Five-Minute Workday Article

[Zustiur]

I don't think this is true. If resource management is of non-rechargable abilities (some spells in Runequest, potions and scrolls in D&D, etc) then there is no incentive to rest because you won't recharge them.

First remember that I used the word 'possible' rather than 'likely'. Now consider: If you use up your wands of cure light wounds or scrolls of whatever, is it possible to want to break from the adventure to re-stock them? Yes.

Also, if resource management is of per-encounter resources (eg encounter powers in 4e) then there is no need to anything but short rests to recharge them; and PCs can't try and recharge them by resting during the encounter because while you're in an encounter things aren't very restful.

I'd argue that 'per-encounter' doesn't meet the criteria of 'significant impact'. Obviously I wasn't referring to encounter powers. However the same principal still applies. Let's call it the '24 second work period'. Fight for 4 rounds (24 seconds) rest for 5 minutes. How often does a party NOT take that short rest? It's exactly the same concept, just over a much shorter time scale.

Agreed. I think some sort of milestone/Action Point mechanic can be one important part of this - depleting resources (be they spells or hit points or other slow-recharge resources) causes a new resource to grow.

I agree that this could be a solution, but I'm not terribly pleased with the idea. Perhaps we should ask, "At what point SHOULD the party stop pressing forward?".
Milestones beg two questions from players like myself:
1) How can a character get better throughout the day and then get worse after having a rest?
2) Why couldn't my character do that [extra action/whatever] at the beginning of the day?
It's a mechanic for mechanic's sake. There's no in-story reason for the mechanic to exist. This brings me back to the argument much earlier in this(?) thread: Should the mechanics exist to codify the story, or should the story try to explain the mechanics?
In other words, why does the character benefit from having 2 or more combats? What is the explanation for this? 4E doesn't offer an explanation. I can't think of a valid one. I don't want to turn this point into an argument, but I do want to make you aware that some players see this as 'gamey'. It's the rules-makers saying that the 15MAD is BadWrongFun. There's no emulation of the story, it's just a mechanic designed to force people to play in a certain manner.

As well as mechanics, advice can also help. D&D has never had good advice on how to adjudicate failure (beyond "roll up a new PC"). I think it's time for that to change.

This I agree with.
Advice and mechanics on fleeing and on chase scenes would be very helpful.

 

[MarkB]

There's nothing wrong with that as such, but if the answer is "The gameworld has got much more boring", then why would I (as a GM trying to run a fun game) want to do that? Conversely, if the the answer is "The gameworld has got more interesting in this way", then how have I discouraged the players?

Which is why I think it isn't a reliable, one-size-fits-all tool for the specific purpose we're talking about in this thread. Instead, it's a general-purpose tool which, occasionally, has appropriate applications to this particular problem.

I would point out, however, that there are other options than simply "boring" or "interesting". If taking a rest resulted in people dying because the characters weren't quick enough in stopping the villains, for instance, that's not any more boring or interesting - but it would, for many players, provide an incentive not to dawdle in such situations.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Here's another mechanical option that I'm going to throw out there more because of the thinking behind it than necessarily the option itself:

Assuming spells starts with a model something like a hybrid of AD&D and 3E (i.e. spells by levels increasing, but toned down compared to top-end 3E casters), then use a recharge mechanic on slots. Specifically, every time a slot gets used, the slot itself becomes "exhausted." Once a slot is exhauted, it regains one level per day. So if you cast fireball in a 3rd level spell slot, it turns into a zero level slot. After you rest, it's a 1st level spell slot, and thus takes 3 rests to get back to full power.

If spell slots get completely out of control, that might get unwieldy. But it does a pretty good job of providing a reason for why you can't cast spells again without "preparation." You've got the knowledge of the spell all the time, but the slot has no energy left until it recharges. In fact, I'd even be tempted to extend that model so that you don't need a spell book to regain the spell, if you want to leave it the same. You wait three days and don't touch that 3rd level slot, it's still got a fireball in it. Save the (big, thick, troublesome) spell books for changing the spell in a slot. (You could still allow a "traveling spell book" with a handful of spells for some utility swapping.) But I digress.

The more interesting aspect of this mechanic, IMHO, is that it addresses the "wizard's run out of things to do" AD&D problem with "more slots" the way 3E tried, but the more powerful slots become less and less accessible, thus curbing the runaway power. A 9th level slot is something so powerful that you can't use it at full strength but once in 9 days, maximum.

That's especially interesting if the power of the spell is scaling with the slot instead of the caster level. That is, with that idea, a caster might already want to put a fireball in a higher level slot, to get more dice. So say a wizard puts fireball in a 5th level slots. Say it does 9d6 damage. When he casts it, it's a major effect around 9th level or so. After 3 days or rest, he's got 3rd level spell power recharged into that 5th level slot, meaning a 5d6 fireball. But using this today means setting the clock back to getting the bigger effect. So it removes some of the "all or nothing" effect of spells organically, with a built in reason for the wizard to restrain himself as well.

