buy-in into 6-8 encounters as a gentleman's agreement.</p><p>c) offering optional variants... that take the load off of the DMs shoulders. First and foremost by not having the PHB unconditionally give out the most generous and least restricted resting scheme so players take that for granted. </p><p></p><p>Then add support for:</p><p>c1) empowering DMs and scenarios to use variable rest frequencies for one and the same heroes</p><p>c2) specifically and explicitly allow the "you can't expect to gain any benefits from resting, except at areas clearly designated as safe" variant. Preferably in a sidebar <strong>right there in the PHB</strong>, so no player can claim it's just "an evil DM" trying to prevent players from taking the rest the rules clearly allow them </p><p>c3) add an encounter point system (as described in another thread), or at the very least Jonathan Tweet's (I believe it was) simple suggestion "you can't take a short rest until you've had two encounters, and you can't take a long rest until you've had two short rests" </p><p></p><p>Note I said <u>optional variants</u> - <strong>you don't have to use any of this</strong> unless you want to.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 7202205, member: 12731"] Since I was specifically summoned (this thread has otherwise veered into territory I'm not personally interested in, so don't hesitate to "mention" me if you feel frustrated you're not getting a reply these last weeks - I can't keep up with this thread anylonger): My opinion is that when you boil it down, Hussar must be right - the game doesn't even begin to presume it can be used for a world simulation. It can only be used to simulate heroic journeys. Therefore "NPCs dont have encounters" must be correct, although I'd rather phrase it like: "NPCs dont have encounters unless the DM/scenario wants them to". Re: the "whole point of this" I'd say it boils down to the following: You can have trivial encounters and that's okay, whether they're there just as window-dressing, for verisimilitude, to allow the PCs a powertrip or whatever. But if the game does assume 6-8 encounters for its balance to occur, it also needs to provide mechanisms to accomplish this. Dumping it all on the story (and thus the DM or adventure writer) [B]is not acceptable[/B] (especially since few writers of published modules make any serious effort to help the DM out). What's especially galling is how the game generously and freely hands out a truckload of "get out of jail" cards, one more ridiculously powerful than the other. Rope Trick, Teleport etc. Since they can't be allowed to have the effect they are assumed to be having (or balance goes out of the window) their only effect is to considerably increase the difficulty for the poor DM in ensuring said balance. [SIZE=1]A secondary consideration is that they are only available to certain party compositions.[/SIZE] In effect, [B]the game does its outmost to free itself from any responsibility[/B] re: upholding the balance it so clearly assumes is there. In effect, the game dumps all of the work in the lap of the DM - and then makes its best to trip him or her over at every stage of the way. The only straightforward solution that can't be trivially circumvented by spells or other powers then becomes the story angle, the "princess gets eaten in three days, please hurry!" schtick. But not only does this get very VERY old after a while, [B]it doesn't even do that[/B] (in 99% of published modules). In 99% of modules where there is a world-ending threat, it is incredibly vague, with nothing even resembling a detailed timeline, and often with no real assumption that the heroes can fail. Unless the DM decides to play hardball, you'd think the heroes can simply chicken race the scenario and call its bluff. "So we didn't reach the dragon in three days, instead preferring to abuse the game's mechanics to trivialize every encounter and make sure we never are in any real danger. Now, is the princess still alive?" Yes. "Okay, thought so. Now let us see if we can drop the dragon in a single round, considering how we are fully rested and with all our resources available." No. "Oh well, can't win every time. At least we didn't risk our lives by pressing on when we could rest instead. And oh, if the princess' soul wants to return the living, we're okay with using part of the dragon hoard to pay for her resurrection. We think it's fair to part with 10% of the treasure in return for avoiding 90% of the danger." It's so intellectually dishonest. It's the elephant in the room. Do note I am not trying to change the way you lot play your game. Yes, that means YOU. All I want is for the rulebooks to a) acknowledge the issue... yes, getting heroes to take 8 encounters in a day can be bloody difficult, and how it doesn't suit some players at all to have several individually-trivial encounters instead of a single one offering a good challenge b) accept some responsibility... a good game offers mechanical support for play groups where players aren't interested in voluntary buy-in into 6-8 encounters as a gentleman's agreement. c) offering optional variants... that take the load off of the DMs shoulders. First and foremost by not having the PHB unconditionally give out the most generous and least restricted resting scheme so players take that for granted. Then add support for: c1) empowering DMs and scenarios to use variable rest frequencies for one and the same heroes c2) specifically and explicitly allow the "you can't expect to gain any benefits from resting, except at areas clearly designated as safe" variant. Preferably in a sidebar [B]right there in the PHB[/B], so no player can claim it's just "an evil DM" trying to prevent players from taking the rest the rules clearly allow them c3) add an encounter point system (as described in another thread), or at the very least Jonathan Tweet's (I believe it was) simple suggestion "you can't take a short rest until you've had two encounters, and you can't take a long rest until you've had two short rests" Note I said [U]optional variants[/U] - [B]you don't have to use any of this[/B] unless you want to. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room
Top