D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

[pemerton]

instead of a referee, or simply referencing the rulebook, for adjudication of a certain scenario as you would in a war-game, you had a new sort of player - the DM, who assumed the roles of dungeon creator, referee and rules interpreter and adjudicator, NPC and monster actor, etc.

The idea that the DM isn't supposed to make any judgement calls or changes once the game has started is pretty extreme.

There are different categories of judgement call and adjudication.

Here's one scenario: a PC is disarmed. The GM has previously described the room as containing an iron candelabra sitting on the altar. The player of the disarmed PC declares, "I pick up the canelabra to use as club!"

This sort of action declaration is pretty much paradigmatic for a RPG - it is a single-character action declaration (rather than a declaration at the unit or commander level, as in a traditional wargame); and it involves engaging with the fiction - ie the candelabra on the altar isn't just flavoursome gloss on the framing of the game state (contrast, say, the illustration on a Magic card, or the backstory and flavour text of a boardgame like Forbidden Island). In a RPG, engaging the fiction is always a permissible move.

Traditionally, it is the GM's job to decide how to mechanically implement the PC's wiedling of a candelabra eg is s/he considered proficient with it? How much damage does it do? Page 47 of the 5E Basic PDF even comes out and says as much:

In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.​

I wonder how [MENTION=54380]shoak1[/MENTION] prefers to handle this sort of situation. GM decision? Table consensus? (Those two can often blur together, of course.) Table vote? Something else? Maybe there's a gentelmen's agreement at the table not to use improvised weapons?

But there are other sorts of judgement call or adjudication that have a much bigger impact on gameplay, and I'm guessing these are the ones shoak1 is more concerned with - for instance, whether encountered creatures are hostile or friendly; whether they pursue fleeing PCs or let them go; etc.

In his DMG, Gygax provides a whole suite of subsystems intended to take these decisions out of the GM's hands, so that the GM is not the one deciding (in effect) the outcome of the situations the PCs find themselves in. Thus, there are reaction dice to determine whether or not NPCs and monsters attack.

And there are very elaborate rules for pursuit (DMG p 63):

Whether or not the opponent party will follow in pursuit of the fleeing party depends on the following factors:

1. What you, the Dungeon Master, have stated in your key concerning the party, if applicable. This is first and foremost in ALL cases.

2. What the stated characteristics of the creature(s) involved are. That is, if player characters, do they say they will pursue, or if monsters, does their description say that they will always seek to pursue?

3. Obvious deterrents to pursuit, such as a pool of flaming oil, a secured portal, etc. will modify monster behavior accordingly.

4. Fleeing party behavior and/or possessions noted by the opponent party will modify pursuit desire.

5. Relative speed will cause the pursuing party to cease fruitless chase if they are obviously being outdistanced (except if the pursuers are player characters who must state they are halting such chase).

6. Otherwise 50% of the time (d6, 1-3 = pursuit, 4-6 = break off pursuit).​

There are also rules for the likelihoood of abandoning pursuit once started if the PCs throw food and/or loot to their pursuers.

This all seems intended to ameliorate or eliminate a certain sort of GM judgement call. It is consistent with the approach to play described by Lewis Pulsipher and posted not far upthread by shoak1.

 

[pemerton]

Why didn't this seem to be a problem in AD&D and earlier?

In my experience it was: at the upper mid and high levels (say 7th+), caster access to spells dominated the pacing of play, and fighters and thieves just went along with that pacing. (After all, fighters depended on clerical spells to regain their hit points, and so had no practical choice but to go along with the spell recovery pacing.)

My experience is that Rolemaster - also a game with powerful casters on a daily recovery cycle - exhibits a similar tendency. Hence when I ran RM, I ended up adopting some tweaks which more-or-less balanced a fighter's at-will output with a caster's nova output.

One factor that distinguishes classic AD&D from both 5e and RM, however, is the prevalence and power of magic items. It's possible for a fighter in AD&D to have a magic item that will dominate play, at least in the moment of its use. Whereas both RM and 5e make personal magical abilities (ie spells) more significant, overall, than magic items. So the prospects of fighters getting items that let them compete in the casters' space is less.

 

[pemerton]

Teams of players, though. You weren't trying to "win" against the others at your own table. In fact, a well-done tournament dungeon would reward those tables who worked best as a team, who pooled and then properly managed their resources, and who got on with it and didn't waste time.

But this is like saying that team sports aren't competitive.

Of course they are - both between teams, and also at least on occasion within teams (eg players compete to be the official or unofficial team leader).

In playing classic beat-the-dungeon D&D, there can certainly be an expectation that a player will bring his/her "best game" to a session - and I've known plenty of players who complain about others who don't know how to make good use of their spell load outs, equipment options, etc. That's competitive gaming!

 

[jrowland]

hmmm seems like you are more concerned with poking fun at my style, as is common in these forums, than in being inclusive.....so maybe I'll just skip the rest of your questions.....

nope, not at all. Its a legit question. What amount of preparation are we supposed to do? In what format. to what detail. I offered to two extremes. Not poking fun at anyone.

Yeah it seems they just instead hurl camoflauged insults, back-handed compliments, and snide remarks - right buddy?