You could extend this to magic items as well. A simple wand of cure light wounds has a bunch of charges--and can be used 1/day by definition. But then you have a more expensive version of the wand that casts the spell in a higher slot, and thus packs more healing into a short time, at the expense of taking longer to recharge. (More complex magic items could also have multiple effective "slots" per day, but I'd probably leave those to staves and other such flavorful items.)

Finally, when a party is really beat down but trying to press on, you get a defacto "encounter power" effect (in the math if not the fiction). That is, a caster that has finally used up all of their high level slots, grudgingly, that can take an extended rest, has got an awful lot of lower level spells available, meaning that it will be difficult to exhaust them in extremis.

 

[pemerton]

I'd argue that 'per-encounter' doesn't meet the criteria of 'significant impact'.

I guess that depends what sort of impact you have in mind. If you mean "pacing impact", then obviously I agree. If you mean "you-have-to-manage-these-to-play-your-PC-well impact" then I disagree.

However the same principal still applies. Let's call it the '24 second work period'. Fight for 4 rounds (24 seconds) rest for 5 minutes. How often does a party NOT take that short rest? It's exactly the same concept, just over a much shorter time scale.

Personally, I'm not sure that this makes sense. Taking a break between encounters doesn't distort balance (one aspect of the contrast between nova and non-nova PCs that makes the 15 minute day a prolbem). Nor does it upset pacing. Almost by definition, encounters are separated by a break during which recharging can then take place.

 

[pemerton]

there are other options than simply "boring" or "interesting". If taking a rest resulted in people dying because the characters weren't quick enough in stopping the villains, for instance, that's not any more boring or interesting - but it would, for many players, provide an incentive not to dawdle in such situations.

Yes, this is exactly the sort of detail I think that needs to be talked about. (As opposed to general invocations of "living, breathing" worlds.) Because we can then talk about "which NPCs"? What happens if the PCs fail? (Majoru Oakheart's "princess problem".) Are we worried about creating an incentive for players to have their PCs be neutral or chaotic neutral with no friends or family, rather than heroic types who are deeply embedded in their communities? Etc.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As opposed to general invocations of "living, breathing" worlds.

Please. "Living, breathing world" is just the verbal shorthand for ALL the little scenarios that may crop up if the PCs take a break- the princess dying, the McGuffin gets moved, someone else completes your mission and gets the reward.

If the conversation is in the general mode, LBW will be used. If someone wants to talk specifics, we'll talk specifics...which are just a subset of the LBW.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Please. "Living, breathing world" is just the verbal shorthand for ALL the little scenarios that may crop up if the PCs take a break- the princess dying, the McGuffin gets moved, someone else completes your mission and gets the reward.

If the conversation is in the general mode, LBW will be used. If someone wants to talk specifics, we'll talk specifics...which are just a subset of the LBW.

Even in the abstract, there are at least two different meanings of "living, breathing world," that I know of. There might be more:

• The illusion that the world is living by having things occur outside the agency or reaction to the players.
• Having the world react in plausible ways to changes or events that the players are aware of or even involved in.

Naturally, in the hands of a skillful DM, there is a lot of overlap in those two. So they might appear to be the same thing. The party raids an orc lair but don't clear it out. The orcs respond by getting reinforcements, but this takes time. On the way back, the party meets a rival adventuring group going to deal with the orcs, not realizing that the orcs have already been hit or have been reinforced.

I've seen the illusion run separate as downstream "story hook" effects that were never bit by the players. Some bard show comes through town, maybe mainly as a bit of color. The players don't really interact with it at all, but they keep seeing it traveling, perhaps sometimes just ahead of the watch, after getting thrown out of another tavern.

The more pure reaction is when you have things like orc tribes that have been quite stable for several months, in the face of supposed heavy adventuring by rival NPCs, but suddenly when the party goes in, the orcs are forming alliances. (It's tricky, because this one is even a plausible mix if you assume the rival NPCs weren't very successful. )

That is, IMHO, the skillful living world is neither pure illusion nor pure reaction, but a mix where the two parts reinforce each other. Though you also have to be careful with that, if the players start treating every event as if they had some part in it, if only as the observer. There's a fine line between saying the "minstrel show only appeared because the players were passing through town," versus the "minstrel show only appeared because the characters were passing through town." The former is true enough, as there ain't no other players sitting around the table, but if there is suspicion that the latter is true, then there's a kink in the story thread somewhere. In the worst form, the players get paranoid, AKA "There's a living world, and we know this because it's breathing down our neck!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Even in the abstract, there are at least two different meanings of "living, breathing world," that I know of. There might be more:
The illusion that the world is living by having things occur outside the agency or reaction to the players.
Having the world react in plausible ways to changes or events that the players are aware of or even involved in.

