What to do about the 15-minute work day?

[MarkB]

Actually, it's 75 at this point. Which is not as many as those who don't think there should be mechanical solutions baked into the game design (87) which may be an amalgam of people who do not believe it exists and those who believe it exists, but that it is solvable with non-mechanical means.

I was counting both those who voted for a mechanical fix and those who voted for a guidelines-based fix, seriously rounded down because at least some will have picked both options. I would assume that those who are in favour of there being advice about fixing the problem believe it exists just as much as those who want a mechanical fix. Why would they want space in the rulebook taken up by advice on fixing a problem that doesn't exist?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why would they want space in the rulebook taken up by advice on fixing a problem that doesn't exist?

Spirit of compromise- you may not believe the problem exists, but you know there are people who do. In that case, advice throws those people a bone and does not compromise the mechanics of a game with what you think would compromise gameplay.

Personally, I voted advice because- despite never having seen the 15MWD- believe it is a problem for some. I believe that it is also something that doesn't require a mechanical fix because:

1) I have heard complaints about it in most editions of D&D and in other RPGs as well, and

2) that the reason I have not seen it in person is because of game master techniques I have seen used or used myself over the last 30+ years.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Unless the characters all have the same resources and play like a hive mind then there will always be a possibility for this issue to arise. Not all players play the same even at the same table. So even if they have the same number of resources you still have one go nova and the rest hold back.

That's an extreme take. If characters have comparable resources that are reasonably balanced, that's more than sufficient - for balance. But, whether some characters have daily abilities or all do, the 5MWD is still a mechanical issue.

You realize anything said here is all anecdotal evidence because I doubt anyone has done a a real statistical study of the issue with enough gamers to prove anything.

Anything anyone says about their home game, yes. Analysis of the mechanics, no. The mechanics are right there, we can all see them, there's no dispute over what they are. So if there's a mechanical issue we can discuss it meaningfully.

There is more than one of us saying this is a not an issue in the games we play.

And there's more than of us saying it is. So that's a wash. More importantly, the mechanics introduce the issue. Sure, both mechanics and whether you compensate for the flaws of those mechanics intentionally or unwittingly are both part of the issue. But one part is concrete and the other part is personal experience and unverifiable anecdote.

Just because some people have an issue does not always make it a bad design.

No, it's just a symptom. Being a bad design makes it a bad design. Kludging the bad design does not make it a good design.

Well listening to the complaints about 3E and the development of 4E made a lot of players go away. So hopefully this time they are listening to a lot of people not just the squeaky wheels.

Probably not, it most likely just going to be one of the penduluum deals, where they listen to whoever makes the most noise and over-compensate.

No one is denying that the 15 day is an issue for some groups. What I am disagreeing with is the idea that it is only caused my mechanics and that is the only way to fix it.

It is /caused/ my mechanics. Kludging the mechanics by distorting your game - or failing to notice their flaws because your play style happens to make an end run around them - is not a solution. Failing to implement a non-solution is not part of the problem.

The root problem is the mechanics. They could be a lot better, allowing for more styles of play instead of forcing one style.

So all of us who love vancian magic should just sit back and shut up because there are people who don't like.

And because you've had it for 34 of the last 38 years, and still have it in the SRD and Pathfinder, and yet are still demanding it be forced on the rest of us.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And what's the sample size of the anecdotal evidence you're using to prove the problem exists?

The mechanics, themselves, are the evidence. They're not in dispute. What's in dispute is whether they should be fixed, themselves, or left to each DM to work around.

 

[billd91]

The mechanics, themselves, are the evidence. They're not in dispute. What's in dispute is whether they should be fixed, themselves, or left to each DM to work around.

And since people have been using mechanics to counteract the tendencies you see toward a 15 minute day, I'd say they're not indisputable.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The mechanics, themselves, are the evidence. They're not in dispute. What's in dispute is whether they should be fixed, themselves, or left to each DM to work around.

If it were purely a mechanical problem, then it would occur more often than it seems to, and would not be found at all in systems using mechanics purported to fix the issue.

But the problem isn't absent in those systems. In fact, away from ENWorld, I hear about it in other systems about as often as I hear about it in D&D.

To me, this means it boils down to "it's a playstyle problem" which means introducing mechanical solutions could raise just as many problems as it purports to solve. Thus, my personal opposition to using mechanics as the solution.

I'm all for good mechanics & improving the game, but I simply don't see a need for change here.

 

[CleverNickName]

I can't be certain, but I think some of my players have been stopping in this forum and reading these threads. Last night, for the first time ever, one of my players mentioned a "fifteen-minute workday." By name. And in context.

