My Solution to the 15-Minute Workday: The Hero Score

[Balesir]

Could also take a tip from the escalation die mechanic:
PCs gain a bonus to damage rolls and healing surge value equal to the number of major encounters they've already completed that day.

I quite like this idea - maybe have a 13th Age-style escalation die that can only go up as high as the number of encounters you have already had since the last extended rest? I.e. you don't get one in the first encounter, you get +1 on rounds 2+ in the second, and the "cap" goes up one per encounter after that. I would max it out at six, and probably add 1 to all monsters' defences to compensate, but it might have promise.

 

[S'mon]

I just let my guys Extended Rest whenever they plausibly can, taking only the natural consequences of so doing. I often have tough encounters that can challenge a fresh party, and I don't think I've ever seen this be a problem in 4e; 4e PCs with Healing Surges left don't refuse to press on the way 3e casters with expended spell slots do. I find the idea of 4 or 5 encounters in a day a bit weird except as an extreme outlier. I think when my group was battling the Zhentarim recently they had 3 fights in a day, and if I run a Dungeon Delve that's typically 3 fights (though I add or delete stuff, so 2-4 is possible), but there are plenty of times when it's just one fight. Never seen that been a problem.

 

[Derren]

1. The DM has to build the adventure to prevent taking extended rests until a certain point in the adventure is reached. Time limits, collapsing dungeon entrances, wandering monsters, and the like all fall into this category.
...
I don't like Option 1 because it usually requires extra work for the DM, or else is transparently a gimmick that makes the players roll their eyes and lose their suspension of disbelief.

Wait, your players lose suspension of disbelief when time doesn't stop when you set a foot into a dungeon, the opposition is not completely reactive and static not moving and waiting for the PCs to stumble upon them and you actually have to worry about water and food?
But they have no problem with an arbitrary and completely gamist rule which suggest that their characters act in a certain way even though there is no in game reason for it?

 

[Warbringer]

I've implemented a somewhat simpler houserule with the same goal. I've done away with xp, and characters gain a new level after a certain number of milestones, say 7. Milestones are gained after every encounter except the first one after an extended rest. Players seem to push on of their own will.

I do 10 per level (it originally started out as 10%xp per encounter, then realized that 10 for a level was the same darn thing!). Tough encounters (level+2) generate 2, plus the occasional point for roleplay we end up at about 7 encounters per level).
Now, it just so happens in my house-rules that when you get an experience point, you get an Action Point (we call it Destiny). Currently these don’t expire, but could easily be rewritten to expire after a long rest.

In D&D Next, making Inspiration follow this logic, where they expire at the end of the day rather than per scene, and allowing them to stack would create the momentum to keep on pushing forward. rather than resting.

 

[JeffB]

I just let my guys Extended Rest whenever they plausibly can, taking only the natural consequences of so doing. I often have tough encounters that can challenge a fresh party, and I don't think I've ever seen this be a problem in 4e; 4e PCs with Healing Surges left don't refuse to press on the way 3e casters with expended spell slots do. I find the idea of 4 or 5 encounters in a day a bit weird except as an extreme outlier. I think when my group was battling the Zhentarim recently they had 3 fights in a day, and if I run a Dungeon Delve that's typically 3 fights (though I add or delete stuff, so 2-4 is possible), but there are plenty of times when it's just one fight. Never seen that been a problem.

This has pretty much been my experience as well.

 

[Bagpuss]

I have never encountered the 15 minute work day in 4th Ed, even though it was common in the same group playing 3rd Ed.

I'm confused as to how it even occurs, you have so many healing surges and can usually only use one or two an encounter, so you rarely use them all until about the sixth to eighth encounter, our group has often gone to ten. To me the 15 minute work day of 3rd ed was one or two encounters, before packing up for the day, I've never seen that happen in 4th ed as you just can't go Nova like you could in earlier editions.

 

[the Jester]

Then you're right, I did misread your post. However, at that point, I would cease to call them milestones and just keep track of encounters. If you're calling them milestones because you also give out action points after every encounter, then that's where I would have to disagree. Action points are balanced as they are, from what I've seen in my games. Granting too many passively buffs the warlord and gets especially weird at paragon due to all the path features that deal with action points. Although maybe extra action points are a good way to offset the "debuff system," though I would still want to do something about the warlord.

I just changed to an action point every encounter, with the added provision that if you have something (a power or item) that gives you an extra action point- e.g. the pixie vampire's symbol of victory- then you can use 2 action points in that encounter.

I did this because it was just too hard for the players to keep track of their action points accurately from game to game, as there are sometimes like 3 weeks between sessions.

Anyway, so far it hasn't seemed to break anything, though it's a slightly noticeable increase in their efficiency, but they are low-epic level and are at the point where they are crazy powerful anyway- but at epic levels, the gloves can really come off.