I see no insult. It's a great hobby that is full of inclusive people. Are you disputing that? I am not sure if your taking offense is directed at me, or if you are saying the hobby is full of insults and such.

 

[jrowland]

The reality is that you can also blend these techniques, and I think that that's the approach that works best for me. If the PCs are searching for a tomb that's been lost for thousands of years, does it really need to be right here? Why not over there? The important part isn't usually exactly where it is, but that the PCs actually find it. So a general placement (within these hills) is usually sufficient for me.

I'd like to expand that a bit:

The players need to find a tomb lost for a thousand years, so we know it should be hard to find. With a fixed, DM agnostic pre-placed tomb, you run some risks. To highlight two extremes:

1) The players wander forever, not finding the tomb (whether to bad rolls, or lack of 'getting' the clues)
2) The players find the lost tomb immediately

In case 1, the players could become quite bored and the game derails. In the DM agnostic approach (Aside: Dm Deism? DMeism? lol) your stuck looking for the tomb, or you do something else.
in case 2, sure, yay, here is the "lost tomb" *snicker*. Its history, its 1000 years of antiquity are trivialized by the (from the players perspective, even if just dumb luck) giant red neon arrow saying "TOMB HERE"

The important point is indeed that the PCs find it, but in such a way as to live up to its reputation as a "lost" tomb. The Player agency is in the looking: how they look, where they look. Whether or not its in hex AB101 or AC101 is irrelevant. Whether or not its found by 6 successes in a skill challenge, or when the DM decides they've searched enough and its time to move the plot is irrelevant. The PCs searched. The tomb was found. Player agency happened.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

In my experience it was: at the upper mid and high levels (say 7th+), caster access to spells dominated the pacing of play, and fighters and thieves just went along with that pacing. (After all, fighters depended on clerical spells to regain their hit points, and so had no practical choice but to go along with the spell recovery pacing.)

My experience is that Rolemaster - also a game with powerful casters on a daily recovery cycle - exhibits a similar tendency. Hence when I ran RM, I ended up adopting some tweaks which more-or-less balanced a fighter's at-will output with a caster's nova output.

One factor that distinguishes classic AD&D from both 5e and RM, however, is the prevalence and power of magic items. It's possible for a fighter in AD&D to have a magic item that will dominate play, at least in the moment of its use. Whereas both RM and 5e make personal magical abilities (ie spells) more significant, overall, than magic items. So the prospects of fighters getting items that let them compete in the casters' space is less.

Which would explain why I still tend to have magic items that provide multiple abilities (usually in a narrow field) for weapons....

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I'd like to expand that a bit:

The players need to find a tomb lost for a thousand years, so we know it should be hard to find. With a fixed, DM agnostic pre-placed tomb, you run some risks. To highlight two extremes:

1) The players wander forever, not finding the tomb (whether to bad rolls, or lack of 'getting' the clues)
2) The players find the lost tomb immediately

In case 1, the players could become quite bored and the game derails. In the DM agnostic approach (Aside: Dm Deism? DMeism? lol) your stuck looking for the tomb, or you do something else.
in case 2, sure, yay, here is the "lost tomb" *snicker*. Its history, its 1000 years of antiquity are trivialized by the (from the players perspective, even if just dumb luck) giant red neon arrow saying "TOMB HERE"

The important point is indeed that the PCs find it, but in such a way as to live up to its reputation as a "lost" tomb. The Player agency is in the looking: how they look, where they look. Whether or not its in hex AB101 or AC101 is irrelevant. Whether or not its found by 6 successes in a skill challenge, or when the DM decides they've searched enough and its time to move the plot is irrelevant. The PCs searched. The tomb was found. Player agency happened.

Exactly. The player's experience is more important than the technique in this example. How or exactly where the DM places the tomb doesn't matter. What matters is that the players made decisions, engaged their skills, probably met some challenges along the way, and eventually, through research, perseverance, skill, and a little luck, found the tomb.

Note that the method of placement could still engage a mechanical system rather than the DM deciding where to place it, or when the PCs have searched enough.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

But this is like saying that team sports aren't competitive.

Of course they are - both between teams, and also at least on occasion within teams (eg players compete to be the official or unofficial team leader).

In playing classic beat-the-dungeon D&D, there can certainly be an expectation that a player will bring his/her "best game" to a session - and I've known plenty of players who complain about others who don't know how to make good use of their spell load outs, equipment options, etc. That's competitive gaming!

Or perhaps that there are different types of competitiveness. Such as the difference between MtG and D&D. One is usually "I'm going to beat the other player" instead of "we're going to work together to succeed at this adventure." Of course, within the very broad realm of RPGs there are other variations.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

There are different categories of judgement call and adjudication.

Here's one scenario: a PC is disarmed. The GM has previously described the room as containing an iron candelabra sitting on the altar. The player of the disarmed PC declares, "I pick up the canelabra to use as club!"