I don't see those as separate meanings, but rather as subsets of the same thing. Or more accurately, they are two tools that help the GM create & run the LBW, like running plays and passes are both tools of a football team's offense.

That is, IMHO, the skillful living world is neither pure illusion nor pure reaction, but a mix where the two parts reinforce each other.

Like the running game sets up the passing attack, and your passing game frees up space for your running backs.

 

[Zustiur]

I guess that depends what sort of impact you have in mind. If you mean "pacing impact", then obviously I agree. If you mean "you-have-to-manage-these-to-play-your-PC-well impact" then I disagree.

I mean 'impact' as in, after you use it, you can't use it again until X. If not having it hinders you in any way, it's an impact. Using up a charge from a CLW wand isn't really an impact. Using up the last charge might be. Using up fireball when it's your most powerful spell is definitely a significant impact.
So long as there are things that run out, there will be the possibility of deciding not to proceed until they have been recharged/repurchased/re-enchanted/re-whatever.
This goes for hit points as much as it does spells. So long as not being at full power is a factor of the game, some gamers will want to return to full power before continuing. The only way to completely prevent this is to have everything reset immediately at the end of an encounter. All spells/powers, all HP, all surges, everything. If you don't prevent it, the 15MAD concept is still possible, and someone somewhere will try to use it.

Personally, I'm not sure that this makes sense. Taking a break between encounters doesn't distort balance (one aspect of the contrast between nova and non-nova PCs that makes the 15 minute day a prolbem). Nor does it upset pacing. Almost by definition, encounters are separated by a break during which recharging can then take place.

The fact that taking a break between encounters doesn't distort balance is a factor of 4E, not a factor of encounter based recharge cycles. Furthermore, it does distort the balance in a way. If the party continues on without taking that 5 minute rest, they're underpowered for the next combat, which unbalances them with the expected difficulty of the following encounter. I think we're arguing at cross purposes here. I don't see the ability to repeatedly nova as being the only problem with the 15MAD. This quote makes me think that you do.


Let me try to explain my point with a fictitious example:
We have a fighter with no rechargeable powers. A Wizard with daily spells. And a rogue with encounter powers.
They have an encounter but suffer no damage. An important bad guy fled and was not killed. The fighter wants to pursue him immediately. The rogue (who used his best encounter powers) wants to wait 5 minutes until he's at full power. The wizard (who cast his best spells) wants to rest all night until he's at full power. From a story perspective, pursuing immediately is the sensible option. From a survivalist perspective, waiting 5 minutes or 8 hours is the sensible option.
I don't see how there's any real difference here between the rogue and the wizard. Both are putting the desire to be 'at full power' ahead of the story goal 'catch the bad guy'. Can you see that there is a similarity here?

So long as there are things which become unavailable, some players will want to wait until those things become available before continuing. So long as that occurs, it will be possible to end up with 15MAD-like situation where the players are ultra careful about being at full power all the time instead of pushing on with the story.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So long as there are things which become unavailable, some players will want to wait until those things become available before continuing. So long as that occurs, it will be possible to end up with 15MAD-like situation where the players are ultra careful about being at full power all the time instead of pushing on with the story.

I do not think we can avoid 15 minute adventure days all the time. I think we can avoid that 15 minute adventure days imbalance the game towards those that have the most resources to regain from a rest.

Or, expressed in a more general way, I suppose: Favor those that can set the pace of the game the most.
If for some reason the all-at-will Fighter can dicate the pace of the game, then he will run his non-stop 12 hour adventuring days while the Rogue and Wizards run out of abilities to use rapidly.

Traditionally, it were always the spellcasters that could dicate rest the most. Their presence alone made it a good idea for the group to rest, because they had expendable resources with brought a lot of power to the party, and they had spells that would make resting safer (even if you used wanding monster/breathing world and whatever approaches).

One thing to consider with wandeirng monsters and adventure days - how long do we expect a party that does not rest for the night to need to get through a dungeon? Do you expect it take 16 hours? In my experience that is unlikely, as individual combats do not take much longer than 5-10 minutes of game-world time. Even with some exploration, it seems likely you could be done - if you could survive it without resting - in 4 game-world hours or so with most dungeons.

So the difference between a 15 minute adventuring day vs a 4 hour adventuring day is 3:45 more wandering monster rolls (assuming those rolls do not apply inside the dungeon), so basically either 20h wandering monster hours or 23 hours and 45 minutes.

The only real difference is that you may keep the denizens of the dungeon occupied so they don't have 23 hours to come up with and implement a defensive strategy. Wandering monsters overall seem a non-fix, counter-measures by the enemy may be one. But you have to weigh that against the risk of being out of spells to deal with the enemy groups you encounter inside the dungeon. Realisitically, the moment of surprise you may have had is gone when you had your first battle.