Five-Minute Workday Article

[thecasualoblivion]

The problem with the 5MW can be defined as nova, then rest. This can be a problem because:

1. It's not aesthetically pleasing
2. It causes an imbalance between the classes with the resources to nova and those without.
3. Given the same resources, there is a difference in gameplay between slow attrition and going nova. A system designed for slow attrition won't be as fun going nova, and vice versa.

In addition, we have two groups arguing past each other: one group who takes daily based Vancian magic as a given, not to be changed and the other who doesn't take it for granted and thinks the rules should be adjusted to improve gameplay.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think the real issue is not actually avoiding the 5 minute adventure day, but avoiding that the 5 minute adventure day makes one group of characters overshadow another. The party member that has daily spells like Fireball or Disintegrate may be balanced if he has to pick in which of the 6 fights the day he uses them, but when there is only one fight, he can use them all in one and that's 2 full rounds he gets to contribute much more than a Fighter that can only attack one guy for 1d12+15 damage, and it will take many more rounds to compensate for this than the group will fight that day.

There are perfectly valid story reasons for there to be only one fight a day. There are only mechanical reasons why such a fight must be dominated by the guy with the spells.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you give every class daily resources (be it tons of extra hit dice and extra action for fighters or daily powers aka 4E), you could avoid this, for example.

According to some posters on this site, that does not avoid this, and they have noted the existence of the 15MWD in 4Ed.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-discussion/303267-15-minute-adventuring-day.html

Now, that is but one example I found (feom 2011) on a quick search of the site- there were others.

 

[I'm A Banana]

In addition, we have two groups arguing past each other: one group who takes daily based Vancian magic as a given, not to be changed and the other who doesn't take it for granted and thinks the rules should be adjusted to improve gameplay.

Getting rid of Vancian magic doesn't necessarily lead to improved gameplay.

In the first, plenty of people have always enjoyed gameplay with Vancian magic, so that there is nothing that needs "improving."

In the second, some other people dislike the gameplay results of removing Vancian magic, so adjusting these rules would WORSEN gameplay.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But wouldn't it be nice not to have to use these crutches simply by introducing an optional, systemic cost or incentive that makes operating in another way a possibility worth considering, just on "game physics" grounds?

My point is that it won't matter. Whatever systemic solution they tried to insert would only solve the issue for a handful of the players who had that specific problem with the 5-minute workday/going nova situation that the solution was meant to solve. The other 90% of the gamer population would be wondering what the heck those rules were created for.

The 5 minute workday / going nova doesn't happen automatically. It's not a given for every game. There are myriads of reasons why it comes about, all based upon who the DM is, and how they run their game. No one, or two, or three solutions will fix it for the majority of players.

The probable reason why they aren't bothering to throw out a couple of "solutions" for us to playtest is that there have already been upwards of 40 YEARS of playing the game with this problem (and the subsequent houseruling each table has done to try and "fix" it) to realize that any solution they throw out will not be satisfactory to most of the players. People act as though the idea of "solving" the 5-minute workday issue is some new thing and the problem is we just haven't work hard enough to fix it yet. Far from it. The game of Dungeons & Dragons AT ITS CORE potentially has this problem baked into it based upon how the DM runs his game and the concept of finite resources... and individual DMs have been "fixing" their specific issues with it themselves from the beginning.

And that's what WotC is telling all these DMs: "The reason you might have this problem is specific to you and you alone and based entirely upon how you and your players interact with the game. If the 5-minute workday comes about based on that (and you have a problem with it)... you will need to find the solution that works best FOR YOU. We cannot give you a solution, because there are thousands of ways to interact with the game."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There are only mechanical reasons why such a fight must be dominated by the guy with the spells.

That is patently untrue.

If the story/novel/legend/game world has powerful magic, a single spell might be all that is needed for a caster to win the battle. Circe defeated the Argonauts with just a few enchantments, and those guys were literally the stuff of legends.

In Harry Turtledove's Darkness novels, most magic is, by D&D standards, pretty weak. Then someone figured out a necromantic ritual that was essentially a nuclear bomb...

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Getting rid of Vancian magic doesn't necessarily lead to improved gameplay.

In the first, plenty of people have always enjoyed gameplay with Vancian magic, so that there is nothing that needs "improving."

In the second, some other people dislike the gameplay results of removing Vancian magic, so adjusting these rules would WORSEN gameplay.

They aren't giving us a choice however, and they aren't catering to both sides. They are going the "one true way" route on this. Isn't this what modularity was supposed to deliver?

 

[Salamandyr]

This strikes me as one of those things that, whatever mechanical rules construct they erected to solve the "problem", will wind up being worse, as in more harmful to the game experience, than the "problem" itself.

 

[MarkB]

This has provoked an interesting idea in my head. There are many ways to award XP in different games (I believe there was a frontpage discussion about this some time ago). Many people talk about increasing encounter difficulty or throwing wandering monsters at parties who rest too frequently, when this is exactly what they want: more XP.

Instead, give far less XP for defeating a monster (if any) and make the majority of XP come from quest completion. Every day that goes by before completing a quest, that XP total drops, at a rate appropriate to the quest. It may sound a little gamist, but throws an interesting dynamic into decisions about resting. I could imagine two different factions offering essentially the same quest, one with a high starting XP and rapid decline, the other with low starting XP and gentle decline. How confident does the party feel?

I like the concept a lot. I don't think every quest should be structured that way - you want the players to feel that they have some leisure to explore the game-world, after all - but it's something that could be incorporated more often than not.

Maybe characterise it as a base XP award for getting the job done, supplemented by bonus XP for fast completion, rather than as a penalty for delay.

 

[Shadeydm]

They aren't giving us a choice however, and they aren't catering to both sides. They are going the "one true way" route on this. Isn't this what modularity was supposed to deliver?

Oh so you have seen all the modules already and know that a 4E style game won't be possible. Well thanks for clearing that up for the rest of us without your insider knowledge.