This sort of action declaration is pretty much paradigmatic for a RPG - it is a single-character action declaration (rather than a declaration at the unit or commander level, as in a traditional wargame); and it involves engaging with the fiction - ie the candelabra on the altar isn't just flavoursome gloss on the framing of the game state (contrast, say, the illustration on a Magic card, or the backstory and flavour text of a boardgame like Forbidden Island). In a RPG, engaging the fiction is always a permissible move.

Traditionally, it is the GM's job to decide how to mechanically implement the PC's wiedling of a candelabra eg is s/he considered proficient with it? How much damage does it do? Page 47 of the 5E Basic PDF even comes out and says as much:

In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.​

I wonder how [MENTION=54380]shoak1[/MENTION] prefers to handle this sort of situation. GM decision? Table consensus? (Those two can often blur together, of course.) Table vote? Something else? Maybe there's a gentelmen's agreement at the table not to use improvised weapons?

But there are other sorts of judgement call or adjudication that have a much bigger impact on gameplay, and I'm guessing these are the ones shoak1 is more concerned with - for instance, whether encountered creatures are hostile or friendly; whether they pursue fleeing PCs or let them go; etc.

In his DMG, Gygax provides a whole suite of subsystems intended to take these decisions out of the GM's hands, so that the GM is not the one deciding (in effect) the outcome of the situations the PCs find themselves in. Thus, there are reaction dice to determine whether or not NPCs and monsters attack.

And there are very elaborate rules for pursuit (DMG p 63):

Whether or not the opponent party will follow in pursuit of the fleeing party depends on the following factors:

1. What you, the Dungeon Master, have stated in your key concerning the party, if applicable. This is first and foremost in ALL cases.

2. What the stated characteristics of the creature(s) involved are. That is, if player characters, do they say they will pursue, or if monsters, does their description say that they will always seek to pursue?

3. Obvious deterrents to pursuit, such as a pool of flaming oil, a secured portal, etc. will modify monster behavior accordingly.

4. Fleeing party behavior and/or possessions noted by the opponent party will modify pursuit desire.

5. Relative speed will cause the pursuing party to cease fruitless chase if they are obviously being outdistanced (except if the pursuers are player characters who must state they are halting such chase).

6. Otherwise 50% of the time (d6, 1-3 = pursuit, 4-6 = break off pursuit).​

There are also rules for the likelihoood of abandoning pursuit once started if the PCs throw food and/or loot to their pursuers.

This all seems intended to ameliorate or eliminate a certain sort of GM judgement call. It is consistent with the approach to play described by Lewis Pulsipher and posted not far upthread by shoak1.

To some degree. I'd say that #3 and #4 could generate modifiers to #6, but others, such as #5 is more absolute. But #3 and #4 could also be guidelines for the DM to determine on his own without a die roll, taking account of the situation and how large a deterrent or enticement it is.

 

[shoak1]

Traditionally, it is the GM's job to decide how to mechanically implement the PC's wiedling of a candelabra eg is s/he considered proficient with it? How much damage does it do? .....I wonder how [MENTION=54380]shoak1[/MENTION] prefers to handle this sort of situation. GM decision? Table consensus? (Those two can often blur together, of course.) Table vote? Something else? Maybe there's a gentelmen's agreement at the table not to use improvised weapons?

All of the above - either me or our rules guy may blurt out a ruling and/or if the player feels strongly against our ruling we usually do table consensus. I am a tie breaker, thats it.

But there are other sorts of judgement call or adjudication that have a much bigger impact on gameplay, and I'm guessing these are the ones shoak1 is more concerned with - for instance, whether encountered creatures are hostile or friendly; whether they pursue fleeing PCs or let them go; etc.

Yes indeed.

In his DMG, Gygax provides a whole suite of subsystems intended to take these decisions out of the GM's hands, so that the GM is not the one deciding (in effect) the outcome of the situations the PCs find themselves in. Thus, there are reaction dice to determine whether or not NPCs and monsters attack. And there are very elaborate rules for pursuit (DMG p 63):

Whether or not the opponent party will follow in pursuit of the fleeing party depends on the following factors:
1. What you, the Dungeon Master, have stated in your key concerning the party, if applicable. This is first and foremost in ALL cases.
2. What the stated characteristics of the creature(s) involved are. That is, if player characters, do they say they will pursue, or if monsters, does their description say that they will always seek to pursue?
3. Obvious deterrents to pursuit, such as a pool of flaming oil, a secured portal, etc. will modify monster behavior accordingly.
4. Fleeing party behavior and/or possessions noted by the opponent party will modify pursuit desire.
5. Relative speed will cause the pursuing party to cease fruitless chase if they are obviously being outdistanced (except if the pursuers are player characters who must state they are halting such chase).
6. Otherwise 50% of the time (d6, 1-3 = pursuit, 4-6 = break off pursuit).​

There are also rules for the likelihoood of abandoning pursuit once started if the PCs throw food and/or loot to their pursuers.

This all seems intended to ameliorate or eliminate a certain sort of GM judgement call. It is consistent with the approach to play described by Lewis Pulsipher and posted not far upthread by shoak1.

Yes, that pretty much is exactly how I handle such things, except that I almost always address something as common as pursuit in my key. As I believe (Tony?) said upthread, being DM Light is about front loading these decisions, not removing the need for them.