 

[Camelot]

Wait, your players lose suspension of disbelief when time doesn't stop when you set a foot into a dungeon, the opposition is not completely reactive and static not moving and waiting for the PCs to stumble upon them and you actually have to worry about water and food?
But they have no problem with an arbitrary and completely gamist rule which suggest that their characters act in a certain way even though there is no in game reason for it?

Let me put it this way. It's like watching a movie, and the protagonists enter a cave and are attacked by minions of the antagonist. They win and are debating amongst themselves whether they should enter the cave to confront whatever the antagonist has in store for them, or leave to better prepare themselves. Suddenly, the cave entrance collapses behind them, making their decision for them. There better be a darn good reason why that cave collapsed or else I'm going to be disappointed that the plot is being propelled by the word of the author rather than meaningful decisions on the part of the characters. Sometimes this can work, for example if the antagonist specifically traps the protagonists in his lair in order to prevent them from getting help from outside. But sometimes it would just be disappointing.

The story in a role-playing game that I run, just as much if not even moreso than that of a movie or novel, should be propelled by meaningful decisions by the characters. When they enter that cave, I want them to be able to look at their options (which include at least delving or retreating) and choose which one they want. Both have benefits and consequences, but different situations call for different decisions. And when the players make that decision, they feel in control of their adventure and subsequently become more invested in it. If the DM continuously makes decisions for the players, they lose that sense of involvement.

I have never encountered the 15 minute work day in 4th Ed, even though it was common in the same group playing 3rd Ed.

I'm confused as to how it even occurs, you have so many healing surges and can usually only use one or two an encounter, so you rarely use them all until about the sixth to eighth encounter, our group has often gone to ten. To me the 15 minute work day of 3rd ed was one or two encounters, before packing up for the day, I've never seen that happen in 4th ed as you just can't go Nova like you could in earlier editions.

In my experience, it arises from the players running into a string of bad luck or just overreacting to an enemy that isn't as difficult as they think and spending more of their daily powers and healing surges than they wanted to. They start to worry that they won't make it to the end of the dungeon or wherever, which might be true, so the option of retreating to take an extended rest starts to seem like the best decision. This is even if the dungeon repopulates when they leave, because a completely fresh start means they might have better luck or have a better idea of what's in store for them. This is fine once in a while, but too much and it makes running dungeon crawls take way too long. The reason I want a system like the Hero Score system is to make continuing an equally viable option on average. Rarely do I want my players saying "Well, I guess there's really only one thing to do now," when they could be saying "All right, all our options have their pros and cons, but we've made a decision."

 

[S'mon]

If you can get hold of it, Gygax's advice on this in the 1e DMG is excellent. He goes over how different dungeons/lairs will react to PCs who attack then leave to rest. Eg with a sealed crypt of undead, the retreat/rest cycle should be viable, whereas intelligent enemies will pursue the PCs and try to kill them while they're resting. Certainly if the PCs try to Extended Rest in or near the dungeon they'll be attacked. Avoid supposedly intelligent enemies who just sit there waiting for PCs to come back again and again to kill them.
My players don't take extended rests at silly times because they know it's a bad idea in-world, and because the 4e mechanics don't force them to do so. I don't think you need a new mechanical subsystem to artificially push the PCs on; you need to run realistically dynamic adventures where pushing on is logical. I understand that WoTC 4e adventures are bad with their set-piece encounters and no guidance on how to break out from that, but treat them as a buffet of resources not as a set meal that has to be eaten exactly as presented.

 

[Derren]

Let me put it this way. It's like watching a movie, and the protagonists enter a cave and are attacked by minions of the antagonist. They win and are debating amongst themselves whether they should enter the cave to confront whatever the antagonist has in store for them, or leave to better prepare themselves. Suddenly, the cave entrance collapses behind them, making their decision for them. There better be a darn good reason why that cave collapsed or else I'm going to be disappointed that the plot is being propelled by the word of the author rather than meaningful decisions on the part of the characters. Sometimes this can work, for example if the antagonist specifically traps the protagonists in his lair in order to prevent them from getting help from outside. But sometimes it would just be disappointing.

The story in a role-playing game that I run, just as much if not even moreso than that of a movie or novel, should be propelled by meaningful decisions by the characters. When they enter that cave, I want them to be able to look at their options (which include at least delving or retreating) and choose which one they want. Both have benefits and consequences, but different situations call for different decisions. And when the players make that decision, they feel in control of their adventure and subsequently become more invested in it. If the DM continuously makes decisions for the players, they lose that sense of involvement.

Who said anything about making decisions for the player? Just have the world react in a more logical and realistic way and the problem solves itself as simply resting for a night in the middle of enemy territory gets quite a bog list of drawbacks. The PCs can still decide to do it and if they do you should let them (and apply the drawbacks in a reasonable manner and fair)