The party randomly encountered a hydra en-route to the dungeon. Since it was a fairly difficult encounter for their level, and it was early in the day, I decided they had stumbled upon it while it was sleeping and caught it off-guard...you know, give them a chance to avoid a difficult encounter. "I got an idea," said Greg. "Let's just hit it with everything we got, then sleep for the rest of the day and get our spells back. You know, take a fifteen-minute workday."

My eye twitched involuntarily.

The idea seemed to have never even occurred to this group. One player rolled her eyes and said "don't be so meta, Greg." This caused an argument about metagame awareness and in-game awareness...just a distraction, nothing too heated. Ultimately the party decided to leave the sleeping hydra alone, and they went on to the dungeon, retrieved the McGuffin from the Big Bad, and there was cake. But it really bothered me at the time.

The timing seemed awfully convenient. And Greg was so excited about it, too, like he had just discovered the potion glitch in Skyrim. I have a sneaking suspicion that I have not seen the last of the "fifteen minute workday."

 

[Elf Witch]

It really does no good to keep pushing anecdotes in each other's faces in an attempt to deny the experiences we all have had. Have I seen players choose to play clerics and psychic warriors in 3e when they would rather play fighters? Sure. Do I doubt that setting based constraints have served to balance fighters and wizards effectively in other people's games? No. They're experiences are their own. Can we ever 'educate' each other to the point where the other embraces our play style? I sure hope not. The diversity of the community is a strength - not a weakness. Can't we all agree that some people find the setting based constraints harmful and for others mechanical solutions remove what they see as essential features of the game? The only right answer here is to provide tools for both viewpoints within the base game.

I have never denied that some people have an issue. What I find frustrating in these conversations is the attitude that if you are having a problem then the game must change to accommodate you. And that those of us who are not having the issues are dismissed because we are using our anecdotal evidence, but of course so is the person with the issue but they don't seem to recognize the irony of that.

I do think big enough issues can be fixed by mechanical fixes but I do think it is is a huge mistake to try and fix everything this way instead of just giving good advice on how to deal with some issues. I really think there should be a lot more of this kind of advice in the DMG.

I also think one really good way to fix some issues is to have options.

I have also used many a house rule I have gotten from here from other DMs to help fix issues I have had in my own game. EnWolrd has been a valuable resource over the years for Dming advice.

 

[Elf Witch]

I was counting both those who voted for a mechanical fix and those who voted for a guidelines-based fix, seriously rounded down because at least some will have picked both options. I would assume that those who are in favour of there being advice about fixing the problem believe it exists just as much as those who want a mechanical fix. Why would they want space in the rulebook taken up by advice on fixing a problem that doesn't exist?

I don't think people are denying it exists what most of seem to be saying is that it is not necessarily a mechanical issue and that advice may be the best way to fix it.

 

[Elf Witch]

That's an extreme take. If characters have comparable resources that are reasonably balanced, that's more than sufficient - for balance. But, whether some characters have daily abilities or all do, the 5MWD is still a mechanical issue.

Anything anyone says about their home game, yes. Analysis of the mechanics, no. The mechanics are right there, we can all see them, there's no dispute over what they are. So if there's a mechanical issue we can discuss it meaningfully.

And there's more than of us saying it is. So that's a wash. More importantly, the mechanics introduce the issue. Sure, both mechanics and whether you compensate for the flaws of those mechanics intentionally or unwittingly are both part of the issue. But one part is concrete and the other part is personal experience and unverifiable anecdote.

No, it's just a symptom. Being a bad design makes it a bad design. Kludging the bad design does not make it a good design.

Probably not, it most likely just going to be one of the penduluum deals, where they listen to whoever makes the most noise and over-compensate.

It is /caused/ my mechanics. Kludging the mechanics by distorting your game - or failing to notice their flaws because your play style happens to make an end run around them - is not a solution. Failing to implement a non-solution is not part of the problem.

The root problem is the mechanics. They could be a lot better, allowing for more styles of play instead of forcing one style.

And because you've had it for 30 of the last 34 years, and still have it in the SRD and Pathfinder, and yet are still demanding it be forced on the rest of us.

I don't care how identical the amount of resources each PC has all it takes to throw this carefully balanced mechanic out of whack is to have some players who go nova and some who don't at the same table. I have seen this in a game with two players both playing wizards one would just throw all their high level powerful spells at a drop of the hat while the other played more conservatively.

I know that you refuse to acknowledge that this is also a play style issue but my refusing to see that you are being blind to the fixes that can help with that. Mechanics can't fix everything.

As Danny pointed out this issue has raised its head in a lot of games I have seen it brought up in Shadowrun, Hero and Runequest. I have read posts about it in 4E games. All these games have different mechanics just the issue still happens in some people's games. That alone tells me it is not just a mechanical issue.

At this point we are going around and around so I suggest we just end it. We are never going to agree on this.