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

[outsider]

...for the most part, I don't see the 'everyone knows the rules super well and collaborates to help with some DM responsibilities' or the closely-related 'co-DM' techniques as a great idea in 5e.

You'd be correct there. 5e is most definitely not designed for the playstyle I prefer. Trying to make it work is the same as trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

Not sure why I'm even bothering with this topic, TBH. Perhaps expressing my frustrations now will somehow lead to a 6e that caters more to my desires? 5e is basically unfixable for my desired playstyle. My 4e group disbanded a while ago though, and I do have a 5e group, so I'm here, trying to squeeze out what fun I can from a system that runs counter to what I want from D&D.

 

[shoak1]

Perhaps it's because different folks have different priorities? My house rule PHB is a rewrite of the core rules, up to 130 pages (spells are in another book) and changes most classes, races, combat, and skills extensively. Perhaps you'd like to check it out to see if it's Rules Light. I think I'd be accused of being too complicated, with too many rules.

Maybe my rules would work for you, maybe not. I think you might be surprised. The difference is that I don't play the game to play the rules. I play the characters and use the rules to support that. An example is the dying mechanic. I like the mechanic. But I don't like the way people "game" the mechanic, not healing people until they are at 0 hp for example, because they know they'll be good as new after they are healed. That wasn't the case in AD&D for example. So I modify the rule to discourage this type of abuse.

Balance isn't subjective, balance is balance.

Deciding what is important to balance, however, is a different story. That's where things get very complicated. That's also where disagreements about balance arise. I prefer to approach it differently-decide what result I want and redesign to that. But when somebody insists that a rule is not balanced when many people play with it unaltered with no problem, then we'll probably disagreed. In that case it's probably not an issue with balance, but an issue with the rule not doing what you would like it to do.

Back to dying. With no assistance you have about a 60% chance of surviving in 5e. I don't mind the time it gives you, but I think that's too high. In my campaign, without assistance you have only a 25% chance of surviving. In addition, there are consequences, even with magical healing after being dropped to 0 hp.

Why? Because I want the to still have that safety net (and I think it's reasonably realistic) but I want them to fear getting reduced to 0 hp.

I suspect a lot of my rules would suit your campaign well, though. My rules ramp up the challenge, especially combat.

We have also house ruled quite a bit, though not into class that much. But its no substitute for the real thing. Especially in modules because it then takes so much work to convert them into a usable format.

 

[shoak1]

Because mechanics and systems often intertwine with the plot/story (either planned or impromptu)? Unless you're running a prepared module with little customization or deviation, I'm not sure how you can run a proper game without some understanding and control of the underlying systems, the motivations of the monsters and NPCs, and other objects and forces at work within the game. A player, even one with the best intentions, will not hold the same views and values as the DM.

"Often intertwine with the plot/story" does not equate to mostly or always. Big DM jumps in and stays in. DM Light likes to limit his jumps. So if I have to make a ruling because there are underlying factors as yet unknown by the PCs, I will do so - but I don't use that as an excuse to make all rulings.

 

[shoak1]

That's actually kindof unfortunate. I find that the game runs more smoothly and enjoyably for everybody(including the DM) when the players are ultra dedicated and knowledgeable about the game.

Co-DMs are a thing that should probably be done more, especially in large groups. Have one person handling story, the other handling rules, and they split the monsters in fights and such.

Yes the ultimate experience for Big Challenge imo is a co-DM handling the monsters. His job is to play exactly as if they were his PCs.

 

[Caliban]

Big Story peeps might have a different view because Big Story DMs are more focused on fun, story, and adventure than on Big Challenge.

I'm probably what you would call a "Big Story DM" but my players have never complained about the lack of challenge in my game. Several near TPK's and one player death so far, and the party is level 7 in the current campaign.

Or maybe I'm just a "Big DM" since I handle everything (story, rules, challenges) and let the players focus on their characters and character decisions.

 

[shoak1]

In my case? I'm the DM and also the one most knowledgeable about the rules. I'm correcting some of my players all the time because they can't be bothered to remember how their own characters work. (One of my players is a DM, and I also play in his campaign. We correct each other on rules all the time, and some things we simply rule differently in our own games.)

I became a DM partially because I was tired of other DM's not knowing the rules or making calls I disagreed with, and partially because I wanted a campaign that focused on the characters and how their decisions and actions impacted the game world. Plus, I wanted to rewrite the cosmology of existence from the ground up and base a new campaign setting around that.

So for me, the two are inextricably intertwined - I created the story and the setting, and the game mechanics that affect things behinds the scenes, which also inform many of the house rules for my game.

Plus, I have a massive ego and no treasure grubbing murder hobo is going to tell me how to run my game.

Revel in your Big DMness Caliban, its just as valid a method as DM Light !

 

[Ristamar]

"Often intertwine with the plot/story" does not equate to mostly or always. Big DM jumps in and stays in. DM Light likes to limit his jumps. So if I have to make a ruling because there are underlying factors as yet unknown by the PCs, I will do so - but I don't use that as an excuse to make all rulings.

Or perhaps Big DM just isn't capable of preparing for every contingency without severely restricting the agency of his players.

EDIT: I think one of the things that troubles me in regard to these DM labels is that they are often not self-imposed or even necessarily desired. Players have a major influence in how the game is played through their own actions. A DM does not necessarily become a Big DM through his own choices. It can be a natural outcome through his role of facilitator and adjudicator. The preferred style of play at any table is determined by all participants, not just the DM.

 

[shoak1]

Clearly a difference in play preferences, but as a player, a GM constantly dithering with the players about what the NPCs he controls are going to do would really irritate me. I'm OK with GMs (or when I'm GMing) describing some decision-making method, a player chiming in with some nuance, and then the GM adjusting if it seems an relevant nuance. But constantly? I'd be asking "Why am I being asked to play my PC and co-GM this game? That's your responsibility. Mine is to get into my PC and what they're doing, not what your NPCs are doing (particularly since I don't know them or their motivations)."

I think your point is quite valid assuming the "GM constantly dithering with the players about what the NPCs he controls are going to do" part. But there is no such constant dithering at my table because I address the most common contingencies in my write-up. And the word dithering implies a lack of fair-handed cooperation on such things, and that too is something that is absent at my table.

It seems like the players in many games you and some others here have run have tended to be more interested in getting their way than they are in Big Challenge - and maybe it could also be said of them that if you give them an inch they take a mile lol. But I think that is more an issue of your specific players than it is players in general. On the other hand, maybe DMs in general tend to be the guy most mature, most knowledgeable, and most unbiased in the group, and that's why many of you seem to have similar experiences with your players.

 

[outsider]

I'm probably in the middle when it comes to Big Story vs Big Challenge. I actually really want both from D&D, and I'm not sold on the idea that these are actually competing desires. I'm definitely in favor of DM Light though. When the DM is empowered to change, ignore, and make up rules on a whim, it damages my ability to enjoy the mechanical side of the game, and the mechanical side of the game is important to me. A certain amount of it is necessary, but a good ruleset to me tries to avoid it where possible, instead of encouraging it as the solution to everything.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You'd be correct there. 5e is most definitely not designed for the playstyle I prefer. Trying to make it work is the same as trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

Try visualizing your DM Empowerment as a lathe instead of a hammer?

Not sure why I'm even bothering with this topic, TBH. Perhaps expressing my frustrations now will somehow lead to a 6e that caters more to my desires? 5e is basically unfixable for my desired playstyle. My 4e group disbanded a while ago though, and I do have a 5e group, so I'm here, trying to squeeze out what fun I can from a system that runs counter to what I want from D&D.

While it sounds like 13A might be a close fit for you, personally, 5e /is/ meant to be for all D&Ders, and if your players are comfortable with it, that's a positive that you don't want to just throw away, so coming here and sharing/getting some ideas will hopefully be worthwhile. It may sound weird, but one strength of D&D has generally (3.x RAW-zietgeist excepted) been a system everyone would likely be able to accept, but that the DM could bang into the desired shape (even though there might already be several other games that are closer to what he wants, the chances of getting together a group who agree on which one of those to play are lower than the chances of forcing D&D into the same mold).

You could take several very different paths in trying to make the most of it.

• You could decline to DM, and just play - that assumes there's anyone in your group up to the challenge of running 5e and also better-suited to it, and that could easily not be the case.
• You could look for or author a set of variants (that could be a lot of work) that works the way you want, and present it as the rules you'll be using for the campaign, take it or leave it.
• You could see if your players would be willing to collaborate on a set of house rules that you'd all find acceptable. Also a lot of work, but potentially shared out.
• You could hammer out such a houseruleset by consensus as you go.

Like shoak1, you'll want to front-load a lot of DM work. In your case, it sounds like front-loading it at the beginning of the campaign, so the rules, and an acceptable way other than just ad hoc DM ruling for dealing with them when the unexpected happens, are taken care of, and you can focus on the story/world aspect of the campaign.

Obviously, that discussion could be a big ol' thread on its own. I'd encourage you to start that thread.

Edit: Oh, if some of your players participate, you could make it a wiki and start hammering out your house rules right here, it'd be illustrative for all of us, and you'd get lots of help (OK, and no small amount of interference, I suppose...)